Talk:American Airlines Flight 191/Archive 2

amount of man hours
this was taken out by someone today -

"Macdonnel Douglas the manufacturer advised airlines to remove the engine then remove the pylon but American Airlines developed a shortcut by removing both as one unit, using nothing more advanced than a forklift truck, this procedure saved 200 man houres and $1000's for each of the airlines 40 DC-10's, however it had problems, if the forklift is in the wrong position the engine would rock like a see-saw and jam against the pylon attachment points."

I didn't put it i.. but i'm wondering whether that is an accurate figure on the manhours etc. if it is ..i would like to see it put back in the article --  maxrspct  ping me  11:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Check the NTSB report... I think the number is there. --J-Star 14:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Move
Hey, my move was not whimsical, I was attempting to follow a wikiproject naming convention for disasters. Speciate 20:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Content deletion
Hi everyone, I'm, being bold and deleting content in this article that I always thought should not be there:
 * Lindsay Wager: The "source" for this trivia is the IMDB database; in this case this unsourced trivia present on her IMDB page does NOT meet the standards for WP:RS.
 * I deleted this: Another flight with the same number, Delta Air Lines Flight 191, crashed at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport in 1985. Most recently, Delta Air Lines Flight 5191, operated by Comair as Flight 191, crashed in 2006 killing 49 people. All three carriers have since retired the flight number 191, as is currently customary after major accidents on most airlines. However, United Airlines still uses 191 as an active flight number. In addition, Puerto Rican airline Prinair also had a fatal flight numbered Flight 191. The only fatal X-15 crash was also Flight No. 191. >>> I mean seriously, WTH? The fact that two different flights, different airplane types, but same flight number crashed means...nothing. It doesn't even qualify as trivia, it is meaningless numerology.
 * Deleted the statements that some guy had psychic powers and predicted the crash of AA 191, and (even more incredulously) that the FAA took him seriously. Lipsticked Pig 05:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleted "The Bible & Literature Missionary Foundation issued a 1979 pamphlet by Kenny McComas titled The Sad Fate of Flight 191" >>>completely non-notable
 * Deleted "This crash was mentioned by the character Casey Singleton in Michael Crichton's Airframe and "An episode of Cold Case Files also featured the crash of Flight 191. The episode concerned a man who blamed a woman's death on this plane crash, but she was never listed to be on the plane." >>> non-notable tangential trivia.

Cause of crash is irrelevant to definition of "deadliest"
Guys, look at Continental Airlines Flight 11, SilkAir Flight 185, EgyptAir Flight 990, PSA Flight 1771 (and many others). The fact that a civil airliner crash was the result of a criminal act does not mean it wasn't a "crash". The NTSB investigates these accidents, and when evidence points to a criminal act the process is handed over to the FBI. 9/11 was a unique case: the NTSB participated in the investigation, but did not (and never will) issue a report; nonetheless they were airplane crashes. We include fatalities on the ground in crash infobox (rightfully). Both aircraft that struck the WTC caused more deaths than AA 191, regardless of the cause. The lead in this article should convey that this accident was the worst domestic (US) crash apart from the 9/11 attacks; this gives the reader the proper historical perspective (worst crash, apart from a unique event). I don't think that this is too wordy or nitpicking. Lipsticked Pig 05:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ...except that without including people killed on the ground and in the aftermath (since this article is about the crash itself), not one of the crashes involved in the terror attacks on 11/9/01 had a higher death toll than this crash. The death toll of this crash was 271, vastly greater than the 92 killed on American Airlines Flight 11, the 65 killed on United Airlines Flight 175, the 59 killed on American Airlines Flight 77 and the 44 killed on United Airlines Flight 93. 82.46.190.172 (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
I would like to take the time to thank every one involved in the writing of this article concerning American Airlines flight 191. Over the years I have read countless articles  as to what had  transpired that day. What you writers have compiled is by far the most accurate report that I have seen yet. I know this because my families name was Courtney ! This disaster has touched me in several ways. Many years later I had learned that a good friend of mine of 20 years had lost his cousin in an airline disaster. He was telling me of his injured cousins suffering of being burned alive in what he termed as a plane crash. He then went on to tell me how this cousin clung to life for a short time with most of his body chard. With tears in his eyes he continued telling me of his cousin. I was 21 years old listening to one of my best friends poor his heart out. I knew his cousin ! It seems that this cousin was one of our employees he was 1 of the  2 men that perished on the ground that day .(Both men where employees of Courtney Velo). In any event I thank you for the attention to detail that one just doesn't see anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.73.116 (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

John Nance Paragraph
I deleted the recent addition of accusatory language regarding John Nance. The editor who made that addition may be correct that Nance has an agenda, but it is also clear that the editor has an agenda.

If there is legitimate concern as to the credibility of this source, my suggestion would be to remove the paragraph about Nance entirely as it doesn't seem to be germane to this particular crash anyway. Janus303 (talk) 03:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I went ahead and removed it. If it belongs at all, it certainly doesn't belong in the NTSB investigation section. Janus303 (talk) 03:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the original comments, about John Nance's views on Airline Deregulation, should not have been included in this article. However, I didn't think it appropriate to remove it myself.  So, I added information about how wrong Nance was, since the subsequent stats of airline safety have turned out to be the opposite of what Nance predicted in his book Blind Trust.  It is unfortunate that you view my stating the truth about historical facts of airline safety, as "an agenda," but so be it.  Isn't that compatible with the agenda of Wikipedia-to be as historically accurate as possible?  EditorASC (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Citations needed
I added {Unreferencedsection} tags to most of this article...simply stating facts which are true is not sufficient; EVERY statement of fact should have an in-line citation as to its source. For an article like this isn't that hard to do so: almost every statement of fact can be sourced by the NTSB final report. Please look at 1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash for what is required for a encyclopedic article (I actually think there should be even more). Also, I record every Seconds from Disaster and Air Emergency that is on, but they are NOT source material: statements like According to the History Channel program "Crash of Flight 191... are not acceptable. We need a primary source. Lipsticked Pig 05:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And while sourcing is badly needed, something like this source, which I removed, is not. Pure tin-foil-hattery. Lipsticked Pig 04:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I updated most &lt;ref&gt; to &#123;&#123;cite book&#125;&#125;, &#123;&#123;cite web&#125;&#125;, etc. The NTSB report is the source for most of the article, but do we really need to put a reference to the report on every statement?  Does it improve the article? Nisselua 14:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the citations in this article are very poor, and I'm not sure why the unreferencedsection tag was actually removed. The entire "accident" section, for example, does not cite a single source. --24.190.217.35 (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Tower audio
Why was the tower audio excised & replaced with a transcription? 138.162.128.55 (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional sources
Just noting some addication sites here:

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19790525-2

http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR79-17.pdf

KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 20:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

additional questions
What were the Flight 191 prior flights that day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by David handle (talk • contribs) 18:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite
This article cites virtually zero references and reads like a poorly written story or magazine article. For example:

"The weather was clear, with the wind northeast at 22 knots (41 km/h). At O'Hare Airport in Chicago, one of the world's busiest, traffic was heavy but normal for a Friday afternoon which marked the beginning of a Memorial Day weekend."

This is entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Most of the article should be rewritten. Two examples of proper encyclopedia articles regarding major airline crashes are TWA Flight 800 and American Airlines Flight 587. This article, as it stands now, is rather horrendous.

--24.190.217.35 (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Also look at 3 of the 4 Flights pertaining to 9/11. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 05:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that much needs to be re-written. There is a lot of duplication of statements in the "Accident" section and the "failure detail" section.  I am electing to merge most of the "failure detail" section into the "accident" section, and/or other sections, where appropriate.  I took about 3 hours to rewrite four paragraphs of the "Accident" section, and will begin to work on the "failure detail" section when I get more time.  Mostly to remove information there, which is already elsewhere. EditorASC (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

April 2011 copy edits

 * What does kt stand for?
 * kt=Knots, or Nautical Miles per hour.
 * We need a definiton for rotation speed.
 * rotation speed = VR, which is already defined. Might just need to replace instances of the former with the latter.
 * What about air load? Should that be defined? -- Diannaa (Talk) 00:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Air load=the load exerted by air. Might just say the wind hitting the slats.  N419 BH  01:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I feel like "air load" was self-explanatory to me, and I'm not sure if a definition could be concocted. I will work the other info into the article. Thanks. -- Diannaa (Talk) 02:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Type?
The accident template includes a heading called "Type". It was recently changed from "Engin eseparation" to "Metal fatigue". I think this heading is... vague to say the least. This accident - as with so many others - cannot be described or categorized in 1-3 words like that. It was an engine separation that led to loss of flight controls, induced by mechanical damage caused by faulty maintenance procedures which over time caused the weakened pylon to suffer from metal fatigue that eventually caused it to fail.

So how the heck do we label this? Multifactored mechanical failure?--J-Star (talk) 08:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The actual cause of the crash was an inadvertant design flaw in that the triple/quadruple redundant hydraulic lines ran in parallel through the wing in close proximity to each other such that mechanical/impact damage to one line was likely to result in similar damage to the others. Losing (literally) an engine should not have been a problem, the aeroplane was quite capable of being flown after the loss, indeed the pylon is designed to allow the engine to fall away if it is vibrating dangerously. It was the resultant destruction of the hydraulic system that caused the crash. This was avoidable if the hydraulic system had been better thought out when it was being designed.


 * The same misunderstanding of the purpose of redundancy was also designed-into the DC-10's other flight control lines, resulting in the earlier Windsor Incident, and the subsequent Paris DC-10 accident. In both these earlier cases, the result of the initial failures, i.e., cargo hold door latching failure, would have been non-events if the routing of the hydraulic lines had been thought out more sensibly. The same applies to AA Flight 191. If the hydraulic lines supplying the slats had been routed better then damage to one may have left at least one system still with fluid in it. Better still, would have been not relying on hydraulic pressure to keep the slats extended during such critical regimes as take-off and landing. If both the slats had remained in the extended position then it is quite likely that the DC-10 would have landed safely.


 * However, 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, and it's probably unfair to blame the designers for what would probably have seemed a too unlikely combination of failures. Having the rear pylon attachment fail (due to the maintenance errors) causing the engine at full power to pivot around the front attachments and then going up and then rearwards over the wing must have seemed extremely improbable at the time.


 * But if you are designing in multiple redundancy, better make sure it really is redundancy - it's no good putting all your eggs in one basket, so to speak. Route the lines as far away from each other as is reasonably practicable. And that includes wiring for multiple redundant electronic controls as well. Otherwise it isn't really redundancy. 'Belt and braces' is the idea - both keep one's trousers up, and if one fails, the other still does the job, and you don't end up with (figuratively-speaking) your trousers around your ankles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, the damage to the pylon wasn't strictly speaking a fatigue problem. On the accident aircraft the engine/pylon assembly had been removed using a forklift and a shift-change of personnel had taken place while the engine was being removed. The engine was still attached by the rear wing pylon mounting with the weight taken by the forklift's forks. While unattended the hydraulic pressure in the forklift's system leaked slightly allowing the forks and engine to gradually descend a few inches, with the result that after a while the weight of the engine/pylon was supported by the rear mounting only. At some time during this period the rear pylon mount failed resulting in a crack. This was not noticed at the time. Later, after the accident, when the unauthorised method of removing the engine became more widely known outside the airlines it was discovered that similar damage had occurred to other aircraft. On at least one occasion the forklift shifted slightly under the weight of the engine/pylon assembly resulting in a loud, pistol-shot like, 'crack' sound, that was heard by the maintenance personnel. On investigation, the pylon mount was found to be cracked and unsafe. So, in the accident aircraft the original damage to the pylon was really caused by an over-stress, as it was subjected to around three times the design load when the forklift stopped supporting the weight of the engine/pylon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Unclear sentence
In the sentence,  On the day of the accident, the records had not been removed from the aircraft, as was standard procedure,, it's not clear what the standard procedure was. Was it standard procedure to remove to records, or to not remove them? -- RoySmith (talk) 04:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Aircraft maintenance records are not normally carried in the aircraft because if the aircraft crashes the records will be lost too. The text probably needs clarifying. - Ahunt (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Engine not directly linked to Stall
There's a sentence in the introduction that implies that the stall of the damaged wing was linked in some fashion to the engine having separated: As the jet began to climb, the damaged left wing, with no engine, produced far less lift (stalled) than the right wing, with its slats still deployed and its engine running at full takeoff speed.

While the separation caused the damage to the wing, it was the damaged which caused the premature stall, not the fact that there was no engine. The engine statements are factual, but they are not causal to the stall, and this is implied by the text as written.

I'd suggest it would be appropriate to remove the references to the engine, leaving something like:

As the jet began to climb, the damaged left wing stalled prematurely, producing far less lift than the right wing, with its slats still deployed.

MadScot (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with that! - Ahunt (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Dead link
The link from note 11 is dead ('404 error'), so the picture can't be retrieved.188.230.248.85 (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Chicago, United States
Personally I don't think it is necessary to state what country Chicago is in. It's a major city, very well known, and, unlike with some cities, there are no others with the same name. If you disagree with this, perhaps you would like to edit the opening description of the Pan Am Flight 103 disaster. It currently says: "Pan Am Flight 103 was a regularly scheduled Pan Am transatlantic flight from Frankfurt to Detroit via London and New York." Should it say: "Pan Am Flight 103 was a regularly scheduled Pan Am transatlantic flight from Frankfurt, West Germany, to Detroit, United States, via London, England, and New York, United States"? Dubmill (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on American Airlines Flight 191. 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/20060721184540/http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-aa191.shtml to http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-aa191.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607113057/http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/aa191/photo.shtml to http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/aa191/photo.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071031053652/http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=71451 to http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=71451

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) 15:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

All Americans or some from foreign countries?
Was all the 271 passengers American or some were from other countries? 73.87.74.115 (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Mostly Americans on Flight 191, but also passengers from South Korea, the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, India (error) and Saudi Arabia. — Spin tendo Talk 08:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Alright so can you add the nationalities? 73.87.74.115 (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ — Spin tendo Talk 00:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

'Survivors' parameter from the 'Accident summary' infobox
There seems to be some back and forth editing with regards to the 'Survivors' parameter of the infobox. This parameter is invariably changed from 'no value entered' to '0' (zero) and back again, with the argument being that since there were no survivors from the plane's occupants, that number should naturally reflect 0 (zero). I believe that using the 'Survivors' parameter in AA Flight 191 is problematic for two reasons: With those two options unworkable, the third option is to leave the parameter blank. This works because the information regarding who survived this crash is already locatable under two other existing parameters — 'Fatalities' and 'Injuries' — allowing for the 'Survivors' parameter to be left blank. The other two parameters inform readers that no one from the aircraft survived; and of the 4 people injured on the ground, 2 survived and 2 died.
 * 1) Technically speaking, having this value set at zero is incorrect. As I mentioned in my last edit summary, although there were no survivors from onboard the aircraft, there were 2 victims from the ground who survived the crash.
 * 2) For the most part, people who glance at this parameter in the infobox take it to mean "plane-crash survivors", or, in other words, on-board passengers who survived the plane crash. While being factually correct, setting the 'Survivor' parameter value to 2 (two) might be confusing for some readers because in this case those two individuals weren't from flight 191 — they were survivors from the ground.

To that end, I've modified the 'Survivor' parameter to warn editors of inserting a value in that field. This way, 'Survivors' will continue to 'hide' within the infobox, no longer posing pontential confusion whilst no longer existing as a point of contention for editing back and forth.— Spin tendo Talk 00:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Survivor column displayed w/ 3 values, just as the Fatalities column is
The 'Fatalities' column currrently gives the tally in this form: Total = (aircraft + ground). In the case of #191, it says Fatalities: 273 (271 on the aircraft and 2 on the ground). If the fatalities column is the sum total of all individual deaths irregardless of location, then the survivors column should also follow this formula, by displaying Total = (aircraft + ground). In this case, that would be Survivors: 2 (0 on the aircraft and 2 on the ground). Leaving the columns in a way which displays one column with 3 values while another column only displays 1 is confusing in circumstances where you need to qualify the information presented.

Essentially what we are dealing with here is a confluence of 2 things — numbers and locations: Numbers, being the sum total of people who were either killed, fatally injured or survived; Locations, being from whence they came, either the plane or some other relevancy. The ideal is to distribute both efficiently by displaying 3 values in one column. For example– "Survivors: 4 (3 on the aircraft and 1 on the ground) " –is a lot more efficient than displaying only 1 value: "Survivors: 4" Sure, the second example gives us a number....but from where? Assuming that everyone already knows that column is aircraft-specific is quite an assumption. I would argue that as the fatalities column has its own long history of displaying information in this manner (in a set of 3) then changing the survivor column ought to offer the same level of expediency in giving information as the other columns, just as all infoboxes ought to be doing. It may feel disruptive, but the information is still all there, nothing has been hidden or removed. All of the necessary figures are present, and dealt with in the same column. — Spin tendo Talk 21:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

David Booth ‘psychic’ prediction
This is covered in one of the extras on the R1 DVD release of Premonition (2007 film). It shows an interview with this Booth guy, claiming that a vision of this crash came to him in a dream, and it also shows an interview with someone identified as "Jack Barker, Former Public Affairs Director, Federal Aviation Administration". A Google search indicates that the FAA did at one time have a spokesperson named Jack Barker, though I can't find confirmation that he held the title "public affairs director". In any event, on this DVD the guy says that when he worked at the FAA, he received a call from David Booth talking about this dream. He goes on to say, "it hit me as to how accurate he [i.e. Booth] was; what he dreamed was in fact basically what happened... In the 30 years I was with FAA that was the only time anybody ever called in with any kind of a dream like that, that I'm aware of". It would be interesting to debunk this by doing a FOIA request of the FAA to see what notes were made by Barker about this matter. Some other references to David Booth were deleted from the article on July 10 2007. It's misleading to put this sort of info under the heading "Close calls and premonitions" but there may be some NPOV way to mention this in the article. --Mathew5000 08:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC) An episode of Arthur C. Clarke's "World of Strange Powers" Ep.1, titled "Warnings from the Future" (3 April 1985) interviews both David Booth and a man reported to be an official from the FAA named Paul Williams. Williams states that he took a telephone call from Booth on the day prior to the crash, claiming it was notable since it contained details that mapped onto the unique nature of the crash in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Croessus the king of lydia (talk • contribs) 21:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * An FOIA request would not be required of the FAA in order to obtain information found in this accident's public docket. These dockets contain the minutiae of an aircrash: photographs, interviews, schematics, test results, etc. If there was a person involved in the investigation by that name, and they interviewed witnesses and contributed to the report, then this would be in the docket. As Flight #191 occurred before 1991, its docket isn't online, you have to manually request it. You can write or call them at:

National Transportation Safety Board Records Management Division 490 L’Enfant Plaza, SW Washington, D.C.  20594 (800) 877-6799 or (202) 314-6551

Use the following numbers when requesting the docket: NTSB Number: AAR-79-17 NTIS Number: NTISUB–[E]–104-017 Accident ID: DCA79AA017

— Spin tendo Talk 21:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Deleting the Notable victims section
The Notable victims section shows a complete lack of respect for the victims of the crash. Every victim should have their name listed, or none at all. Whose idea was it to setup a list of "people who matter" and just ignore the rest?

If no one can come up with a reason as to why this section should stay, I'll be removing it in about a week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.242.222 (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree this is a bit problematic. I'm bringing it to the BLP noticeboard. Horatio Snickers (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Not a BLP issue, obviously. If you can source a list of all victims, others might permit its inclusion. But it certainly was news that some famous-enough people were killed in this crash, so it is certainly reasonable to list them at least. I would also point to WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Mangoe (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * And who determines if a person is "famous-enough"? Is there a mathematical formula to determine if someone is "famous-enough"? Do you have to be a certain race to be "famous-enough"? Do you have to be a certain sex? How about money? Are you only "famous-enough" if you have more than a certain amount of money? You can see how the "famous-enough" comment is difficult to define.68.63.242.222 (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We deal with this question constantly on Wikipedia, so acting as if it is an imponderable and unanswerable question for us is futile. We have plenty of answers for this question. Mangoe (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Normally we list only "notable people", which in this context means people who have biographies on Wikipedia and that they are notable for things other than having died in this accident. Listing everyone who dies in an accident runs afoul of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - Ahunt (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia not just a morgue list. That's why notable (not in an exclusive sense) people are included. However I'm not against a full victim list but a link to one would be better. If you don't have a full list how can you argue for it's inclusion? --  maxrspct  ping me  21:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ A link to the full list of passengers and crew is in the references. — Spin tendo Talk 21:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Deaths
Everyone on board died there was 271 people on board so saying all 271 on aircraft and 2 people on the ground makes it mean all people died on the plane so without (all) people might get confused. RedProofHill123 (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not confusing, it is perfectly clear the way it is presented without adding even more words. - Ahunt (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ahunt. RedProofHill123's obsession with including the predeterminer adverb "all" in every accident infobox he comes across is unnecessarily disruptive. If readers are confused, they need only to look down one line to 'Survivors', a parameter whose inclusion and setting of zero RedProofHill123 insisted upon himself, in . This should leave no doubt as to whom did or didn't survive.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   20:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

RedProofHill123 (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC) I want to keep things even on all pages thats why I do it. It makes no sense to have two wiki pages that have 0 survivors and one has no all for deaths and the other having it. It's to keep things even so i'm not vandalizing anything. Thats what wikipedia is. Now do you guys understand now?
 * There is an alternative solution to your problem! The general consensus is that adding "all" is not necessary or desirable. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

RedProofHill123 (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC) Yes it is, because it makes seance. I don't know why you guys don't thing so people need to be nice here too. Pages being even is good and makes it organized, and i'm doing that people not agreeing with me make it not even, so you all need to think about that.
 * It is the same, our consensus is to not do it, so they should all be the same. - Ahunt (talk) 02:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Quick question, just so I'm also clear on this... is there a clear consensus somewhere on this, that it should never be done? (Note to RedProofHill123: You should not take my question as a reason to keep reverting on this. Please wait until this discussion is fully resolved before making any more edits.) Shelbystripes (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The guidance for this is H:IB which warns against adding trivial details. The cell asks for one thing and one thing only = a numeric quantity. My interpretation of this is that all is a trivial qualifier, and should not to be used in an infobox cell which already features a numeric quantity. Now, in the case of AA191 there is an exception. You will notice that this cell in particular carries a numeric quantity (273) along with added text explaining the numbers ("271 on the aircraft, 2 on the ground.") This exception is necessary in plane crashes where victims from outside of the aircraft are involved. As far as RedProofHill123's feelings on the matter, they would have every infobox cell which described a plane crash where either no one survived or everyone survived as needing the qualifier all. I have seen them go to different articles adding this very same qualifier to the infoboxes, mostly in cases where only a number is evident, and no further qualifiers are present.
 * RedProofHill123's motivation for adding this qualifier is that their understanding of the event and retention of it in their memory becomes much more meaningful to them when they add all to augment the numeric description that's already there (i.e., remembering a ball much more efficiently when a color is added to it, as in "the ball was red") so much so, that their understanding of plane crashes becomes more meaningful to them only when they also understand that everyone on the plane either died or survived . Evidence for this motivation comes from RedProofHill123, who stated "Saying all 271 on aircraft and 2 people on the ground makes it mean all people died on the plane so without (all) people might get confused."
 * I understand that this editor's use of enhanced descriptors like all is something that, to them, is hardly a trivial matter ("Pages being even is good and makes it organized, and i'm doing that people not agreeing with me make it not even.") As retention of the article's information depends on these qualifiers, it ultimately raises issues of accessibility for them, and we ought to respect that. But I believe that there must be other ways for them to access the articles without the concomitant disruption to the infoboxes. I am open to any suggestions.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   06:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with you on this. My only concern is that, as a coherent policy that would span the bulk of aviation incident articles (and prompt edits on pages that currently have "all" in the infobox), it would be good to have consensus established somewhere on this (perhaps on the talk page for the Aviation accident task force).  Does such a consensus exist already?  If not, I'd be happy to write it up myself and put it up for consensus, not trying to create work for you.  Just want to avoid this fight on a page by page basis going forward. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I've proposed revisions to the Infobox aircraft occurrence template that would ultimately resolve this issue. The proposed revisions are in the sandbox, and test cases are on the testcases page.  Please discuss on the template talk page. Thanks, Shelbystripes (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It makes sense because what if here is something other then the aircraft so it makes sense to put it.RedProofHill123 (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have yet to see a case where it adds anything other redundancy. The "survivors=0" patrameters is very clear in these cases. - Ahunt (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

RedProofHill123 (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC) Wiki is about having 100% info not partly so stop saying its unnecessary because its perfectly necessary. This is a glitch sized problem why cant we just leave it as it is. You realize removing all can result in a edit war because it makes sense. So please stop this.


 * Wikipedia is certainly not “having 100% info” don’t know where that idea came from. Andrewgprout (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I would also add that the information is there, clearly. It doesn't need to be there twice. - Ahunt (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * (Read slowly and carefully) I have read this sections and everyone's opinions. I respect each and all them. However, at the same time, I disagree about not using "(all). Why? I agree with RedProofHill123's opinion stating that having no "(all)" will cause a confusion. About every no-survivor plane crash articles on Wikipedia usually do use "(all)". This including no-survivor plane crashes with ground fatalities. If that "all" is removed, stuff can get confusing. People would be unsure exactly how many people were on board the aircraft. They could do the math and find out, but still there could be confusment, even with "survivors=0" Thus I think the "(all) is necessary for all no survivor plane crash articles on Wikipedia. I'm not trying to be mean or anything, as I previously mentioned, I respect you opinions, but please respect mine back. Also, I saw how RedProofHill123 said that "removing all can result in a edit war because it makes sense." I agree with him on that as well. I don't want an edit war to start on this talk page, so I'm re-adding the "(all)", and it is staying there. I'm not a selfish person, but articles need to be clear, so no one else gets confused. Don't threaten to block me. Your removal of the "(all)" isn't vandalism in any way. I'm improving this articles. In fact we're all improving this article and other articles. Please understand and respect my opinion. Thank you. Tigerdude9 (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * There has been a discussion about whether or not to use "all" on the talkpage for the infobox, and the consensus is that it's a trivial and unnecessary detail. If survivors=0, having "all" is indeed redundant. I would also gently ask you to please assume good faith when making edits - no one has threatened to block you, nor did anyone threaten to block RedProofHill123. Using bold text that orders the reader to take their time with your response comes off as condescending.
 * Further, Wikipedia is built on consensus - many editors, each with their own opinions, discussing them and eventually arriving at a compromise. If you read the discussion about "all", you'll see that Ahunt, Spintendo, and Shelbystripes were all very respectful of RedProofHill123's opinion, as I am trying to be respectful of yours. Please, bring your opinion to the infobox talkpage I mentioned above, and enter the discussion there. Please also be open to the idea that other editors may disagree with you - and that doesn't automatically make them wrong, nor does it automatically make you wrong. We're all in this together and we're all trying to make this the best encyclopedia that it can be; it's not you against the world. NekoKatsun (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Auto-archiving suggestions requested
The talk page size is approaching 46kB - which isn't an emergency - but there are still some 6 to 8 year-old posts showing which would be nice to have archived. I'd like to start a bot on this and wanted to get everyone's input - and if they were ok with it, what an appropriate retention time would be. This page doesn't see a lot of heavy traffic, so I was thinking perhaps 730 days, with everything older than 2 years being placed in an archive starting at page 2 (since there is already an Archive page 1). Please chime in on what sounds do-able. 0.82em 23:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me. - Ahunt (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Use of flags in the 'Passenger nationalities' table
I'm repeating a post I made on another editor's talk page here to illustrate my reasoning behind a revert I made to the article where an editor removed the flags from the passenger nationalities table in this article and a handful of other articles. Their reason for removing the flags was WP:FLAGCRUFT and WP:INFOBOXFLAG. My reading of those guidelines is that with certain topics, people for instance, the use of flags can be problematic. The idea behind that is that the placing of a flag next to a persons name or their picture can have the effect of focusing on the nationality aspect of that person in a way that may be overtly promotional of their nationality. If, for example, an editor wished to place a flag in the infobox of an article whose subject is a person, this would generally not be allowed. The reasoning behind this would be that the placing of a flag could be seen as unnecessarily wrapping the subject in the context and viewpoint of nationalism, which I agree can be problematic.

That, IMHO is the purpose of WP:FLAGCRUFT, which states "Flags are visually striking, and placing a national flag next to something can make its nationality or location seem to be of greater significance than other things." (italics are mine). This is also, to a degree, the reasoning behind WP:INFOBOXFLAG, which states "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many." The overriding concern of these two guidelines is that flag use not become too distracting.

However, the nationalities table as it is used in American Airlines Flight 191 and other similar crashes is a table, not an infobox. And the something as I italicized it in my quote from WP:FLAGCRUFT is the country itself - not a person. The flag used in the context of Flight 191 is not being associated with any one individual, rather it's associated with a group of nameless individuals, in a manner similar to a statistic. This is because in air crashes, the passenger's nationalities are very important to investigators. In a nationality fatality table, no one nation is being promoted over another. The only relevant aspect in the table beyond the numerical count, is the nationalities themselves, and unlike infoboxes, the table is focused on the various countries involved purely from a statistical viewpoint (i.e., "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason"). Similar to a list of countries receiving large amounts of rainfall, there is no way to place a nation's rainfall in an overtly nationalistic manner by using a flag icon, in contrast to the way you could by using a flag next to a person's name. As far as the Aviation WikiProject is concerned, their guidance states "In general, the use of flag icons is not recommended; neither, however, is it prohibited." Thus, my interpretations of the two guidelines I mentioned plus the Wikiproject's assertion all seem to allow the use of flags in something like a passenger nationalities table. I'm curious to hear what other editor's feel about this. .   spintendo ⋅ ⋅ )  15:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Start at the beginning and you would have saved all the time you spent writing the above. WP:MOSFLAG is really as far as you need to go. The people who die in a plane crash are not representing a country. Your examples above do not trump this general advice. Be careful deciding something is OK because it is not forbidden this is seldom so. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I thank you for your input, but one place where flags have often been used are in these aircrash articles. It's not just me suddenly making a decision out of the blue. This is the way it has been with hundreds of these articles for at least a decade. Be careful deciding something is not OK because you believe it to be forbidden — it may in fact be seldom so.  .  spinten do    15:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Recoverability
As of yesterday, the article included the sentence "Later, in simulator recreations of the accident, it was determined that if they had climbed at a higher airspeed the crash could have been averted."

That is accurate, but struck me as potentially misleading: while certain actions by the flight crew could have avoided the loss of control, this would have required them to diagnose a failure mode that the manufacturer has considered virtually impossible, and then depart from their training for an incident of this type, without access to the instruments that could have been used to assess the problem, within a matter of seconds and during a critical phase of the flight.

I added the words "it was theoretically possible that", in order to offset any implication that the crew acted incorrectly in the circumstances.

User Spintendo then replaced that part of the sentence with a direct quote from the NTSB report: "had the pilot maintained excess airspeed [...] the accident may not have occurred".

I agree that this change improved the article, but the quote is still taken somewhat out of context. The same section of the report - together with the earlier section on the simulated flights - notes that the flight crew were correctly following the standard procedure for an engine failure on takeoff; could not see the wing or missing engine; were in the midst of a failure of the key instruments and indicators that could have warned them of the impending stall; and would have received little or no warning of the stall onset. The pilots who flew the simulated flights had received a full briefing on the accident, and all agreed that without such instruction it was not reasonable to expect the pilots to have retained control of the aircraft.

The NTSB concurred, and did not fault the actions taken by the flight crew in its conclusions. The closest it came was to suggest review of standard procedures for responding to similar emergencies - while accepting that the procedures that existed at the time of the accident were reasonable given the information available, and that the crew followed these procedures correctly. This is a nuanced point. I agree with the original article, and with the edit made by Spintendo, that certain actions by the flight crew could have prevented the accident even after the separation of the engine and uncommanded retraction of the slats on the left wing. My concern, then, is that providing this information out of context could mislead readers into believing that the pilot of the accident flight was at fault for failing to take such action - or at least that some other crew, perhaps more skilled or luckier, might have avoided the accident.

Such a conclusion would not be reasonable in light of the NTSB's findings. The crew had been trained to fly at a certain speed in the event of this kind of incident, and did so. The stick shaker and slat disagreement warning were inoperative. The crew had no reason to suspect an imminent stall of the left wing, and no reason to fly at a higher airspeed than they had been instructed. No information was available that could have enlightened them as to the actions that could have allowed them to retain control.

I feel that this is an important element of the article for readers with an interest in air safety. The accident had little to do with poor training, failure to follow training, or inappropriate standard procedures given the state of knowledge at the time. Nor was this a situation in which quick thinking and improvisation by the crew could reasonably be expected to have improved the outcome (c.f. United Airlines Flight 232), as the atypical operations would had to have taken place before the nature of the problem could have been ascertained.

That said, I agree that the outcome of the simulator flights does constitute relevant information for the article. So for now I've added the sentence "However, the simulator pilots had been briefed on the accident flight in advance, and agreed that without this knowledge the flight crew had no reasonable chance of retaining control of the aircraft." There's no citation because the information comes from the same section of the same report, and mentions the simulator pilots as the source.

I don't think this is the perfect way of putting it, but my hope is that the edit will constitute a step in the right direction.

201.240.5.15 (talk) 07:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The problem with this two-fold:
 * You didn't place a reference nor did you place the material in quotes.
 * The part of the text where the information exists is discussing the accident sequence. It is not discussing the testing done afterwards. It being mentioned at that point in the text interrupts the narrative, as it's jumping out of place. The paragraph discussing the accident sequence should not be discussing the testing done months after the accident. Or else why arent we mentioning the building of the memorial in the same location? Because it wouldn't make sense there.
 * I believe the best compromise is to remove the claim regarding the testing until it can be re-written and placed elsewhere in the prose.  Spintendo   08:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The reorganization makes a lot more sense, with more of a clear distinction between the sections on the accident and the investigation.
 * 201.240.5.15 (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * for calling attention to that, its most appreciated. I hope the changes in headings works for everyone. And please, don't hesitate to add info there if you feel that it's warranted. All additions and input which have sources are welcomed here. Thanks again.  Spintendo   21:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

9/11
Uh, 9/11 is the deadliest aviation disaster ever, as well as the deadliest to occur in the United States. Shouldn’t we put that in? Tigerdude9 (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * They are not comparable. This was an accident and that was a terrorist attack. - Ahunt (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. I’ll leave it the way it is then. Tigerdude9 (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry to re-open this, but what if we just used the word incident instead of accident? I did try using "disaster" but that didn't work out. Tigerdude9 (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I wouldn't consider 9/11 an "aviation disaster"; as Ahunt pointed out, it was a terrorist attack and is not comparable. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 00:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with NekoKatsun that although 9/11 and AA 191 both involve airliners crashing, the causes of the two — where one was an accident and the other a criminal act — ultimately make them incomparable. Using the term incident does not change this, as one was a criminal incident while the other was not.  Spintendo   16:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should do what was done with British European Airways Flight 548. Take a look at that article. Tigerdude9 (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I'm not really a fan. It feels unnecessarily clunky and shoehorned in, and again, there's really no comparing this flight to 9/11 (accident versus intentional attack). Out of curiosity, may I ask why you'd like to have it in here? I admit I don't see the value of including it - I can't imagine any reader being confused. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Green Hornet Accident of 1950
I recall that media coverage on the day of the crash included discussion of the green hornet accident of 5/25/50 - it was the 29th anniversary of that memorable accident. I believe a reference to that accident should be included in the article, because it was discussed heavily on 5/25/79.

98.228.62.102 (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to 1950 Chicago streetcar crash? - Ahunt (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Flags
You mentioned a relevant WP:STANDING discussion in your summary. If you could provide the link for it that would be most helpful. Spintendo 00:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, we have consensus discussions on WT:AIR going back to 2007 on this. I searched the archives and found dozens of them. It seems to be an issue that just won't go away. The most recent restated consensus is here. There is also good MOS guidance at MOS:FLAG, which backs this up: "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams." Also WP:FLAGCRUFT: "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason" and so on. Basically we have agreed that dead airline passengers are not in any way representing their country and the use of flags is therefore not appropriate. - Ahunt (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

BRD re clearing repetition
, you reckon the original was clearer?  I found it almost unreadable! That was partly because the appended fanfares of unit-conversions compound the clutter.

The original was more explicit, yes. But the amended version was unambiguous and clear. And less confusing, surely? The original introduced the same parameter, the "takeoff safety airspeed (V2) of 153 knots (176 mph; 283 km/h)", twice within the same paragraph. I’d expect that to be confusing, to many readers? As I first peered through the clutter to establish what I was being told, the repetition made me suspect an editing mishap, and tht some other parameter was intended the second time.

Subject to further / others’ comment I’m thinking of rereverting (reinstating the change).

– SquisherDa (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note here. It currently reads "The retraction of the slats raised the stall speed of the left wing to approximately 159 kn, 6 kn higher than the prescribed takeoff safety airspeed (V2) of 153 kn. As a result, the left wing entered a full aerodynamic stall." It seems very clear and precise to me like that. - Ahunt (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * It certainly baffled me, to start with. In effect, I found it much less clear.  The sentence itself, in isolation, is fine, of course.  But in its context it’s an entirely odd reader experience, coming near the end of a para which has already introduced both the concept and its abbreviation / symbol.


 * I think it may also read straightforwardly when you already know what it’s saying. It was getting through to that stage tht seemed such an obstructed journey.


 * One solution might be to drop the conversions the second time round? And the symbol, V2?  Maybe better to simply split the paragraph.  Maybe do both?


 * – SquisherDa (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. Why don't you propose some wording here and let's have a look. - Ahunt (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Probly more productive to see it in context! – SquisherDa (talk) 10:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, well I can live with that, although someone may come along and add conversions back in. - Ahunt (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Ain’t that the truth! - about someone maybe adding back the – converts later.  I wish we were as hot on 'over-converting' as we are on over-linking!


 * Still, at least now, if that happens, with the point about V2 and stalling speeds in a separate paragraph any readers tht can’t really 'do' numbers except on the edge of a shelf can just skip the paragraph if they feel they can’t cope. It would leave very little gap in the narrative.


 * As it was we had four parameters - original airspeed, V2, stalling speed and the 6kt difference; and with V2 introduced twice - each presented in triplicate, making fifteen numbers! (+ another couple for agl) Not quite how bringing the world's knowledge to the world actually works!


 * ( Totally off-topic: per your U-page, I entirely agree with you about references! )


 * – SquisherDa (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The Booth case again
The supposed precognitive dream of a man called David Booth has been a topic here and was removed from the article. There was a report about him in the Chicago Tribune in 1979 (part 1 and part 2). Is it mentionable now? Raubdinosaurier (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Does not appear to be relevant to the accident. MilborneOne (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Even though he says he called people before the crash, his claims were printed after the crash, not before it. His claims that he made the phone calls to the airline and the FAA before the crash seem to be corroborated, but were so vague that no action could be taken, so overall there was nothing but coincidence to link it to this particular crash. So I agree, nothing there of scientific value, closer to National Enquirer material than encyclopedic content. - Ahunt (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)