Talk:1955 MacArthur Airport United Air Lines crash

CAA and CAB
In the lead, both CAA and CAB link (via a redirect) to the same section of the same page. Does this mean we can drop one of the links, or is it an error? Mike Christie (talk – library) 12:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Radical Changes?
OK, someone just reversed all the improvements I made to this article. I see nothing "radiical" about them at all, so it never occurred to me anyone would object, AND DO A WHOLESALE REVERT, without at least discussing it on this page. I did check this page before I made the edits, and saw nothing here that would suggest that this article could not still be improved.

First edit: To replace the generic DC-6 photo in the info box, with a United Airlines DC-6 photo from Commons. Please explain why a generic DC-6 photo is to be preferred to the United DC-6 photo, in an article that is about the crash of a United Airlines DC-6? It seems basic logic that if it was a United DC-6 that crashed, a United DC-6 photo would be more germane, than one that has no UAL logo at all. But then, maybe there is some informative virtue Wiki readers will gain, if they are denied a United Airlines DC-6 photo, that is already at Commons, in a Wiki article about a United Airlines DC-6 crash? If you will bother to look at that page at Commons, you will see that same photo has been preferred in four other United Airlines DC-6 crash articles. If good for those, why not also good for this one?

Second Edit: Was to improve syntax of sentences - briefer and clearer than the previous ones, and to correct an erroneous word. That kind of edit has been routine for all editors, since Wiki was started. I did not remove any relevant information; I only improved the clarity and removed some unnecessary words. Please show me how doing that is "radical." I changed the section title from "incident" to "accident." Crashes are not "incidents." They are "accidents," so the change to the more accurate word, was quite proper. Editors are supposed to use the correct nomenclature in aviation articles, and that is governed by ICAO Convention on International Civil Aviation [13|here]. I don't understand why anyone would insist on referring to other crashes, as "incidents." Makes no sense at all.

Third Edit: Was to add two more accidents that were caused by the misuse of reverse thrust. Again, seems logical, since this article is about an accident that was cause by the misuse of reverse thrust. I then removed other accidents that were not germane to this one because they had nothing to do with reverse thrust being causal. Please explain the "logic" of having other accidents referenced in the article, that are supposed to be related, even though they were not caused by the misuse or malfunction of reverse thrust? And, why you would remove two additional ones that I added, that WERE related to the misuse and/or malfunction of reverse thrust?

Fouth Edit: I removed the photo of the Air Florida 737. What on earth does that photo have to do with this accident? Reverse thrust was not cited as a causal or contributing factor in the crash of Palm 90, so how is that accident germane to this one? And why wouldn't the two other REVERSE THRUST accidents that I added, not be a lot more germane than Palm 90?

CONCLUSION: I believe all my edits were constructive and thus improved the article from what it was before I made them. I gave explanations for each one, so I shouldn't be accused of trying to hide the reasons. I see nothing radical about those edits. Please explain what was "radical" about them? And you might also please explain why you would do a wholesale revert of all the work I contributed, without at least discussing it on this page first. Your idea of "consensus" is that others should discuss their proposed changes on talk pages first, but there is no such requirement for you, before you do a wholesale revert of edits that were constructive? Thank you, 66.81.52.62 (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation, none of your changes seem to be particularly radical or non-constructive to me but we will wait and see if the reverting editor has an opinion. MilborneOne (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks from me too. Sorry for the wholesale revert; the edits just seemed to be very tumultuous and the main editor has not edited at WP since 12 June. Your edits also happened to remove references, insert pictures of sub-standard quality and make the prose poor; four of the six paras in the last section now start with "In [year]". But you are of course free to revert my reversion. Eisfbnore  talk 18:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

And thanks for both of your replies, in a civil manner. Very much appreciated. I do not understand some of the comments by Eisfbnore, so posing these questions, in hope of further clarification:


 * You speak of "the main editor," and say that he has not edited at WP since 12 June. Who is "the main editor," and how is when he last posted relevant to whether or not my edits are constructive?
 * I suspect that any references that were removed, would be the result of my removing reference to those accidents that really were not germane to this accident (they had causes not related to the improper use of, or the malfunction of the engine reversing systems). If the citations attached to those non-germane accidents, were important for other parts of this article, then I certainly wouldn't object to their being retained somehow.  But, since I don't have a lot of experience in that area, I might need some help from other WP editors that would know how to save pertinent citations, after I remove the accidents that are not relevant to this accident.
 * You state that my edits "insert pictures of sub-standard quality." However, I only replaced ONE photo; this one in the infobox DC-6.jpg, with this one 6609-UAL-DC-6-NorthRampStapletonDEN.jpg from Wiki Commons. The weather bureau plane with unusual probes on its nose, tail and belly, looks nothing like the UAL DC-6 that crashed on takeoff, while the photo I replaced it with, is a dead ringer for the plane that crashed.  I don't know how one goes about judging the quality of wiki photos, as to what is "sub-standard" and what is not.  What sort of yardstick do you use, to make that determination?  I only know that the same UAL DC-6 photo has been used in four other UAL DC-6 crashes, so it is simple logic to me, that it is a better one for the purposes of this article, than the one that is there now.
 * You further state that my edits "make the prose poor." Could you be a bit more specific on that point?  Examples of what it was before my edit and how it was after, and why my revision was "prose poor?"  Are you referring to my replacing "incident" with the word "accident?"  Or, some other syntax edit?

Since you have now said I am free to restore my edits, I will do so at this time, and maybe we can work together to improve those edits even further, by the usual tweaking process? Thanks much, 66.81.52.126 (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi again, and thanks for keeping it civil. When I speak of "main editor", I talk about User:Wackywace, who authored this article. Since he has not edited WP since 12 June, I thought I would do the article a favour by reverting tumultuous changes to a featured article (FA). I now extremely little about aircraft in general and aviation accidents, so I should have simply ignored it, I admit. Owing to my limited knowledge, I am not in a position to decide which accidents are germane or not to this accident. I am just saying that it is wise to discuss and gain talk page consensus before making radical changes to a featured article. I thought I was specific enough in pointing out what made the prose poor; four of the six paragraphs in the last section now start with "In" plus a year. Hence, the prose became repetitive and not up to FA standards. Hope this answers your question, Eisfbnore  talk 21:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining who the "main editor" is. I would suggest that avoiding such loaded phrases like "tumultuous changes" will help a lot to keep discussions like this on a civil plain.  I think the changes I made were not disruptive, radical or tumultuous at all.  And, no one has really addressed my questioning why FA articles cannot, or should not be improved.  The inference I am making from the constant referencing of the article as FA, is that gives the article some special dispensation, which does not allow further improving edits.  I would really appreciate if someone could direct me to whatever Wiki Policy there is that exempts FA articles from further improvements.  Right now, it seems the implication is that I have done wrong just by the fact that I made further edits to an FA article.  I think the quality of my edits should be judged solely on how much they might have improved the article, and that if other editors think they can improve on my edits, that the usual tweaking process is the favored way to do that, and not just wholesale reverts which destroys considerable time and effort of conscientious editors, that are sincere, honest and acting in good faith. 66.81.52.195 (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Wackywace,(main author of article)
Firstly, I'm glad this debate has been kept civil, thank you both for keeping cool heads. Before I say anything about the article I should say I stand by the rules of WP:OWN; I don't pretend this article is mine and always like it when others try to improve articles I have written. I appreciate you both taking the time to improve the article.

I've had a read through the conversation above and looked through the recent diffs and will say the following. I agree about changing the infobox picture; I swapped it around a few times before submitting it at FAC, and tried to get an image that gave the reader an idea of what the DC-6 looks like. However, the new image (while not the best) does show a DC-6 in the UA livery at the time and I believe is suitable for the article, so I'm happy for that to stay.

However, the new prose in the new prose in the "Later accidents" section is of a poor standard. WP:MOS discourages small paragraphs that read like bulleted lists (i.e., all starting with "in, x year, y happened"). Two of the accidents mentioned also are unreferenced, which is unacceptable in an FA. Secondly, I do not really understand why the second paragraph about aircraft being misconfigured prior to take-off was removed. I believe it is relevant to the article, but I am open to debate about this if anyone disagrees. If anything (and this was decided at the FA), it still serves as an insightful ending to the article that rounds it off for the reader. Therefore, I have restored the section to include both paragraphs. If you wish to add more information about reverse thrust accidents, 66.81.52.126, I would appreciate that, but they should be referenced in an FA.

I'll finish just by thanking you for taking the time to improve the article and am grateful to you both for your civility and good intentions, which is not something I see much of around here these days. I will be around on WP for the next few weeks, and would certainly like to improve the article with you both if you wish to discuss it below. Thanks again, wacky  wace  18:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for joining in on this conversation. I am glad to know that you don't think you own this article.  However, I think it not unreasonable to suspect that there might be such an attitude, when a disagreement with some edits is dealt with by wholesale reverts, instead of the usual way that good faith editors work with one another.  For instance, your wholesale revert removed the two other accidents that I had added, which were highly relevant to this article, since they too were caused by improper use of, or malfunctioning engine reverse systems. They did have inline citations that linked to the Wiki articles about those accidents.  I thought that was sufficient, but if you disagree, then why didn't you just add the  tag?  That is how it is usually done.  I am sure you know that there are literally thousands upon thousands of Wiki articles that have unreferenced fact statements in them, and that the usual process is to request citations with the  tag, and that many months, and even years are sometimes allowed, before anyone thinks it necessary to cut out the non-cited fact statements.  I would appreciate your explaining to me why the urgency to cut out two highly relevant accidents, with a wholesale revert?  What Wiki policy supports doing it that way, instead of just asking for further citations?


 * Your wholesale revert also restored the word "incidents," that makes reference to other "accidents." No one has bothered to explain why we should contravene Wiki policy that requires the most accurate nomenclature.  Yet, without any discussion at all (by anyone other than myself), the proper word of "accidents" has been reverted back twice, to the improper word of "incidents."  Why? Is this article allowed to use the wrong word, than what you find in most other Wiki aviation articles, simply because it is an FA article?  Such a revert makes no sense to me and I sure would appreciate someone explaining to me why that has been done twice now. Thank you, 66.81.52.195 (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have again reverted the edits you made as they made the prose list-like and repetitive. Wacky did not perform a wholesale revert, and cn tags should not be in a FA article. Better to remove the uncited content. Eisfbnore    &bull; talk   06:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Once again you have chosen to do a wholesale revert, instead of tweaking the sentences which offend you. The two accidents that I added, are highly relevant to this UAL-DC-6 accident, because those crashes were caused by the improper use of engine reversing.  Yet you reverted them back out again, on the dubious premise that the syntax wasn't perfect enough to suit you.  That is highly improper and smacks of the "I own this article" motivation.  Your wholesale revert also changed "Accident" back to "Incident," which is the wrong nomenclature. How can I get it across to you that CRASHES are ACCIDENTS, not INCIDENTS?


 * You also reverted back my removal of the Air Florida 737, which HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THIS ACCIDENT AT ALL. I have explained myself in great detail above, providing cogent arguments to support the changes I have made. So far, you have failed to say why my arguments for my changes are wrong.  Instead, you just keep making wholesale reverts on the grounds that the prose was not to your satisfaction.  If that is your TRUE motivation, then why don't you just do some tweaking of the syntax and structure of those sentences?  WHY do you insist on including accidents that have no logical nexus to this one, while at the same time, cutting out ones which were also caused by improper reversing of the engines?  I inserted both inline and external citations, for the two accidents I put in, after you complained last time that they were not cited.  Yet, despite my adding both Wiki and external citations, you still use that non-excuse for wholesale reverting again. WHY? 66.81.52.79 (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

/*What is the Nexus Standard?*/
I think this paragraph should be removed from this article, along with the photo of the B-737, because they have no logical relevance to this accident:


 * There have also been a number of accidents caused by a flight crew misconfiguring their aircraft before take-off. In 1987, the flight crew of Northwest Airlines Flight 255, operated by a McDonnell Douglas MD-82, did not deploy the flaps and slats before departing. The aircraft began rolling from left to right as it lifted off, struck a building and then crashed, killing 156 people.[18] 78 people were killed in 1982 when a Boeing 737 crashed after taking off from Washington National Airport in heavy snow. An investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board determined that one cause of the accident was "the flightcrew’s failure to use engine anti-ice during ground operation and take-off."[19]

This 1955 DC-6 training accident was not about mis-configuring the plane, prior to the beginning of the takeoff roll. It was caused by a deficient design which allowed a propeller to be inadvertently placed in the reverse thrust mode, during a touch-n-go training flight that required trainee pilots to demonstrate proficiency in flying the plane safely, after one engine fails at the most critical time (during takeoff). The engineered design at that time, amounted to nothing more than a series of switches/relays, that were supposed to prevent a pilot from inadvertently putting an engine into the reverse mode, while in-flight. However, if the landing gear strut was compressed, then the engines could be put into reverse, since that is their purpose: to shorten the landing rollout and save wear on the brakes.

The training captain was doing what he was supposed to do, when he retarded the #4 throttle, during the touch-n-go portion of that training flight. He did not know that the engine had gone into reverse thrust until it was too late to save the plane. The sole cause of that accident was that poor design, which was supposed to prevent an engine from going into reverse thrust as it lifted off the ground, but it failed to do that. The "safety" design failed miserably and all the pilots died and the plane was destroyed. That is why the "Martin Bar" was subsequently installed, to prevent that kind of accident from ever happening again.

I see no relevance at all to the Palm 90 takeoff crash. It was caused by a variety of factors, like improper deicing of the plane by American Airlines ground crews; a non-standard mixture nozzel on one deicing truck, so that the deicing mixture on the left wing was much weaker than what was applied to the right wing (meaning one wing would freeze up quicker than the other wing); the long wait for takeoff, while the snow was falling wet and heavy; the pilot's failure to turn on the EPR probe heat, which led to them getting engine readings which indicated more thrust than they actually had; the pilots failure to reject the takeoff, when it became obvious that the acceleration was too slow; and then the failure to firewall the thrust levers, once they started getting the stick shaker. ALL of those were factors in why Palm 90 crashed. NONE of the Palm 90 factors were present in this 1955 DC-6 accident -- NONE!

I fail to see any Nexus at all between that accident, and this one. About the only way to relate them is that they were takeoff crashes. If that is all that is required to include other crashes in this article, then I would like to add a few dozen more takeoff crashes. Would that be OK, if I did that?

The same goes for the 1987 NWA MD-80 takeoff crash. That one had nothing to do with inflight reversing. The pilots were grossly negligent in that crash, not reading their pre-takeoff check lists properly and rushing to takeoff without following the required SOPs, and then the failure of the takeoff warning configuration system. Again, NONE of those factors were present in the 1955 DC-6 training flight crash -- NONE!

Nothing like that happened in this 1955 DC-6 accident. The pilots followed proper procedures and did it by the book, yet deficient reverser safety design reared up its ugly head and killed them all, without their having a chance to recognize the problem in time to avert the crash.

No Nexus at all, that I can see, unless we should include all other crashes that happened in the takeoff phase of flight. If that is to be the standard of measure of which crashes are relevant to this one, then surely no one would object if I add a few dozen more?

This may be an FA article, but it needs some real improvement in this area. 66.81.52.195 (talk) 08:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Hello and thanks to all the editors of this page : it has now been translated into FR:. Hop ! Kikuyu3 (talk) 08:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Changed the infobox photo to one of a United DC-6 with the proper livery of the accident period.
The infobox photo previously used in this article, although a nice color photograph of a United DC-6, shows one with a livery about a decade too late for the accident. United completely changed its aircraft livery around 1958 and used the new livery on most of its planes through the 1960s; the previous infobox photo was taken in 1966 and shows a DC-6 in this livery. I've replaced the infobox photo with one of a DC-6 in the livery used through most of the 1950s, including the year of the accident. Unfortunately this photo, while still pretty good, is in black and white, and its contrast isn't quite as good, but it's the best Commons photo I could find of a United DC-6 (as opposed to a DC-6A or -6B) with the livery of that period. A better image would be welcome. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I have to disagree that your change in photos constitutes an improvement to this article:


 * a) While you claim that a livery design change was made in 1958, to all of UAL's planes, I see no citation to support that OR statement. You are aware that OR editing is against Wiki rules, aren't you?


 * b) When I compare the two livery designs, I cannot see much that makes them very different, in any significant way which would be relevant to the factual issues and purpose of this Wikipedia accident article. That is especially true, since the livery in your replaced photo is NOT in color, it is of a much lower resolution (FAR less pixels) AND it is a photoshoped picture that was uploaded by a Commons editor that has since been banned. We have no way of knowing how much that photo might have been altered, and in what way, from the original, un-retouched photo.


 * If you will check around you will find that Wikipedia generally favors color photos, AND ones with much higher resolutions, over B&W photos of lower resolution. If you could show how the very slight difference between the two liveries would change any of the important facts in this ACCIDENT article, then you might have a case for the change you made.  However, this article is about that historical accident and WHY it happened.  It is not an article about the history of UAL's different liveries.


 * While I think your edit was in good faith, I don't see that it improved the article at all, so for the reasons stated, I am going to restore the other photo. Thanks, EditorASC (talk) 03:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd like to respond on several points. First of all, I like your photo a lot. It's a beautiful shot of a United DC-6 in the later 1960s, taken a couple of years before I was even born. It's a valuable contribution to Commons. It's a fine image for illustrating articles about the DC-6, United Air Lines, Stapleton Airport, and other such topics. My only objection is that it doesn't fit the time frame of this accident.


 * Yes, I did not cite my above statement about when United changed its livery. But that was on this talk page, and Wikipedia's No Original Research policy only covers article content. Comments on talk pages are specifically exempt. (See the first paragraph of the No Original Research policy page.) My claim was only a personal estimate, which I made from checking some old photographs of United planes. I certainly would not put such a statement in an article without some sort of firm source, though I would think it shouldn't be that hard to verify.


 * As for the photo that I had chosen, it was indeed uploaded by the now-banned editor russavia, who was once a Commons administrator and uploaded many of the aircraft photos there. (From the looks of it, this image was part of a bulk upload.) The fact that russavia later got himself banned, for reasons which seem unrelated to this photo, do not disqualify the photo in itself. Its actual source appears to be aviation photographer Bill Larkins; the image comes from his Flickr page.


 * The image does indeed have EXIF metadata indicating it was edited by Adobe Photoshop Elements, but one can't take that as evidence that the picture was "photoshopped" in the common sense of that word. Graphics editors like Photoshop Elements frequently write their own tags into an image's EXIF metadata, even when you use them merely to scan or crop an image. You can find such EXIF metadata on images provided by such quite reputable sites, such as the National Museum of the United States Air Force and the Library of Congress. Furthermore, EXIF metadata can be easily stripped from an image, so its presence or absence provides little evidence about whether the image has been manipulated. I see no obvious signs that the photo I had chosen has been tampered with in any way.


 * Incidentally, it is common for image uploaders or other editors on Commons to perform such basic edits to images as cropping borders or adjusting contrast or color saturation levels. Some do more elaborate cleanups, especially if the original image has been damaged in some way. This is all considered to be acceptable activity. Of course, modifications which actually distort the content are frowned upon; judgment calls have to be made.


 * I chose that photo because I think that an article about a 1955 air crash should try to include an image of the aircraft as it would have appeared at the time, for the sake of giving the reader a more accurate mental picture. In that respect, I feel whether the image has color and very high resolution are secondary, though it's obviously nicer to have both. Although you say the difference between the two liveries is "very slight", to me the visual difference is pretty obvious. Granted, visual aspects like this aren't technically relevant to the cause of the crash. But it seems relevant for illustrating the crash as an event, which is another important purpose of these articles.


 * I see that your DC-6 photo has also been used in several other articles about DC-6 crashes which occured in 1947, 1948, 1951, and 1955. I'm not going to make any changes there, since it seems you would likely object, but I feel the same way about appropriate images for those articles.


 * I've asked other members of WikiProject Aviation for their opinions. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 08:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The point seems rather moot to me. A really appropriate photo would show the crashed plane, either before or after the crash. If that is not available, I actually see little use in adding any photograph at all - people who wish to know what a DC6 looks like can find plenty of pictures elsewhere. Allow me to suggest you both spend your valuable time at more important work - but thanks to both of you for discussing politely! Jan olieslagers (talk) 09:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If an image of the accident aircraft is not available, the next best image will be one of a similar aircraft in the same livery as the accident aircraft was wearing at the time it was lost. Mjroots (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

If someone can find a COLOR photo of one with the same livery that was on Mainliner Idaho, then I would not object. But, a B&W photo is NOT a close representation of the same livery that DC-6s are alleged to have had at that time. As to the OR issue, while it is ok to make a statement about what a particular bit of history was and when it was changed, on the Talk Page, without a citation, it is still required that if you make changes in the article for the purpose of correcting that alleged historical error, you should be able to provide a WP:RS which will support that change. Otherwise, that edit amounts to nothing more than that editor's own OR. EditorASC (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In the "for what it's worth" department, I have just finished reading thru this entire talk page. Here is a statement by the editor who started this article, which seems to indicate he thought the color photo displayed the correct livery at that time:


 * "However, the new image (while not the best) does show a DC-6 in the UA livery at the time and I believe is suitable for the article, so I'm happy for that to stay."  wacky  wace  18:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)  EditorASC (talk) 03:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Note; the photo does NOT need to be in colour, we are not a quality service. And the best picture is not nessasary, the most suitable would be the picture that is painted in the livery that the aircraft was painted in when it crashed. Black and white or colour. RMS52 (talk) 08:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your opinion, even though it disagrees with my opinion which says color is better, especially when the quality is better and when the very slight differences in the livery lines has no relevance to the issues in the article. As for Wikipedia not being a "quality service," I am not sure what that means. Are you saying an encyclopedia should not strive to produce the highest quality possible? If not, how sloppy can we be and still be fulfilling our mission? EditorASC (talk) 09:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I note also that the color image has been in this article for over 4 years now and apparently helped to make it a Wikipedia Featured Article [], and [], recently translated into the French version of Wikipedia []. And, as noted above by another editor, there are several other DC-6 accident articles that used that same color photo, even though they too might not be exactly correct on the livery non-issue.  I think that implies numerous other editors that contributed to all those accident articles, didn't see the fine points of livery to be relevant to those articles either. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." EditorASC (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

What I mean by that is that we do not need the best quality, we need the best picture. (On account of this incident) As you say, it is a nice colourful picture. But on what Colin says, United changed there livery. So the livery that was pressent at the time of the crash would be most suitable. RMS52 (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is the history of United liveries... https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ff/d1/e0/ffd1e0b7bb9c75d3a87f57a2527cd020.jpg RMS52 (talk) 11:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If we dont have an image of the actual aircraft then a similar aircraft is OK but it needs to look like the lost aircraft or really it doesnt add any value, dont think that being colour or b/w makes much difference it is the appearance that is important. MilborneOne (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, could someone restore the picture Colin added? RMS52 (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Right, EditorASC here is a source as requested, United changed it's livery slightly after the crash. Colin is right, the picture he has is the correct one.

Here is the source for the United livery history http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4206507/

RMS52 (talk) 06:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The word "livery" is not in the article. The article is very well written on the subject of that unfortunate crash which killed three good men because the safety design for engine reversing was inadequate. With that, the article achieved these article milestones:


 * October 31, 2010, Good article nominee
 * Listed January 24, 2011, Promoted as a Featured article candidate


 * A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 29, 2010.


 * Current status: Featured article and has recently been translated for the French version of Wikipedia.


 * ALL of that accomplished without anyone nitpicking the fine points of a slight change in the livery lines. The article is not about UAL's historic liveries. That subject is not relevant nor germane to the core subject matter. So then why does a very slight change in livery design suddenly become important to this article? Oh, I get it:  some reader is bound to stumble across this article for the first time and he is bound to say, after reading it all:  "Hey, they got the livery right. Three cheers for Wikipedia -- the encyclopedia that knows what is really important."


 * "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." EditorASC (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Consensus
Well after while we have not had much edits to this disscussion, I think the picture now. Is the picture we keep RMS52 (talk) 09:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congratulations to all the contributors to this featured article. You deserve a lot of applause, recognition and appreciation. What a wonderful article.
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 12:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

90°
In the lead it says the aircraft turned through 90 degrees, in History it says the aircraft rotated through 90° (at which point the wings were vertical to the ground). So it's meant that the aircraft rolled/banked 90 degrees? --catslash (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, both terms are correct, though I think I prefer "roll" or "rotated" because that is more in line with the idea that all aircraft movements are "rotations" around three axes, pitch, roll and yaw. EditorASC (talk) 05:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "Rotation" might be misleading: it is often used to indicate the lifting of the nosewheel on take-off. My vote is for "roll"; "bank" could serve too but is perhaps less clear to non-aviators. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on 1955 MacArthur Airport United Airlines crash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yzGW2x05?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de%2Fpublications%2FIncidents%2FDOCS%2FComAndRep%2FLaudaAir%2FLaudaRPT.html to http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/LaudaAir/LaudaRPT.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1955 MacArthur Airport United Airlines crash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110901055703/http://baaa-acro.com/archives/1955-JAN-JUN.htm to http://www.baaa-acro.com/archives/1955-JAN-JUN.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1955 MacArthur Airport United Airlines crash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170406180953/http://specialcollection.dotlibrary.dot.gov/Document?db=DOT-AIRPLANEACCIDENTS&query=%28select+611%29 to http://specialcollection.dotlibrary.dot.gov/Document?db=DOT-AIRPLANEACCIDENTS&query=%28select+611%29

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Redirects in Wikipedia:Featured articles: Move without consensus



 * 1955 MacArthur Airport United Airlines crash --> 1955 MacArthur Airport United Air Lines crash
 * This does not look right Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is more. Says United Airlines Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Several of the other sources use "United Airlines", as does the modern heading on the website for the crash report cited for the two-word spelling. My instinct is that this needs reverted. Hog Farm Talk 14:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Does any one have time to start a talk page discussion? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I could, although there appears to be a low number of page watchers and the FA nominator has been inactive for years so I'm not sure if a discussion would bring any one - I guess we could revert the move and request that the user who made the move open a RM - Talk:UPS_Airlines raises concerns about their familiarity with naming guidelines. Hog Farm Talk 14:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I have undone this move. Please stop moving articles without consensus; I see in your contribs that many repairs are needed. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  09:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Revert to United Airlines . The airline is registered as United Airlines, Inc. and is well known as such. "United Air Lines" is clearly a typo by a careless report writer and should not be used. All these moves need to be reverted. the old name under which most of these accidents occurred. I would assume the accidents should be listed under the name at the time, while articles covering the current period should use the new name &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC) [updated 13:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)]
 * Someone else will need to take on the damage repair; I have only restored this Featured article. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  12:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have done a few, but I am busy off-wiki and can spend little time on this right now. Can anybody else step in? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I would like to tell you the reason why I moved the pages is although the modern name mentions it as "United Airlines", see the sources mentioned in the references. The "most modern name which is the shortest" doesn't instantly term it "common name". See WP:COMMONNAME; nowhere does it mention that: "Use the most common and shortest name, regardless of the time period." . All sources at the time of the accident use the term "United Air Lines" suggesting a name change happened at some point to where even the reports mentions "United Air Lines" suggesting that United Air Lines was the name of the airline before it was changed to United Airlines. Now, United Airlines isn't incorrect as I only moved a certain number of pages to United Air Lines as every NTSB report before the crash of United Airlines Flight 2860 mentions the operator as United Air Lines. Even though Delta Airlines is shorter and more commonly used, we call it Delta Air Lines since that is the official and correct name of the airline. Not saying United Airlines is wrong, it's just the new name given to it. IMO, COMMONNAME needs to have at least one WP:REFERENCE to prove that the accident period sources in fact used United Airlines as the name of the airline. Here, only modern sources use United Airlines. Way modern sources doesn't Way correct sources. See the difference between USAir Flight 1016 and US Airways Flight 1549. Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq (talk) 10:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The best source to prove that the name of the airline was United Air Lines, see this: . Now, it is not possible that the airline doesn't know it's own name or made some "lazy typo". Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You argue that "Air Lines" is more common, and also that WP:COMMONNAME does not require the commonest name. Thus you defeat your own wikilawyering. There is a clear WP:CONSENSUS here for the single word, and that is what must now be restored. There really is nothing more to say. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * "Air Lines" is the common name only before it was changed to United Airlines. I mentioned that WP:COMMONNAME does not say "Use the most common and shortest name, regardless of the time period.". I don't mean to say that it does not need to be common. We must use the most common name with attention to the time period. See why we don't call Aero Flight 311 as Finnair Flight 311 despite Finnair being the "commonest name". I'm trying to argue to make you understand and the consensus doesn't give a clear opposing justification to my above comment. If you give a satisfactory justification or a guideline which specifically points out my issue, I may stop arguing further. Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Just checking the company history and the name change came much later than I thought. Most of those past accidents did happen under the United Air Lines name. I fear I may owe you a profound apology. I'll try to get some more heads into this discussion. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Whatever is decided, please be sure to gain consensus before moving any Featured article. WP:RM would be an appropriate place to approach the lot via a broader discussion. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot there Steelpillow! And I'm sorry for my error. Will only move pages with consensus unless they seem very obvious without much conflict. Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 8 June 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Both the move proposer and the reverter have agreed to move pre-1974 incidents from "Airlines" to "Air Lines" to avoid anachronisms. All the surviving requests in this mass move are pre-1974, so they will all be moved. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

– Now, I apologize for my previous bold moves for them being reverted. The discussion above suggests that these 22 pages can be moved to their alternative older and commonnames before the name change occurred from United Air Lines to United Airlines. This change is rather subtle and can only really be noticed through the timetables. (This name change is also not mentioned anywhere in the page History of United Airlines. My theory is that when the rainbow livery of United came to existence, the name too changed since none of the accidents using the friendship livery or older, per the final report, were called "United Airlines". It was only since the rainbow livery was introduced then was it referred to as United Airlines which we know today.) Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * United Airlines Trip 23 → United Air Lines Trip 23
 * 1934 United Airlines Boeing 247 crash → 1934 United Air Lines Boeing 247 crash
 * United Airlines Trip 4 → United Air Lines Trip 4
 * United Airlines Flight 34 → United Air Lines Flight 34
 * United Airlines Flight 409 → United Air Lines Flight 409
 * United Airlines Flight 521 → United Air Lines Flight 521
 * United Airlines Flight 608 → United Air Lines Flight 608
 * United Airlines Flight 624 → United Air Lines Flight 624
 * United Airlines Flight 615 → United Air Lines Flight 615
 * United Airlines Flight 610 → United Air Lines Flight 610
 * 1955 MacArthur Airport United Airlines crash → 1955 MacArthur Airport United Air Lines DC-6 crash
 * United Airlines Flight 629 → United Air Lines Flight 629
 * United Airlines Flight 736 → United Air Lines Flight 736
 * United Airlines Flight 297 → United Air Lines Flight 297
 * Note: Some proposals were removed from this request because they are redirects, which are ineligible as current titles in move requests.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 07:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Move some but check which. This airline was named "United Air Lines" from 1931 until some time around 2000-2013 whenever. It then became "United Airlines". All crashes dating from before the name change should be moved, but those which occurred afterwards should not. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Per this source:, it mentions that it changed it's name in 1974. See this too: Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * OK OK I give up (Boy is there some work to do on its main articles). But whenever-it-was marks the cutoff for the page moves. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article move
I see this Featured article has been moved again; please be sure to clean up the text to match the new article name. An explanation of the name change of the airline via a footnote would be helpful. For example, something along the lines of: Sandy Georgia (Talk)  05:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

On April 4, 1955, a United Airlines Douglas DC-6 named Mainliner Idaho crashed shortly after taking off from Long Island MacArthur Airport, in Ronkonkoma ...