Talk:Suicide by pilot/Archive 1

SilkAir Flight 185
Why is SilkAir Flight 185 not in the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.238.206.116 (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Most likely a lazy Wikipedian, such as myself, and not a case of article-suicide by contributor; feel free to add it and others.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

floated
Needs list updated; more instances; wonder if the 9/11 flights should be included; maybe a good idea?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Fedex Fl. 705
Federal Express Flight 705 is probably also in this category although it was unsuccessful and it was not a pilot but a flight engineer off duty. There are many more cases with small planes.--K. Nagel (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I see your point. However, as the person responsible was not part of the current active flight crew, I would think it is more accurate to leave that incident off of this list. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Since no one died, I don't think this flight should be in this list. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Article name
While I agree that this article is not solely about suicide or suicide attempts by active flight crew, the new title, Suicide airliner accidents and incidents, seems a bit clumsy. May I suggest Airliner accidents and incidents involving suicide? Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * On a related note, I updated the lede to reflect the current title . Change to improve as you see fit. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I propose to rename to List of airliner accidents and incidents involving deliberate crashes according to . 217.30.193.221 (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I Support the proposed change. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Generally I feel the new title names are clumsy; the word "incidents" is vague; "accidents" is misleading; rather, what the article was supposed to focus on is deliberate crashes, ie suicide; so I favor restoring the original title Suicide by pilot.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Or just a direct name of the topic, e.g. Deliberate plane crash. Juan M. Gonzalez (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with the simple Pilot suicide, similar to murder-suicide or suicide by cop. GiantSnowman 20:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The original title was Suicide by pilot. Today an edit boldly changed it to its current form Suicide airliner accidents and incidents. I was OK with Suicide by pilot, except that it is not always a pilot who has done the deed. It may be (pedantically) a co-pilot, flight engineer, or even (in the case of FedEx) a dead-heading employee. So, what's the best title? JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Since the main general article is Aviation accidents and incidents, this one could be something like Aviation accidents and incidents involving deliberate crashes. Juan M. Gonzalez (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am also OK with "Suicide by pilot", it is certainly a lot better than the current article title, and while it doesn't cover 100% eventualities, neither does Suicide by cop, which deals with "law enforcement officer or other legitimately armed individual" and not cops exclusively - just as this article does not deal with pilots exclusively (though that is the vast majority). GiantSnowman 21:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A title such as Aviation accidents and incidents involving deliberate crashes makes my eyes water over; a simpler title such as Suicide by pilot or Pilot suicide is much stronger, cleaner, says what the article is about.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that the aforementioned suggestion "Deliberate plane crash(es)" seems effective. It is offensive to the perished pilots (and their families) to have their flights listed on an article that blatantly implies that the examples therein were carried out by pilots with official responsibility of the aircraft. Flonasey (talk 03:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How about Civil Aviation Crash Suicides with separate tables for Crash Suicides by Official Flight Crew and Crash Suicides by Other Than Official Flight Crew, including determined, likely and attempts that cause fatalities in each? I think including all attempts would be arbitrary and potentially overwhelm and obscure the purpose of the article. That eliminates military (except when flying under civilian control), bombs and anything else that does not involve intentional controlled flight into terrain as the means of self-destruction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.199.69.82 (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the article must definitely include cases with any crew as the perpetrators, and I strongly favor including incidents caused by passengers as well. And of course the title must be accurate, so "suicide by pilot" fails either way.  How about something like "Airline Crashes Due to Suicide"? Wwheaton (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As I have noted below, the US' FAA uses the term Aircraft-Assisted Pilot Suicide, which, however, isn't limited to commercial aircraft crashes as currently indicated by the article, but is limited to suicides by pilots. So maybe just Aircraft-Assisted Suicide? Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

case near berlin
http://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/polizei-justiz/versuchter-mord-und-gefaehrliche-koerperverletzung-neun-jahre-haft-fuer-flugschueler/9550964.html it was a flight pupil (52) who attacked his flight teacher (72) in 1500m with a rock and a knife but he stayed conscious and managed to emergency landing and both survived, the pupil sentenced to 9 years prison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.183.149 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Definition
The article currently indicates that attempting to kill other people is a necessary part of the definition. However, there are many more cases in which single-manned planes are used for suicide - they just don't make the headlines. Aren't these cases the core of what defines a "suicide by pilot"? The Federal Aviation Administration, for example, lists eight such cases for the period between 2003 and 2012 alone. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I somewhat agree. Suicide by pilot should mean (1) suicides by (2) pilots. Logically, then, this would include both commercial airliners (killing many people) as well as lone pilots (killing only themselves). The first case is much more interesting, media-worthy, impacting air travel, rules, related to terrorism possibly; the second case is less interesting, sad. In both cases, it is extremely hard to prove what happened because of the ensuing destruction and loss of life, although with equipment such as cockpit voice recorders and black boxes on commercial airliners, there may be more information (and media attention) given to the first type.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Maybe what is best is discuss single-death pilot suicides in the article text, perhaps as a separate section, but not include them as entries on the list; it would seem inappropriate to give a single-death pilot suicide the same space as when a commercial airliner is crashed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My intention wasn't a proposal to actually list all these cases here, so I certainly agree on the latter part. There are borderline cases, though, as discussed in the "Non-airline suicides" section (I hadn't seen that, probably wouldn't have started another section if I had). Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * An alternative title would be something like List of deliberate crashes in aviation, but I strongly doubt we should list every suicide incident on a small plane involving just a single pilot. In fact a suicide through deliberate crash on a relatively large aircraft automatically becomes murder-suicide because more than one person dies anyway. I don't object List of deliberate crashes in commercial aviation, though. Brandmeistertalk  11:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Merge? (March 2015)

 * The following discussion is closed. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Shouldn't this be merged with List of suspected murder suicide incidents involving commercial aircraft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.134.118.155 (talk) 06:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm mistaken this page was created first and is far better developed. On that basis I would say yes. Or any relevant info from there copied over, with correct attribution, and that page re-directed here. Unless there is some fundamental difference of topic I am missing. 220  of  Borg 07:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Basically the same topics. Both articles were created on the same day, but the other article has better title. Brandmeistertalk  08:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as by Brandmeister. I prefer the table on Suicide by pilot over the plain text of List of suspected murder suicide incidents involving commercial aircraft. Sander.v.Ginkel (Je suis Charlie) 09:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note What about a shorter title, like List of suspected suicide airliner incidents. Sander.v.Ginkel (Je suis Charlie) 09:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I also prefer the table format. I do not prefer the title suggested above. JoeSperrazza (talk) 09:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I think the best approach is to merge this article's content into the content of List of suspected murder suicide incidents involving commercial aircraft. Essentially, we'll end up with this article, and whatever can be added, if anything, from List of suspected murder suicide incidents involving commercial aircraft, combined into one article called List of suspected murder suicide incidents involving commercial aircraft. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. Seems like there are two subjects here; first, Suicide by pilot, about the unfortunate phenomenon in which suicidal pilots crash commercial airliners as murder-suicide; second, List of suspected suicide airliner incidents. So I favor merging the two lists together, not necessarily merging the article content which undoubtedly will expand as new revelations come to light after the Germanwings disaster. So I favor two articles, one, about suicidal pilots, second, the merged lists.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as per Brandmeister — a single article, incorporating all known or suspected suicides in commercial aircraft, whether by passengers or crew (I think "pilot" is too narrow). I think a table format would be fine, as long as it includes the link to the primary article for each incident, plus the date, airline, aircraft type, number of casualties, and some indication as to whether suicide is substantially confirmed or only suspected, and whether terrorism was involved. My motive for expanding the article was to highlight the fact that such incidents do not appear to be rare, contrary to many comments I see appearing in the media. As accidents due to other causes are so dramatically reduced (as they have been lately), suicide attacks could become a major component of air travel risks. Wwheaton (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I think "suicide by pilot" and "suicide by other flight crew" are similar enough in concept that they should be kept in the same article. However, I would suggest that "suicide by hijacker" (and kamikaze-style attacks) are sufficiently different in concept to be kept separate.  Other than that, I think this article is much better presented than List of suspected murder suicide incidents involving commercial aircraft, particularly in regard to showing how certain people are about whether it really was a suicide, so I would suggest merging the contents of the other article into this one would be better.  Iapetus (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


 * Split into two articles. Suicide by pilot is the encyclopedic text version; List of commercial airline disasters caused by pilot suicide (or maybe a better article title?) would be just the list. Wonder if such a split would satisfy people here. If there is no consensus for a split, then I prefer the current Suicide by pilot title because it is brief, clear, says what the article is about--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support That list into this article. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Double checked the article, and saw I'm too late. Confused me for a second. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Certain examples need to be deleted or the title needs to be changed
The title "Suicide by pilot" clearly implies that the examples therein would be events where the suicide in question was carried out by the pilot(s) responsible for control of the aircraft.

It is absurd and offensive to have any flight associated with 9/11 on this list. None of those pilots are responsible for the deliberate demise of their aircrafts.

Pacific Airlines 773 was not taken down by the pilot. Pacific Southwest 1771 was not taken down by the pilot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flonasey (talk • contribs) 03:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You make a good point. See Talk:Suicide_by_pilot. We need to agree on the intent of this article. If kept as is, the examples you list should be removed, and also the FedEx flight.JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If you're flying a plane, you're the pilot. Whether or not responsible in the official sense, whoever is at the controls when a plane intentionally crashes was responsible for flying it that way. If someone isn't flying the plane, they're no longer the pilot, just a pilot, and their fault can't reasonably be inferred. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Is this all this account will do in the foreseeable future? If so, see WP:SPA for why that might be a problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Terrorism angle
Wondering whether some of these are classified as terrorism; maybe we should add a row saying whether terrorism was suspected? Suicide by pilot is not one of those types of violence in my prevention strategy which is solvable, unfortunately; too difficult, like a first-time only crime, practically no way to prevent it. Most likely suicide by pilot events will happen sporadically, rarely, maybe we should put in the article some kind of likelihood of it happening (ie less likely to die in a s-by-p than get hit by lightning eg.).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * September 11th? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:3400:FC4:7475:17CA:9FF0:324C (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, wondering whether we should put in the 9/11 hijackings, since they were definitely suicide by pilot.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The main intention of the 9/11 attacks was not to kill themselves, it was to kill the thousands of innocent people who died. It is never referred to as a 'suicide' (in the traditional sense) in media - I think the 9/11 attacks should be removed from this list. They are not listed in this comprehensive list, for example. GiantSnowman 20:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I see your point, those airplanes weren't crashed because of someone intending to commit suicide but because of terroristical intent, suicide simply being a means to an end. But while suicide might not have been the overall goal, the pilots still intentionally killed themself. If you would take your own life in order to spare your children the burden of taking care of you, it would still be considered suicide.Makrom (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What about pilots who chose to fly highly likely deathtraps, and died hoping to only kill other people? In movies, the reckless hero is often asked beforehand, "Are you crazy? That's suicide!", but virtually never dies, so not sure if that outlook applies to real life. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The lede currently states "There is debate about whether such suicides are acts of terrorism. ". The first ref is blocked at my workplace ("compromised website"), while the second doesn't have any debate about whether these sorts of incidents constitute terrorism, just an official statement that the Germanwings incident was not terrorism. Iapetus (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree somewhat; rewrote sentences to try to clarify.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I favor including terrorism cases, for two reasons. First, as "external causes" (mechanical failure, weather, pilot error, ...) decline, "abnormal" crashes due to intentional suicidal human action may remain and become relatively more important as risk factors, both as seen from the POV of the passenger, and from the POV of those seeking to make air travel safer. Second, it is not necessarily easy to decide on the motivation of a suicidal individual. Some people might reasonably say such people are psychopathic regardless of the motive — political, religious, social (revenge against The Corporation, etc), personal despair, or some complex mixture. The 9/11 attackers were obviously "terrorists", but were they political, religious, or simply nuts? Does it matter? How much can we ever know for sure? Wwheaton (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I favor including the terrorism cases too.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Wrong title
"Suicide by pilot" obviously is the wrong title. Nobody wants to be killed by the pilot; see "Suicide by cop". Title and article appear to be just one facet of the usual hysteria following an event like the Germanwings disaster. --Uli Elch (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There's been much back-and-forth over the article title; see the article history. At present, there is consensus that suicide by pilot is the best choice so far; I challenge you to name a better title. Your argument that "nobody wants to be killed by the pilot" is really irrelevant, since the people on the plane do not have a choice, and they get killed (unfortunately) when the suicide happens because of what the pilot did (ie commit suicide). So suicide by pilot is an apt description of what this article is all about, since it is about (1) suicide by (2) a pilot.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

What's the opposite of "hijacker"?
Someone has split them off from the other pilots, and I'm having a hard time figuring out the word(s) to use to distinguish. Plain "pilot" doesn't work, everyone here is a pilot. "Legal", "registered", "official pilot" and such don't work for the planes stolen on the ground. What I have now, "Pilots in control of whole flight", is awkward and wordy.

Any ideas? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * OK then. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Non-airline suicides
The current title, "Suicide by pilot," does not appear to be limited to airline pilots. Some, but not all, of the alternate article names above, suggest a limitation to airliner crashes. Is that the intended scope? If so, it should be express in the title. If not, there should be entries for cases such as Craig D. Button (USAF pilot believed to have deliberately crashed his Warthog aircraft).

I realize this would open the doors to military pilots who have deliberately and tactically crashed their aircraft as part of combat, e.g., Leonidas Squadron, Kamikaze, so that may be a slippery slope.

Also, what about general aviation suicides, e.g., 2002 Tampa plane crash? TJRC (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As written, the Craig D. Button and 2002 Tampa plane crash incidents seem appropriate, I'm uncertain about the others. Is a "suicidal attack" in war the same as suicide? In the context used here it seems not. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would agree, a tactical combat suicide attack should be outside the scope of the article; that's why I recognized the slippery slope of including a military (but non-combat) suicide such as Button's. TJRC (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Japanese kimikaze pilots would then have to be included if we consider tactical combat suicide attacks; I think the subject that we're honing in on (seen as a distinct subject in the media) is deliberate suicidal crashes by commercial airline pilots, possibly terrorism, big loss of life, often theories of what happened, never quite conclusive.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I favor limiting the article to commercial flights (possibly passenger flights only? Or including cargo?), but definitely including incidents caused by either passengers or crew. I think controversial cases should be included, with the existence of the controversy noted unless we have consensus otherwise here, per Wikipedia process. General aviation flights are much more numerous, and in a different risk class altogether, so I would definitely exclude those, for inclusion in a separate article. Wwheaton (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You make good points, and I agree. By your suggested approach, the Bankstown Airport incident would not be included. However, it could be argued that Connellan air disaster would be included as it involved a commercial pilot crashing into an airline facility, albeit during a general aviation flight. I also thing the FedEx flight would be included, as it is a commercial (cargo) flight. What do you think? JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems to me the victimization of innocent passengers is a critical factor, certainly from the POV of those considering air travel, those trying to improve the safety of commercial air travel generally, and also considering the likelihood of mass mortality. So I would argue against including the Connellan air disaster.  Wwheaton (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Why doesn't this article list any Japanese kamikaze pilots? Surely they started all of this? 80.254.158.172 (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * They definitely popularized it. I'd like to see them included. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Just my two cents - any incident that has its own article should be included, regardless of the type of flight. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

EgyptAir 990 vs LAM TM-470 vs 4U 9525
4U 9525: says "(theory)" and yet it is orange LAM: "Preliminary findings showed that the pilot intentionally crashed the jet." and yet it's red while EgyptAir 990 is orange. I don't think EgyptAir 990 is controversial, the NTSB was the assigned investigator (requested by Egypt) and their conclusion was pilot suicide. All evidence pointed to pilot suicide. The only controversy was that Egypt kept trying to derail the investigation with possibilities that were obviously proven false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.157.135 (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I doubt the Egypt Air situation will ever be 100% concluded. Instead, it'll remain disputed indefinitely. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 20:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Mental health in aviation
Hi, I added a new article, Mental Health in Aviation and would love some feedback if anyone is able! Thanks! Mbenderb1 (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

first line grammar
The first line reads "Suicide by pilot is an event in which a pilot deliberately crashes or attempts to crash an aircraft as a way to kill themself and sometimes passengers". I think "themself " should either be replaced by "her or himself" or "a pilot" replaced by "pilots" (and keep "themselves"). The spelling should also be "themselves" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drizzdo (talk • contribs) 09:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

See also link
I added List of suicide crisis lines to the see also section and was reverted by. I added it because I think such a list could be of use to our readers, is low impact and non-disruptive, and is certainly on a related topic that does not deserve a link in the article itself. I would like to see its inclusion added back. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate you bringing this up here. I did find your addition not appropriate for this article, however let’s wait and see what other users think of this. Kind regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , why is not appropriate to the article? I've explained why I think it is but don't understand your concerns about it (I can guess but I'd rather understand than guess). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The link is appropriate on an article such as "suicide", in this article it is a bit overdone (my POV) since suicide by pilot only rarely occurs. Kind regards Saschaporsche (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Barkeep49, as the proponent of the change, can you explain a little more why you believe it should be added? It's not clear to me that it is sufficiently closely related to the subject of suicide by pilot.
 * Surprisingly (to me), Suicide does not even have a "See also" section (although a couple "See also" templates are present in the article body). I agree with Saschaporsche that it might be a worthy addition there. TJRC (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, given that "suicide by pilot" is a type of suicide; 1) "suicide by pilot" should be included in Suicide navbox, similar to Suicide by cop; and 2) that navbox should be in this article. I've made both of those edits, and the navbox includes the link to List of suicide crisis lines. Does that work? TJRC (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)