# Talk:Eastern Air Lines Flight 663

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eastern Air Lines Flight 663/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ---Dough4872 16:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Comments:

"a nine-year veteran of Eastern", "Eastern" sounds colliqual here.
"Though the control tower responded that Flight 663 was at a higher altitude than Flight 212, it was, in fact, lower." should be combined with the following paragraph.
The Aftermath and investigation contains many short paragraphs that should be combined.
"The Navy" sounds colliqual.
The sentence "An additional thirteen Coast Guard vessels searched the shores of Long Island salvage efforts." sounds awkward.
Are there any pictures that can be added to the article?
I am placing the article on hold. ---Dough4872 16:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

"a nine-year veteran of Eastern", "Eastern" sounds colliqual here.
 Done changed to "Eastern Airlines".
"The Navy" sounds colliqual.
 Done changed to "United States Navy".
Though the control tower responded that Flight 663 was at a higher altitude than Flight 212, it was, in fact, lower." should be combined with the following paragraph.
The Aftermath and investigation contains many short paragraphs that should be combined.
The sentence "An additional thirteen Coast Guard vessels searched the shores of Long Island salvage efforts." sounds awkward.
All Done did some rewording, and reorganized the paragraphs.
Are there any pictures that can be added to the article?
 Not done Only copyrighted image of the plane found - will do later if permissible. Blodance the Seeker 09:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I've added a pic of DC-7 into the article. Apart from this, I really don't know what else pics can be inserted into it. Any suggestions? Blodance the Seeker 16:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The article looks good now, so I will pass it. ---Dough4872 16:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Instead of picturing a Delta DC--7 in the Infobox, I've replaced it with this EAL DC-7B photo — it more closely resembles the accident aircraft and is similarly used in the German Wikipedia article about this crash.  JGHowes   talk 23:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I have read this over like three times and I don't really understand what happened. It's just hard to follow. Did the ATC make a mistake or not? They weren't going to collide, it just seemed that way at that point in time as both aircraft were turning and momentarily appeared to be heading for a collision? What part did the mistake about the aircraft being above the other one play? It's significant enough to highlight in the article but it doesn't explain if it contributed to the crash. ATC "denied the aircraft were in danger of collision" but does that mean they didn't cause the accident by giving incorrect information? If it didn't play any part in the events is it necessary to include in the article? Could we explain why it does or doesn't have significance? Did the statement that the traffic was above the other pilot disorient him when he saw the aircraft, assuming it was actually above him and he had somehow become disoriented, and he reacted to the mistaken impression? Were any lessons learned about how to avoid this happening again? 
All I really got from this is that two planes were flying in the dark, ATC said one was above the other when it wasn't, they came close enough that apparently both pilots simultaneously believed they were about to collide, and one lost control and crashed. But no one did anything wrong, this was perfectly normal procedure, and business continued. 
If it was a normal thing and no one made any mistakes why would both planes at the same time believe they were about to collide? Would they not be used to this happening? Was it just a freak occurrence that two aircraft happened to come to a place on their course at the same time that gave them both the illusion that it was an imminent collision, so back to business? Even if the procedure was perfectly normal was there no thought that maybe we should avoid placing aircraft into this situation in the future? If it was just one pilot who misinterpreted the situation and had the wrong reaction I could see it was just the pilots fault, but the fact that both of them believed it was going to be a collision and took action suggests to me that either the controllers or the procedure were wrong. They shouldnt have been in that position to start with.  Idumea47b (talk) 08:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)