Talk:Transair Flight 810

Alaska airlines combi, cargo door image
its really hard to see because the writing basically covers the door, its a good idea otherwise- the top image of the actual plane shows the cargo door much better 75.164.189.19 (talk) 07:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Trivia
An editor removed a large body of text contextualizing the aircraft status at the time of the accident under the grounds that it is trivia. First, RS included this info in their coverage, so they did not think it was trivial. Second, we need to remember that this information may not be obvious to readers in the future, say 10 years from now. The point of the content is that this was an old aircraft type, nearing its end of useful life. So some background on how it came to be used the way it was is relevant. In particular, the number of aircraft and engines of a similar type originally in service and remaining in service at the time of the event provides context. Also the historical pics provide a visual reference of the evolution of the aircraft from passenger to freight service for additional context and understanding. I previously removed some trivial content such as the full ownership history because that is not relevant, and trimmed this down to the original and previous owners, so I am not in favor of including useless trivia. Dhaluza (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I've lost track of where I saw this info (so no RS), but I understand that there are no examples of this model of aircraft in passenger service - all are converted for freight. Someone else might have a source for this (presuming I have remembered the information correctly.) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I found that info and included it. Basically ended with Aloha, but a few example remain. Dhaluza (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I've moved the Aircraft section back to the bottom, because that is where it belongs. The aircraft info is primarily background info to better understand what happened. But what happened is more important and should be up top. I've also trimmed this section to just cover the important points, and moved some explanatory text to a footnote. Dhaluza (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * All I did was summarize the content instead and removed anything that would go against WP:HTRIVIA when I originally edited it. However full ownership history can remain because it has been mentioned in multiple articles with aircraft having long history like Adam Air Flight 574 and Metrojet Flight 9268 but its up to the editors on this. Lastly, a lot of aircrafts were converted to freights that crashed. You do not need to have three photos of the aircraft for historical reasons maybe just like one or two, something similar to FedEx Express Flight 80 where it shows the aircraft under Delta Air Lines and then in FedEx colors. But we won't take this under consideration aren't we? Swagging (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I still don't agree with the aircraft section going up front. The rescue effort is the more relevant info in this case, so readers should not have to wade through details on the aircraft to get to it. Interested readers can get that background info later. Dhaluza (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That could be debatable. I do see some aircraft wiki articles have it on the second heading though. Swagging (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think US Airways Flight 1549 is the more appropriate model. Dhaluza (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I also oppose placement of the aircraft section early in the article. Whilst this might meet the expectations of Wikipedia editor aviation enthusiasts, for the normal reader (i.e. the person for whom Wikipedia exists) this is a lot of tedious detail that they will probably skip over. Articles like Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 do not do this. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Aircraft was mentioned in the Background section of that article. But I can agree it doesn't need to be at first at certain points. I just see it a lot of articles put the aircraft at the beginning of the article instead of below it. Swagging (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but each case has different facts. It's useful to start with a template, but no need to hang on to it if it doesn't fit. As ThoughtIdRetired points out, the encyclopedia is written for readers, not editors. Dhaluza (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

"Downed"
User:Dhaluza, thank you for explaining your revert. I see that m-w.com does list "down" as an intransitive verb, but as a professional editor, pilot (military, transport category), aviation enthusiast, and fairly well-educated and well-read person, I had never seen or heard it used as an intransitive verb until now. We are obligated to use the information provided in reliable sources, but we are absolutely not obligated to use their exact phrasing, especially when we can use better phrasing that accurately conveys, using encyclopedic style and tone, the source information in a way that is accessible to the general public. If a source uses obscure terminology, we absolutely should rephrase it for use in an encyclopedia. Further, the sources are not themselves experts in aviation terminology (or even in editing and writing, often!), so they cannot be relied on to use and understand correctly terminology that is specific to a field.

The principles of WP:SPECIALSTYLE (also WP:NSF) seem to apply here. Cheers! Holy (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I thought it sounded awkward too, but I believe it is technically correct. When the report came in, there was no way to know how the plane went down. It could have ditched, crashed, or broken up in flight. So downed is a generic term that covers all possibilities. I don't think there is any real confusion, because everybody knows what down means, so it's not hard to imagine what downed means. And the CG is an authoritative source on what was reported to them, so we should not change their description without good reason with RS. Dhaluza (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I just looked for the Reuters source that you mention. The sentence that contains "downed" has no citation. The Reuters source and others in the list of citations use "downed" as an adjective converted from the past participle of "down" used as a transitive verb, not used in the way you have it. Where do you see "downed" in a source used as an intransitive verb? Holy (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Downed comes direct from the USCG press release that was copied verbatim as PD content. I was just using Reuters as a RS example that used the same word. There were others. Dhaluza (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, most RS did convert downed to an adjective, so I did the same. It looks less awkward this way and I think it preserves the meaning. Dhaluza (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Your new edit makes it a lot better and it matches how it's used in the sources. Good job and thanks for reading! Also, you've made lots of other really good edits, improving this article considerably. Holy (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Images
The Aviation Safety Network has tweeted a couple of photos of the wrecked aircaft on the seabed. Images have been released by the NTSB so are presumably useable on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Photos appear to show a depth of 316.9 feet and 340 feet respectively, whilst the article states the wreckage was found in 420 feet. Whilst one is presumably the depth of the camera and the other the sea bed, these do not appear consistent. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I clarified depths between 360 and 420 feet per NTSB release. Dhaluza (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find original source last night, but it appears someone uploaded them to commons for トランスエア810便不時着水事故 Dhaluza (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * On careful study, I think the depths on the photos do actually confirm the water depth. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

"...too deep for divers to recover the flight recorders"
The article's statement "...too deep for divers to recover the flight recorders" does not seem correct. Whilst this is well below the depth for recreational diving, commercial divers working in the North Sea work up to 500 feet depth. I appreciate that the Reuters press release says that the NTSB made this statement, but it does rather beg the question why. The press release statement "The investigative team is developing plans to recover the aircraft" seems more informative. I would guess that it is more a case of risk management versus the benefits gained: divers would be at risk - versus recovery of the aircraft (if feasible), which may give additional information. We probably need to wait for fuller press releases, but the simple statement that this is too deep for divers is too simplistic in the context of any knowledge of commercial diving. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I assumed it was because divers equipped to go that low couldn't do the work, not that they couldn't go that far down. Dhaluza (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair comment. I presume that the problem (if it is fair to characterise it as such) will disappear as the story and the article develop. I would expect the NTSB to say more at the time of any attempted lift of the wreckage. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I clarified that this is the NTSB's view. Dhaluza (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Very Long Time to Under Investigation?
It's under investigation, but it's going to take a long time. How long do I have to come out though.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.136.211.52 (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The average NTSB investigation takes 2 to 3 years. Per the NTSB: "In general, the NTSB tries to complete an investigation within 12 to 24 months, ..." It has only been a year since the crash and only six months since the wreckage has been recovered. There is no rush for Wikipedia to post the results. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Final report
The NTSB's final report has been released and can be found at https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/103407/pdf. The probable cause of the accident was identified as: The flight crewmembers’ misidentification of the damaged engine (after leveling off the airplane and reducing thrust) and their use of only the damaged engine for thrust during the remainder of the flight, resulting in an unintentional descent and forced ditching in the Pacific Ocean. Contributing to the accident were the flight crew’s ineffective crew resource management, high workload, and stress. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * What were the pilots qualifications? What schools, what grades, what quality, etc...  DEI policies force us to ask and answer these questions.
 * 2607:FB91:12A0:C78E:AC39:A177:4FD8:49F0 (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Names and Not Encyclopedic
What were the pilots names, countries of origin, and given the crash was at least partially caused by pilot error, what were their flight qualifications?

Also, jet engines do not "falter". People and animals falter, and jet engines do something scientific and technically meaningful.

2607:FB91:12A0:C78E:AC39:A177:4FD8:49F0 (talk)\ 2607:FB91:12A0:C78E:AC39:A177:4FD8:49F0 (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Categories.
Should this incident be added to the category "Airliner accidents and incidents caused by wrong engine shutdown"? While the functioning engine was not entirely shut down, it was brought back to idle, and a major reason as to why the aircraft was unable to return to the airport.

This incident belongs in that category in every way except that the engine was not completely shut down. Itxrwe (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)