Talk:Crossair Flight 498

Deletion of Other theories section re Passenger mobile phone
The passenger mobile phone issue alluded to in the mainpage entry and in the article lead is nowhere described or discussed further down in the article. Is it speculation? If it's covered in another wikipedia article, please clarify that in a link to that article. PS. I haven't checked the article history - perhaps it's just temporarily absent.--Niels Ø 14:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It was edited out between the 1311 and 1326 editions on 30 Nov (UTC). According to the history page, someone (possibly a bold editor, but anonymous) deleted the section, saying "(→Other theories - not a reliable source.)"  Perhaps we should put it back in and tag it unsourced? Deltopia 14:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm conflicted about this. It was the mention of a "2000 crash near Zurich" in an episode of Mythbusters about cellphones on planes that led me to find details on this crash and create this article.  But reading carefully through the official crash report, it looks like the authorities put absolutely no credence in the theory that the cellphone even contributed to the crash.  Whether rumors of that cause actually made countries ban cellphones is hard to verify, although the deleted paragraph was sourced.  -- Plutor talk 14:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It sounds to me like we should report the FACT that this theory has been pit forward, esp. if it can be verified that it influenced the cellphone regulations.--Niels Ø 15:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is still important to have the section about it in there. Why would someone delete it? 68.35.201.102 15:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Second this. The source listed is at least enough to cite Niels Ø's item, if not enough to cite that the cellphones conclusively caused things. -Spyforthemoon 15:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll add it back; I found references in the UK's The Register, and if that paper is too sarcastic for you, it's on ZDNet, too. Scoutersig 15:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I recently expanded the article Crossair flight LX498 to get DYK status. I based the structure of the article on the article TWA Flight 800 as it has been in development for a while.  A major thrust of the article is to explain why cell phones now are banned on flights during takeoff and landings.  User talk:170.148.10.46 deleted the entire section entitled "Other theories", including the section heading and the text, as "not a reliable source."  The source is reliable for the premise of the article - the industry believed the officially unsupported allegations and banned cell phones, probably thinking its better to be safe rather than sorry.  In addition to deleting the linked sources, I believe that User talk:170.148.10.46 deleted the section heading and the text surrounding linked sources so that few would be aware of what he did.  He left the lead paragraph in tact and the DYK statement, which explains about the cell phones.  Deleting the supporting statements regarding cell phones in the main body of the article and leaving the lead paragraph and the DYK statement about cell phones causes' confusion.  I believe that he timed his deletion to coincide with the articles appearance on DYK to have the most impact on the confusion he caused.  Initially having good faith, I came to my belief after reading his talk page.  User talk:170.148.10.46 talk page has various vandalize statements, including one which reads, This is your last warning.  The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Cognizant Technology Solutions, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.-- Jreferee 15:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Cell phone matter
This area needs to be expanded. -- Jreferee 16:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Motion to remove this passage: Some passengers on any given flight are likely to forget to turn off their mobile devices[13], therefore it is unlikely this explanation is a likely cause. The second part smacks of original research, while the first isn't relevant without the second. Brought up here rather than removed since it doesn't seem terribly harmful, but we should avoid adding uncited analysis to an already thoroughly cited section if possible. -Spyforthemoon 21:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with removing that last part, I don't think it is relevant and the source, The Economist. (Sep. 7, 2006). Fear of Flying, requires a premium account to read. I did a search and was able to find the full text here  and found that it was just a humorous piece and did not show any evidence or research that backs up the claim.  Also, the name of the airline in the source is Veritas, which is " satire V" spelled backwards.  swa  q  21:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Flight number LX498? Or CRX498?
Gordonw changed all of the flight numbers in the article from LX498 to CRX498, but didn't move the page. I almost reverted, but then I looked carefully at the references. Two refer to LX498, but the official report says CRX498. What is correct? Anyone with any knowledge of European (or Crossair) flight codes able to shed any light on this? -- Plutor talk 20:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Which code?
IATA (International Air Transport Association) uses a 2-letter code (LX=Swiss International). ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation) has used 3-letter codes since 1982 (CRX=Crossair). IATA will be adopting the ICAO 3-letter codes, so it seems more correct to use CRX for this particular flight. I think however most people now refer to this flight as LX498, so the title should perhaps remain... I'll put an explanation on the page.

Which code?
Sorry, forgot to sign the above entry! Gordonw 19:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Page Move
We have hit upon a problem regarding the naming of this article. The current title is most correct, but looks silly. There was a similar problem at the Comair Flight 5191 article, since, despite the media calling it Comair 5191, it actualy had two diferant names officially, Comair Flight 151 and Delta Flight 5191, both now being redirects (I think I got those alternate names correct from memory, but I'm not 100% on that), and was never called Comair Flight 5191. Consensus there was to leave the article at it's current title, since that was how it is most commonly refered to. I'm not suggesting we (nescesarily) should do the same here, but I am saying we can't leave it how it is - it looks silly for a start, and goes against unwritten naming conventions on the subject. Therefore, below are three possible, equaly viable names for the article. Please put your name by the one you support. Blood red sandman 10:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Crossair Flight LX498
This may be the correct one per Naming conventions as the flight is widely known as 'LX498' to a general audience at the time of the crash and thus goes with written naming conventions.

Crossair Flight CRX498
This violates Naming conventions since it optimizing the article for specialists over a general audience.-- Jreferee 15:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Crossair Flight 498
Support
 * This one's probably best, not using the codes at all. -- Blood red sandman 10:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This may violate Naming conventions since it creates ambiguity. However, I did a google search for Crossair Flight 498 and see it being used. Moreover, I seem to recall that if an airplane hull is destroyed for a particular flight, that the flight number is unofficially retired and the letters dropped from the flight number as in Crossair Flight LX498 is retired as Crossair Flight 498.  See also Pan Am Flight 214, TWA Flight 800, Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870.  I won't oppose use of LX498 or 498.  (498 sound better and more memorial).-- Jreferee 15:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Support
 * OK, after looking over Category:Airliner_crashes_caused_by_pilot_error, I'm in favor of Crossair Flight 498 as it confirms my suspecision that the flight number is unofficially retired and the letters dropped from the flight number on a hull loss. Also, I did more research.  Even if the public did know Crossair Flight LX498 as Crossair Flight LX498 near the days surrounding the crash, the flight now is widely known as 'Crossair Flight 498'.  Look at the naming convention for Crossair Flight 3597 and, for another 498 flight, check out Aeroméxico Flight 498.-- Jreferee 15:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Since no-one else cares to chip in, and the only two editors (us two, if you'll excuse the appalling grammar there) who have commented favour this title, I'm gonna go ahead and move it. Blood red sandman 21:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Naming convention
Naming conventions sets out guidlines on naming conventions. Crossair Flight LX498 is what the majority of English speakers then most easily recognize. Crossair Flight LX498 / CRX498 violates Wikipedia Naming convention policy as it creates significant ambiguity. Further, linking to Flight LX498 / CRX498 is not easy and not second nature to the majority of English speakers. Any specialists research into official reports will find CRX. However, the flight was widely known as 'LX498' to a general audience as this was the coding given to this particular flight on the day. Thus, use of CRX498 over LX498 in the article violates Wikipedia policy by optimizing the article for specialists over a general audience. Also, the article was moved to Flight LX498 / CRX498 without a consensus, which violates Wikipedia policy. -- Jreferee 15:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

US centrisim?
Changed sentence back to The Saab-340 is widely used in the United States and elsewhere as a commuter plane. as that is what the cited reference says.

Midair fireball?
Did the plane actually explode in midair? It's mentioned as "witnesses reported" in the description of the crash, but skimming through the official report, I see no mention of it. And given the causes listed, I don't see how there could have been any explosion. I removed the category, but I'm more hesitant to remove the description if it was reported, but didn't actually happen. -- Plutor talk 14:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

GA review
The nomination is on hold, as I decided to be nice because I think you can fix it. I haven't detailed the problems and don't intend to until later today or tonight. The on hold will not "technically" begin until I post my comments. Sorry to make you wait so long, and thanks for nominating my butterfly article for DYK. IvoShandor 09:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. : ( I have been out of town, and busy securing myself new employment, my apologies, I will get to this asap...sorry. IvoShandor 02:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, don't worry about it, take as long as you want/need to ;-). And BTW, nice butterfly article, I genuinely enjoyed and was interested by it, which is why I thought it should go up on DYK. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to fail this article for being on hold longer than 7 days. GreenJoe 17:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you please provide a better reference for the aircraft tail number. The airdisaster.com link does not provide any additional information beyond what's presented in the infobox here. The tail number is in the investigation report on page 11, and the aviation-safety.net site is also more informative (with CVR transcript and other details). I know WP:EL is just a guideline, but the airdisaster link should be discouraged under point #1 and #5 on the guideline. There may be other more useful parts of that website, but these tail number pages are not terribly informative. Regards. --Aude (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's wait until the TfD has been completed. I'm happy to implement whatever the consensus is, here. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

GA assessment – on hold
Thank you for nominating this article as one that may meet the Good Article Criteria. As you will see I have put the article on hold at this time. My comments are as follows:

The article is well constructed and informative at the level of GA, however as the assessor I will require a few relatively minor adjustments as detailed below before I can GA pass the article. As is always the case the system allows 2 – 7 days to finalise such requests – but in some cases a couple of extra days can be granted. Please let me know directly if you need that extra time.

I normally also suggest that as each adjustment is made, that editors place the template ✅ after each part that is completed as this will provide all editors with a guide of what is completed in this fashion.✅ ✅ Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC) ✅ - info removed Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC) ✅ Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC) ✅ Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC) I've rewriten it a bit, but I'm slightly concerned that I'm not sure I quite understand exactly what the problem you're having is - is it OK now? If not, could you clarify? Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC) ✅ - I deleted it as it seems unnescescary, it's covered by the citation at the end of the sentance anyway. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC) ✅ - indeed there is - see Attitude indicator - although I apreciate the meaning is unobvious to the casual reaader, so I've wikilinked the term. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC) ✅ - I've changed it to simply state the basic fact as cited - do you think it should go altogether? Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Adjust both this (Oct. 1, 1999) and this (Jan. 31, 2000) to be in the same format as this one (January 10, 2000) in the section titled Background.
 * 1) I am concerned about this sentence (Witnesses reported a strange noise before the explosion and said they saw the twin-engine turboprop plane turn into a midair fireball and plummet into a field minutes after leaving Zurich's main airport.) because it does not seem to follow from the logic of the material in the section titled Causes.  As the references do not provide direct evidence of the citation actually detailing the fact of explosion I would like to see some direct evidence that I can check via web sources.  Alternatively the material should not be included as it would appear to breach WP:V.
 * 1) I would prefer to see these sentences use the same formatting for passengers and ages – please choose one or the other format and then use exclusively (Four of the passengers were Germans – Steffen Braun, 36, Klaus Friedrich, 48, Matthias Morche, 22, and Peter Schmidt, 31.[1] The others were a 43-year-old Frenchman, Pascal Rol, a Swiss, Heinz Hoefler, 61, and a Spaniard who traveled to Zurich on a Swissair flight from Madrid.)
 * 1) In the parties involved section you have the spelling (copilot) and (Co-Pilot) choose the correct one and use exclusively.
 * 1) This paragraph seems non-sequitur (The two pilots who had talked to the media were fired by Crossair, but they then were elected to head the pilots union, "Crossair Cockpit Personnel (CCP)".[3] Both Crossair and CCP said after the crash that the coincidence between the accident and the dispute was very unfortunate and that reports about pilot error being involved in the crash were speculation) – are you talking about the pilots who were killed or some others – please rewrite to clarify.
 * My problem is that I am not sure if you are talking about the two pilots who died being the head of the union or two other pilots - that still needs some further clarification.22:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) In the section titled Causes you have this sentence with a link rather than a reference which leads to a link – please adjust to being a normal inline citation. (According to the Investigation Report of the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau,[1] the accident was attributable to the flight crew losing control of the aircraft for the following reasons:)
 * 1) Funny one – is there really an attitude display instrument as referred to in this sentence (When interpreting the attitude display instruments under stress, the commander resorted to a reaction pattern (heuristics) which he had learned earlier.)
 * Interesting - and well linked.22:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I am concerned about this sentence (Some passengers on any given flight are likely to forget to turn off their mobile devices[13], therefore it is unlikely this explanation is a likely cause.) as it reads like a piece of original research – please rewrite or provide direct evidence of the citation actually detailing this fact - the current reference is not available to check via web sources.
 * This is fine now.22:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I end by noting that for the most part, editors have done an excellent job and if you just fix all of the above suggestions within seven days and let me know I will review it again and it will pass in that format – but please make sure that you get all the adjustments done. Please let me know on my talk page when you finish or if you have any questions. Cheers -- VS talk 08:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

GA passed [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|35px]]
Congratulations to all editors who assisted in this article. It is well presented and passes the WP:GAC. I note for the record all of the editors that provided 5 or more edits to this article as follows (with the numbers after user names indicating their total edits at time of final GA assessment): user:Blood Red Sandman (20), user:Jreferee (17), user:Plutor (7), user:Gordonw (6). Editors may wish to cut the following template   and paste to their user page or other suitable location - which will provide the following template:    Well done!-- VS  talk 22:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

When was the plane leased?
The picture caption says: HB-AKK, pictured a year before the aircraft crashed whereas the text says: The 33-seat Saab-340B airplane used for Crossair Flight LX498 had been leased to Crossair from Air Moldova since October 1, 1999.

The crash happened 10 January 2000 - ie three months after it was leased. So somewhere here there is an error. --King Rikk (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Mobile phones
The article contains the rather wishy-washy statement that the "crash report does not mention cell phone activity as a primary cause of the crash". The report (section 2.1.6) actually goes further than that, emphatically stating that mobile phone activity DID NOT cause the crash. I would like to update the article to reflect this unambiguous statement (e.g. ), but another contributor keeps reverting to the original. 86.5.176.168 (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it is just badly written I have tweaked the entry to give a more balanced view. MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's better than my attempt. 86.5.176.168 (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Crossair Flight 498. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crossair.ch/e/profile/press/2000/profile-presse-00_01_11_Passagierliste.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130221083429/http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetGOjg/100100.htm to http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetGOjg/100100.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) 21:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)