User talk:Mjroots/Notability of Aircraft Accidents

Comments
Thank you for the invitation to comment on your proposal. I agree that WP:AIRCRASH is not being generally as well supported by editors as it should be and I think that is mainly because it is far too complex to be a practical standard. I think you have made a good start here, but I think any new standard needs to be in agreement with the standard for including accidents in aircraft type articles which is WP:AIRCRASH-SECTION. That inclusion standard is actually well-supported and easy to understand. Perhaps adopting it, or a modification of it, for accident articles would be a good solution? - Ahunt (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that what I have set out broadly meets wit WP:AIRCRASH-SECTION. I haven't specifically mentioned the changes to procedures etc part, but that is one of the "other factors" . For aircraft under 5,700 kg MTOW, the bottom part of WP:AIRCRASH-SECTION would apply. Again, this is mostly covered by what I wrote. The only major distinction I have made is for helicopters, where a lower weight limit applies than that for airliners. Mjroots (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note, I have been watching your development of this proposal. I have to admit in reading through it that I believe that we need something much, much simpler than this. I think WP:AIRCRASH has not been well supported due to its complexity and this proposal needs to be greatly pared down if it is to be used in place of that. How about something much simplier based on WP:AIRCRASH-SECTION, like:


 * - Ahunt (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just like to say I like Ahunt's proposal it is simple and doesnt clash with the similar guidelines we already have for inclusion in Airport/Airlines/Aircraft articles. MilborneOne (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I do have a slight problem with AIRCRASH-SECTION being just a bit too restrictive. If the first and was replaced with and/or, thus keeping the requirement for AD or significant change in procedures or regulations, then we could be almost there. Mjroots (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Not 100% sure which and you mean, but please do copy the box above and make any changes you like and let's look at it. I intended the above as a "starting point", for a simple standard, so let's modify it until we have some agreement here and then tale it for wider consultation. - Ahunt (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, my preferred version is this -


 * differences are highlighted in bold italics, text to be struck is struck . Mjroots (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for that version! The reason the original version required all three criteria to be met for light aircraft crashes is that there are thousands of light aircraft crashes each year that result in fatalities. The requirement that an article meet all three criteria was to reduce it to accidents that involve fatalities, hull loss or airport damage and result in some sort of lasting action, such as ADs or changes to procedures. Otherwise most light aircraft accidents are no more significant than fatal car accidents. I would suggest leaving it as requiring all three criteria for light aircraft accidents, but let's see what others have to say. - Ahunt (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course, that needs to be taken in context with the rest of it. It may be that an accident meeting the (slightly less restrictive) criteria still only warrents a section entry instead of a full-blown article. Mjroots (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That is perhaps the main issue to nail down - if we create a standard that allows any light aircraft accident that has fatalities then we will get many thousands of them, most as WP:MEMORIALs. - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, but sometimes a GA accident will meet all other criteria except that there were no fatalities - see Dyn'Aero MCR01. Hence the coverage as a section of an article. Maybe suitable wording could be added saying that in some (many?) cases, coverage should be in a section of the article on the Aircraft/airfield as appropriate, with only the most significan accidents (mostly those meeting all three criteria) being judged worthy of a stand-alone article. I still think the issue of Bizjets needs further examination, particularly those in the 5,700 - 14,000 kg MTOW band. Mjroots (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that if a non-fatal accident results in an AD then it should be just mentioned in the type article, and only if it is significant. I am thinking that the Cessna 150G for instance had an accident involving the binding of the control cables on the glove box and this resulted in an AD ordering the glove box to be removed. This is totally non-notable and isn't a stand alone accident or even mentioned in the Cessna 150 article, nor should it be! If you think that bizjets need some special criteria, then let's add that in as a separate category and see how it looks. - Ahunt (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

On this issue i think media coverage should play a bigger role in determining if something is notable or not. There are bus crashes every day involving more people than are injured in many of these small aircraft crashes yet they do not justify an article. I have no idea about this area, im just passing through, but surely a list of air crashes per year where even these minor ones can get a sentence about them would be more appropriate than whole articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The main problem with the scope of media coverage is that most media outlets consider every aircraft accident or even incident newsworthy. Even reliable national news services, like CBC, regularly carry stories of airliners that make diversions because a generator failed or some similar reason. At the same time they will miss 60 people killed in separate car accidents over a holiday weekend, because it isn't newsworthy. The general media just aren't a good gauge of what is important. - Ahunt (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)