Talk:Mid-air collision

message: Somebody should look up details related to a mid-air collision taking place between a commercial aircraft and a small private plane over the city of Nantes in France. I can't unfortunately recall when this happened. But I remember the large cruise liner boat "France" was being showcased near the coast of Nantes on that fateful day. The sky was saturated with flying machines (planes, balloons, ULMs, etc...) operated by people seeking to take pictures. The pilot of the commercial plane made the terrible error of lowering his plane to a height which enabled the passengers to see the boat from the windows. The plane hit some small private plane. There were no survivors. 77.58.147.83 (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. I found it. It took place over the island of Quiberon on July 30, 1998. The planes involved were a Beech 1900D and a Cessna 177. A total of 15 people died (including 2 children between 5 and 13 years old, and two babies younger than 2 years old). By then, the boat was no longer called "France" but "Norway" (the reason why I used its former name is because I thought the accident took place much earlier than 1998. I was mixing it up with another aerial accident which took place in the same region a few years before). See for instance http://aerosteles.hydroretro.net/fiche.php?code=quiberon98&lang=fr  77.58.147.83 (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other case 

message: Perhaps the most terrible mid air collision happened during WW2,US b 29s escorted by P 51s entered in thick cloud on way to bomb Osaka,in thick cloud with low visibility 27 P 51s collided each other.No mention of it here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.227.31.193 (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing

message: The following request to move a page has been added to Wikipedia:Requested moves as an uncontroversial move, but this has been contested by one or more people. Any discussion on the issue should continue here. If a full request is not lodged within five days of this request being contested, the request will be removed from WP:RM.  —Dekimasuよ! 05:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment. Very commonly spelled mid-air. See NTSB   My dictionary (Random House) states that both spellings are correct. The more common of the two spellings appears to be mid-air, see List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft, which uses midair 4 times and mid-air 17 times. 199.125.109.89 00:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article in question refers to the wikilink and only uses "midair" as the spelling in the text. A vast preponderance of dictionaries and encyclopedias (although Cambridge does prefer the "mid-air" spelling) including Merriam Webster, Webster's, Oxford use the "midair" spelling. The FAA (Federal Aviation Authority) and National Transport Safety Board uses "midair." FWIW, a google search on "midair collisions" brings up 551,000 hits but when you do "mid-air collision," a large number of the hits have the spelling changed to "midair," and the See NTSB example above:  actually uses "midair."  Bzuk 16:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I only gave one example of each spelling from the NTSB reports. There are many others of each spelling. They are not year related, but they may be related by who writes the report, some may consistently spell it one way, some the other way. The article also says that a mid-air collision is called a MAC, and if the spelling was always midair collision, that would be MC, not MAC. The article only used midair only because you changed it to midair which was quickly reverted. Google seems to ignore the dash in it's search. Yahoo on the other hand makes the distinction, although a search for "midair collision" prompts, Did you mean mid air collision? There are 465,000 hits for mid-air collision, and 178,000 for midair collision, so I think we can close this request. 199.125.109.52 19:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, User:Prosfilaes who reverted the change in the article referred to above, noted that there is no definitive usage but changed the edit back to the original spelling for consistency with the title of the article. The reason for the requested move is that I first tried to institute a move and this requires an administrator. I believe that the use of "midair" is the more commonly used and the Google search gives midair as the most common usage. The same spelling is also used by U.S. Navy, the USAF, the U.S. Patent Office, the U.S. Air National Guard, The Canadian Transportation Safety Board, Transport Canada, the Associated Press, AVweb News service, Pravda, the Guardian (UK), CNN, BBC, Swiss Air Traffic Control, U.S. Government Documents Office, Australian government publications and on and on... Where "mid-air" is used is in nonofficial documents and some newspapers. I have not abiding interest one way or the other but I think the case was made as an official usage overwhelmingly uses one spelling variation. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the case has been made that neither spelling is dominant; as 199 pointed out, Google search ignores the hyphen and counts things in the URL. Hyphen deletion in English is a common spelling change and fairly uncontroversial; note that the NTSB has not enforced one spelling over the other. I opposing moving this, as it's a complete waste of time to do so.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contested move request

message: The image :Image:W780925-1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:W780925-1.jpg

message: The picture that is currently at the top of the page is somewhat unclear in a thumbnail.  Besides, shouldn't there be a picture that will both show the results of a mid-air collision (instead of the scene immediately before the collision) and attract users to this page, such as the image of PSA Flight 182 about to crash that, until some time ago, did head the page?
Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: -Never mind, fixed it myself :-D --Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear picture 

message: This section is seriously underlinked and underfilled.  This should be fixed RIGHT NOW.  I'm going as fast as I can, but I'm going to need a lot of help here. --Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major problem 

message: Should collisions in space (i.e. 2009 satellite collision) be counted as "mid-air collisions"? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 19:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think satellite collisions are a diferent thing. 87.83.31.234 (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collisions in space 

message: Here is one to add.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfuUvfxWrWM
"The two Beauforts A9-27 and A9-268, of the RAAF's 8 OTU, collided over Jervis Bay on 14 April 1943 while performing a 'Prince of Wales' break for people of the media."  Flightsoffancy (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes, that's quite famous piece of footage in my part of the world but I admit I didn't know where it occurred or what unit was involved.  We should aim to cite the information to somewhere other than YouTube, however -- will see what I can find if no-one beats me to it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mid air crash of 2x Bristol Beaforts,  

message: At the time of starting this section, the article is missing some essential information about the subject.
* Information about methods of avoiding mid-air collisions is conspicuously absent. I'm not very knowledgeable about this subject (which is why I'm commenting here & put a template on the article; rather than try to research/add info myself), but I know this at least includes TCAS. 
* The history of mid-air collisions is not essential, but would be useful to complement the list. It may also be very useful in explaining how the impetus for systems like TCAS came about. 
*"Efforts to prevent military/civilian collisions in the United States" is an odd section for an article with so little information. This section should be incorporated into the history section when/if added. Otherwise it should be transformed into a section about military/civilian collisions, with information added to represent a global POV.
AHeneen (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacking essential information 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mid-air collision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061020000103/http://www.seeandavoid.org/ to http://www.seeandavoid.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061020000103/http://www.seeandavoid.org/ to http://www.seeandavoid.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Should this incident be listed in the "Military" section, given that one of the involved aircraft was being operated by a civilian contractor? Carguychris (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think it was OK in the main "List of notable civilian and military-civilian mid-air collisions" section. MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  2014 Olsberg mid-air collision 

message: This correction suddenly prompted me to ask if notable instances in fiction should be added, in a separate section. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: We could also link to the episode where it happened in the “See Also” section. --Aabicus (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  In fiction 

message: One just happened, can someone update the page please. I'm not Wiki-Literate. Thank you. Myth420 (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: In the table, two collisions are listed as May 20, 1958. The second one (over Italy) actually occurred October 22, 1958. 2603:6081:2400:A68E:24A6:34DF:EE71:E602 (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect date 

message: The XB-70 / F-104 collision is noted in an insert with a photo. But it is not included in the list. 2600:1700:42C9:2310:50D8:B52E:BBA8:225A (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous military midair collision missing 

message: Perhaps the list should be shorn off into List of mid-air collisions, so that this article focuses on the causes, effects, mitigations, circumstances of mid-air collisions, while the occurrences would be a list article like other aviation lists -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Support I agree PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Agree Sallie14916 (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate off the list?