Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runway incursion between US Airways flight 1170 and Aer Lingus flight 132


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was No consensus so keep. Tyrenius 14:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Runway incursion between US Airways flight 1170 and Aer Lingus flight 132
This is a contested prod. User:TripleH1976 prodded the article, saying : "this article is entirely frivolous in my opinion. Nothing noteworthy happened". I disagree with the prod for reasons which I shall put before you below. Blood red sandman 19:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong KeepI say it needs an article because playing chicken with 381 lives is an excedingly noteworthy occurence. Also, there will likely be a large number of very noteable safety recomendations related to this accident when the investigation is completed, regarding the design of airports, how Air Traffic Control works and why the automatic collision avoidence systems failed. The page for the Teneriffe disaster links here. The cattegory this is listed in is not just 'accidents', it also contains 'incidents', where there was no major damage or injury, but still an important occurence. If almost hitting another jetliner isn't a noteable incident, I don't know what is. Finally (for now), JetBlue Airways Flight 292 survived deletion, and a lot fewer lives were at stake there than in this article. - Blood red sandman 19:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Shall we document every near miss that ever happens?  Notability is necessary. - CobaltBlueTony 20:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral, there's almost one runway incursion incident a day. How many of those does the NTSB investigate?  If investigations are a limited occurance, I think that would make it worth an article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Two airliners almost hitting each other, notable? I think not. You going to put onto Wikipedia the next guy who cuts in front of you on the road?-Kmaguir1 21:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment as regards the numbers of incursions investigated, almost all but most of these either involve aircraft being there without authorisation but not actually being in the way, or a baggage car taking a shortcut accross the runway, that sort of thing. To airliners coming within a few feet of each other at take-off speeds (which are even higher than cruising speeds} is almost unheard of, in fact the only one I can think of othey than this one is the infamous Tenerife disaster - and we all know the consequences of that one. - Blood red sandman 23:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Takeoff speeds are not higher than cruising speeds. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what i meant but managed to screw up saying is that the power settings on the engines are much higher for take-off. while I'm on the subject, they would have had enough residual energy to propel the aircraft into each other for several seconds after the impact. - Blood red sandman 23:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, notable incident. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry to add yet another comment to this discusion, just to say, the reason incursions like this are rare and unheard of is that usually the collision avoidance systems designed to prevent this sort of accident/incident from happening usually tell the aircraft involved to stop before they ever get going. Before this incident, the FAA had thought these systems to be unfailible. The fact that they failed on both aircraft and in the control tower and left two aircraft hurtling towards each other with engines at max power for take-off is a very serious and very noteable occurence. - Blood red sandman 23:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete As a private pilot, I would like to add a few words here. Incursions happen more often than most realize, TCAS or not (the equipment sandman talks about). The power setting on take off are higher than at cruise however that doesn't mean anything when you are dealing with inertia. A jet traveling at .93Mach has much more inertia than a jet rotating (lifting off speed) at 140-160knots no matter what the engine settings are. Crashes are notable.  Incidents like this happen many times a year, though most civilians never hear about or realize they occurred.  I suggest that this be removed.  (and for those that like aviation, try this link-- Brian  ( How am I doing? ) 23:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I was not refering to innertia. jet engines at full power do not stop instantly but can instead continue turning with significant power for a few seconds after power failure. Such is true of the Amsterdam air disaster (I don't know the name of the article, sorry). - Blood red sandman 00:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong delete; not a relevant topic in the longer term (ie. 10+ years from now)... this kind of stuff is fodder for Wikinews, not Wikipedia. -/- Warren 23:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bschott. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 23:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge somewhere if references added before end of AfD, seems like it should be verifiable. JYolkowski // talk
 * Comment: at least one very reliable reference has been there all along. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOT crystal ball. This article deals with a near miss which has received 'one coverage' as defined in wiki notability criteria in WP:BIO. Without trivilaisation of the incident, there are bound to be near misses because of our very busy airports. Only time will tell if this is a signicant event in aviation history, or the history of the airlines in that, depending review of Boston air traffic controllers' procedures. The incident itself is not notable, but its consequences could be. Ohconfucius 04:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - We're not Wikinews, and we're not a crystal ball. People aren't going to look back on this incident 10 years from now - it was a near miss, which happens quite often, more often than most people think. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 07:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Important Question: If the article was deleted, would it be suitible for re-creation if at the close of the investigation, changes are made to regulations and/or safety recomendations are made by the NTSB as a result? That would erase the question of noteability. - Blood red sandman 11:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Not really. Many other flights have happened that have changed national or international flight rules.  A large majority haven't any article on them. There are MANY near misses or 'deals' that occur over a standard year.  There is nothing special about this one. In fact, I can note two more where aircraft in the past two years, have had this EXACT incident happen (all commercial airliners, all nose to nose on the runway).  In fact I have one where one airliner was landing while another was lining up to take off right at the landing aircraft.  Incidents happen.  Nothing is notable for this one other than the media decided to make a big deal out of it. -- Brian  ( How am I doing? ) 14:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but in the incident you refer to, the collision avoidance systems worked perfectly as I recall, and the aircraft was able to pull up long before it would have touched down. - Blood red sandman 15:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sandman, no. TCAS does not work on the ground, nor would it detect aircraft on the ground, especially since the transponder was not turned on (they normally are only turned on after liftoff). The aircraft landed but was able to stop short of the other aircraft.  Please do not make things up. -- Brian  ( How am I doing? ) 18:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have heard reference made by the NTSB to a secondary, less well-known system for ground use, the acronym and name for this escapes me. I was never refering to TCAS - although if it were switched on, as I understand it, (although I'm unsure of this) it can detect aircraft on the ground, but would simply transmit continuous false alarms since what is too close in mid-air is perfectly reasonable on the ground. - Blood red sandman 19:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, per Blood red sandman's comments.--Caliga10 15:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment That was a speculative question, not a reason to keep. No such changes have been made. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 16:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * response to comment I have, however, listed other reasons to keep, and I think they are what's being refered to. - Blood red sandman 16:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong, speedy, and unconditional delete; Wikinews. Also, original author makes hysterical claims in the article and in his defense for keeping it (before moving to Wikinews, this needs a strong rewrite; "many deaths" speculation in the first sentence is first example). Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, just remember Wikipedia isn't the place to discuss "what could happen" (the "crystal ball" referred to). Media outlets and the general public that do not understand aviation and think this is a catastrophe are to blame. --JS talk 20:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say I was hysterical, just factoring in all the potential reasons to keep. Isn't that what I'm supposed to do in an AfD nomination? Blood red sandman 21:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The runway incursion between US Airways flight 1170 and Aer Lingus flight 132 was a near-miss that could have resulted in hundreds of deaths. That's hysteria. "Oh my God!" --JS talk 21:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That was simply how it occured to right the article at the time. I do, however, agree that it sounds like hysteria. I will accordingly remove it from the article. Thanks for mentioning it, but do be careful when leaping to conclusions. It can lead to misunderstandings. - Blood red sandman 21:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI, the link to this page at the bottom of Tenerife disaster makes the same assertion and should probably be removed from that page (and in fact, I don't see the similarity anyway... Tenerife was due to a failure of communications between the control tower and the pilots, while this incident seems to be purely due to a foul-up in the control tower, i.e. in Tenerife if the control towers instructions had been followed there would have been no accident, while the reverse is true here) ---13.12.254.82 21:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment to nom: As a pilot working on my ATP, to accuse the industry as a whole of 'playing chicken' with lives is absurd, unfounded, and offensive to pilots here, I'm sure. The general media does the same exact thing all the time (I've worked in both fields). This incident was a coordination error, not some yahoo sitting in a control tower going "yeehaw, look what I can do!" Do you have any idea how extensive FAA controller training is? Aviation is an industry that is known for its professionalism, rigorous self-checking, and extremely high 'bar'. But we are all human. I implore you to check your general opinion of aviation, especially when defending a (in my opinion) well-founded and good faith prod that you challenged. --JS talk 20:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * response my apologies as in to how that sounded - I don't know why I used the words 'playing chicken'. I can only assume I was looking for a more apropriate phrase. And I was not the first to challenge the prod - that was a diferent user, who removed the prod (see talk page). the prod was then replaced, so i stepped in and listed at AfD, as is the norm for a challenged prod, so a discusion can be generated on the merits of the article and a general consensus reached. - Blood red sandman 21:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, please. Vegaswikian 19:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. --Jaysweet 21:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, I've found a second source: this is a month-old ALPA press release describing a "Superior Airmanship Award" for the US Airways captain. It calls it a "very serious incident". Now having two nontrivial sources, the article would probably scrape by a notability guideline if one were available. Melchoir 04:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong delete; this article is pointless. It is minor news at best.  Not for an encyclopedia.  TripleH1976 01:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per TripleH. ~ trialsanderrors 05:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment hmmm.... we've reached the end of the discusion, and although delete (which i still apose) is slightly ahead, we don't seem to have reached a clear consensus. What do we do in cases where there is no concensus? - Blood red sandman 01:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, just how many deletes have to appear in order for the article to go?  I mean, in a democracy if one side is even slightly ahead it usually wins.  TripleH1976 06:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I would normaly expect it to be deleted too, but I once, when i was even newer than I am now, saw an archived AfD discusion which stated 'The result was no conscensus - but (and I'm kicking myself for this) remember what article it was so I don't know if it was deleted, relisted at AfD, or kept - I guess we will just have to wait and see what the closing admin does. - Blood red sandman 12:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This isn't a vote where the "majority" opinion gets implemented. The closing admin will carefully read the opinions and evidence presented and make a decision which arguments were more persuasive given wikipedia policy. There are outcomes that are marked "no consensus", in which the default action is to keep the article. ~ trialsanderrors 21:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, I would vote to delete only if there is a link in Wikipedia to an outside source to this incident. Possibly, the NTSB article, or notable investigations log, etc.Gary Joseph 22:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * ??? Can you clarify? Usually the inclusion of reliable sources is a reason to keep, not delete. ~ trialsanderrors 01:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I struggled with that too, but I think - in fact unless the user says otherwise I'm sure - that the meaning was that if this article was deleted, then some other article should include a link to the an external source to the incident, so that it at least gets a mention on Wikipedia. So far as I see though, there is no suitable article. - Blood red sandman 01:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I see Near miss (safety) and Air safety as possible candidates. ~ trialsanderrors 01:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Your right - either or both would be suitable. I'm left wondering if that would be a good policy, though - I mean, if something is noteable enough to have an external link in a related article, surely it should have an article of it's own. I can see horrendous edit wars if that were to happen. It's not out of the question, but it would need to be carefuly thought over and carefuly implemented too. - Blood red sandman 01:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you guys got the idea. I understand some of the issues that would arise from this, but encyclopedias by their nature have gaps. Wikipedia, being able to change instantaneuosly, fills one. But it is just one source, while also being a compendium of knowledge (another gap). Citing outside sources would (sort of) fill that.Gary Joseph 06:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm teaching an intro to HCI/HF course tomorrow and found this link off of kegworth. I think it's worth the space, but will need to be updated.  It is to my understanding a very close and uncommon incursion (not .1 miles, not .5 miles, not 1 miles), and has interesting usability and system implications.
 * Keep As a former pilot, this event is highly unusual. The stastic of 1 incursion per day pointed out above (can't find a ref, but it's probably about right) includes airplanes that are hundreds of meters apart. These aircraft were a few meters apart, vertically, and would have crashed without evasive maneuvers on one pilot's part, which makes the incident relatively unique. Brianski 09:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep- noteworthy Astrotrain 11:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think that by keeping this article it sets a very bad precedent for wikipedia. The 5 pillars of Wikipedia clearly state that this place is not a newspaper; meaning that everything that gets into the news doesn't necessarily require an article.  This incident was minor news.  It took more then a full year(after the incident occurred) for someone to even write an article on it.  If this article is kept, it means that ANYTHING,from a newspaper, one can argue that it belongs here. TripleH1976 19:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think that, for better or worse, that precedent was set a long time ago. :)  I only voted "weak keep" because I do think you have a point in this regard, but Wikipedia already covers many, many less notable events than this.  I understand your viewpoint that Wikipedia needs to tighten up and be more encyclopedia-ish, but it's not like this would set a new record for least notable article on Wikipedia.  There's no precedents being set here...  --Jaysweet 20:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * comment sorry to open my mouth yet again, but I think it's important to remember that Wikipedia isn't paper either - Blood red sandman 21:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Runway incursions of this nature are not "common", its not very often you see over 300 people on a collision course with each other. Had the pilots not noted the other aircraft then we may of had another Tenerife, which I think makes it more than noteworthy. In addition, the fact quite a thorough investigation is taking place asserts the seriousness of the incident. 82.195.109.147, 22:05, 5 September 2006 (GMT)


 * Comment - It's these types of exaggerations, like the one above, that I'm afraid will get this article kept. Three hundred people were not on a collision course.  Pilots are trained to handle very difficult situations.  Do you think only on the ground is where those passengers faced danger?  All through out the flight they were(just like all aircrafts in the air as I speak right now) in danger.  Turbulence, weather, staying clear of other planes, minor malfunctions.  All of that is danger.  Do you purpose we make articles on those too?  Make articles for every aircraft in serious danger.  Traffic congestion is going to become a real big problem in airports around the world; the world isn't getting smaller, so we shouldn't be shocked by these near-misses in the future.  Believe it or not, they will be happening.  We can't have articles for each one of them.  Wikipedia is becoming another newspaper source.    TripleH1976 01:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - But what you just wrote is an exaggeration too. The dangerous parts of a flight are taking-off and landing. Planes rarely just fall out of the sky (maybe plane poop). I am not sure this falls under a "current events" category. Besides, you are using the "slippery slope" argument which is justifying current action by some unproved hypothetical. I agree to "keep" or delete only with some limitations. But if one of the pilots got an award from his peers for that, then it must have meant something.(see original vote above)Gary Joseph 06:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - I know planes don't just fall out of the sky. However, there is danger while in the air.  Mainly from turbulence and bad weather.  Many years ago, a Japanese airplane experienced some very turbulence.  Enough so to toss around some passengers that weren't seated.  My point is that near-accidents shouldn't be sufficient enough for an article.  I see Wikipedia has rules, but they don't seem to be reinforced.  The criteria for an article seems to be way too flexible around here.  TripleH1976 09:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * comment Yes, I think I remember the Japanese incident - my only comment at the time was "that's why most regular air travelers keep their seatbelts on when they aren't moving around the plane, even if the little light says you can take them off". In the air, yes, there are a lot of small incidents involving some danger. I myself have been on a plane carrying over 100 people that had to divert to a longer runway after a mid-air brake failure, they even rolled the fire trucks for us and i've been on a CRJ-200 that had an engine seize up shortly before landing, and during final aproach the pilot struggled to maintain control because he payed more attention to trying to restart the engine than anything else. As they take-off and land, that's when the real danger is, because a tiny little thing like that happening then could be disasterous. but they can at least expect to be clear of other aircraft on the ground - unlike in the air, the rules are "one at a time", so it's fairly easy to keep things in check - as soon as theirs a problem on the ground, ATC just says "Stop!" and they all do. The planes should never have been allowed to even get their take-off rolls started. That ATC left them on a collision course is almost unheard of, Tenerife being the obvious exception. A few more seconds, and it would have been too late to stop the plane taking off, and the planes would have collided, killing most or all of 381 people. - Blood red sandman 11:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - This article should be kept. All articles should be kept!  If there is one person willing to write it and another interested in reading it, then why delete?  The only articles which might ever be deleted should be those which are false, and those which distract from another, more correct article on the same topic.  I think it is simply absurd that there are people out there who wish to get rid of articles simply because they personally judge them unimportant.  If you don't like the article, then don't read it!


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.