Talk:Pan Am Flight 214

Positive lighting?
It has only been suggested that Pan Am 214 (crashed December 8th, 1963) was hit by positive lightning (airplanes are designed to survive a normal lightning strike).

http://www.panam2001.com/panam3.htm - "My father-in-law, George F. Knuth, was the captain of Pan Am Flight 214 which was struck by lightning and crashed on December 8, 1963 over Elkton, Maryland"

http://cchistory.org/whigairplane.htm - "On a cold, rainy night in 1963, as flashes of lightning punctuated the December darkness, five airliners waiting for orders to land in Philadelphia circled in a holding pattern over the area. Suddenly, lightning struck one of the craft, Pan Am Flight 214 circling above Elkton. It plunged toward earth in flames, carrying 81 people to death in a muddy field."

World record
I removed a section that stated that this accident held a World Record for "most fatalities for lightning strike to this day". I followed the given link and could not find such reference. Also, see LANSA Flight 508 for an accident with more fatalities also caused by lightning (in 1970). Crum375 02:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

World record (Clarification)
Crum375, if you're interested in the Guinness Book of World Records entry regarding Pan Am Flight 214, visit this link: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=53285

I don't know why LANSA Flight 508 didn't make the Guinness Book of World Records like Flight 214, but I am guessing it was because while more people died on Flight 508 when it was hit by lightning, the investigation ultimately ruled that it was pilot error, since the crew chose to fly despite the hazardous weather. In contrast, the investigation into Flight 214 found no evidence of pilot error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.66.184.134 (talk • contribs) 04:48, September 3, 2006
 * While I see the Guinness entry and understand your theory as to Flight 508, I think it stretches logic somewhat. I can see the accident as a whole being categorized as 'Pilot Error', but then so are the vast majority of accidents. The Guinness record should be simply the actual event that brought down the plane, not the original poor decison making by the crew that exposed the plane to that event. When I have time I will dig deeper into the Guinness issue. Thanks, Crum375 07:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the reason is fairly obvious...14 of the passengers of the LANSA flight didn't die from the initial crash of the plane, but died awaiting rescue, thus the lightning strike didn't actually kill them. Ttony21 (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We don't know the medical condition of the passengers who survived the initial crash and died while awaiting rescue. From an aviation accident point of view, they were still killed by the crash, which was caused by lightning. By your logic, any passenger who dies in the hospital after a crash could be considered as killed by poor medical care, not by the original crash. We don't go into such details in aviation accidents &mdash; if you die from causes related to the accident within a few days of its occurrence, you are considered a crash victim, regardless of the quality of rescue efforts or medical care. Crum375 (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I took a look at the LANSA Flight 508 article on Wikipedia, and I think I found the answer as to why this incident wasn't designated as the highest death toll from a lightning strike by the Guinness Book of World records. The Peruvian investigation attributed the crash to two causes: lightning strike and pilot error. By contrast, the investigation by the Civil Aeronautics Board attributed the crash of Flight 214 to just one cause: a lightning strike. And003 (talk) 08:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a very old discussion, but I thought I'd add to it just in case it came up again- the current GBWW lists the Lansa Flight as the highest death toll caused by a lightning strike, so I removed that fact a little while ago.  RecycledPixels (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:B707-PAA-Porto Rico.jpg
Image:B707-PAA-Porto Rico.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Information about aircraft protectors?
lightning discharge wick does not point to a section about aircraft protectors. &mdash;141.150.23.67 (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pan Am Flight 214. 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/20130526222124/http://dotlibrary1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=%2AP%3A%5CDOT%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C120863.pdf to http://dotlibrary1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=*P%3A%5CDOT%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C120863.pdf
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120707104455/http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetGOJG/081263.htm to http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetGOJG/081263.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080827192334/http://dotlibrary1.specialcollection.net/ to http://dotlibrary1.specialcollection.net/

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) 21:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Contradiction on Location of Left Wingtip
In the "Aftermath" section, it states "The complete left wing tip was found a little under two miles (3 km) from the crash site." and in the "Investigation" section, it states "The wing tip had been found about three miles (5 km) from the crash site..." in direct contradiction to the previous statement.

Since the references given for these two sections are different, and the first statement references the actual accident investigation report, I'm inclined to trust the statement in the Aftermath section instead of the one in the Investigation section. Can someone closer to this article decide which is correct and fix the article? Bz8x8c (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Technically, both statements are correct. The statement in the investigation section is based upon the New York Times article stating the investigators were telling them that the wingtip was found "about three miles away", whereas the final investigation was more precise with its 1.8 mile measurement.  However, I agree, having the different distances is confusing, so I changed the article to say that within a few days of the accident, investigators said they found the wingtip a few miles away, which I think is accurate to the sources without confusing the reader.   RecycledPixels (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Artwork of Pan Am 214.jpg
 * Pan Am Flight (Clipper) 214 N709PA Boeing 707.jpg

Three Pan Am Boeing 707 awaiting delivery.jpg
@Khang To please note that the image you keep restoring, File:Three Pan Am Boeing 707 awaiting delivery.jpg may not be labeled properly in commons as far as it being public domain. That's why it was removed from the article. What would be very useful is for you to spend some time researching where that image was originally published; if we can satisfy ourselves that it is legitimately public domain, then we can put it back. Until then, however, we can't use it. I should also mention that we have a three revert rule, which basically says once you've reverted something twice, you're done. If you revert it a third time, you can be blocked. Please don't let that happen to you. RoySmith (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * RoySmith: I made the same mistake.  The addition of the File:Three Pan Am Boeing 707 awaiting delivery.jpg is actually the first time this user has added that particular photo.  The other substitutions were of  File:Boeing 707 "Stratoliner", 3rd 707-121 production airplane, N709PA, later delivered to Pan Am.jpg, which should probably be nominated for deletion on commons because of the doubts about the copyright tagging.  I don't know how, since they do things their own way over there.  As to the choice of photos, I don't personally think that the three 707's awaiting delivery photo is an improvement to the article even though it technically contains the accident aircraft, but it's so tiny in the background that I'd have to take the caption's word for it that it's actually the involved aircraft.   The color photo of the uninvolved, but similar, 707 seems to me to be a better choice because it is a single aircraft, so less confusing, and accurately depicts what the involved aircraft looked like.  RecycledPixels (talk) 06:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)