Talk:Ramstein air show disaster

message: Regarding this edit: I can agree with the Trivia heading not being appropriate, but the fact that the band Rammstein was named after the event and that one of their first and major songs is a tribute to the event is relevant and definitely relating to the event. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 07:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. I'm going to replace it, under the heading "References in popular culture". Blood Red Sandman (Talk)  (Contribs) 16:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's one more comment, which I trust will serve as final proof of the relevance of this section: at the article 1991 Hamlet chicken processing plant fire, which was recently promoted to FA status, there is a similar section - not one of the FA reviewers thought this was a problem (although one did wonder if it's format should maybe be converted). Convinced now? Blood Red Sandman (Talk)  (Contribs) 15:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rammstein relevance 

message: Well, here you go:
*All fair use images are missing fair use rationale for inclusion in this article - this should be remedied immediately.
*Why is "(Ramstein, county of Kaiserslautern, Germany)." added at the end of the lead in parentheses?  It's out of context.
*"Aermacchi MB-339PAN" - is PAN part of the aircraft designation?  It's used here and nowhere else.
*Ref [1] need only be used once in the Crash section, right at the end.
*"...and went to ..." - landed at?
*Emergency response section lacks citation, and should be written in prose rather than listified.
*"(80 km)" - firstly use a non-breaking space between the 80 and the km, secondly, is this mentioned because of the sizeable distance?  If so, bring that to the attention of the reader.
*Do something about the [citation needed] tag.
*"Better coordination and organization of the rescue efforts would probably have prevented some of the deaths. " - this sounds like original research to me.
*Citation needed for "The German authorities vowed to avoid such failures in the future and conduct regular large-scale drills using simulated disasters that involve all emergency services."
*Expand PTSD.
*Aftermath and references section need citations.
*Why translate 400 meters into feet and not translate any of the other units in the article?  Also, make sure to use non-breaking spaces as mentioned above.
*Again, use prose instead of listing out the new safety regulations, I think it's relatively easy to make that section read a lot better.
*External links need serious trimming per WP:EL - probably only need two, and definitely not the blogs.
So, primarily because of the issues with fair use images, problems with prose and lack of citations, I'm going to fail the GA at this time.  If the above issues are dealt with, please feel free to re-nominate the article for GA.  If you'd like any help with implementing the above then let me know.  The Rambling Man 07:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review comments 

message: John, removing the documentary of relatives of victims is not an option. Read them first or keep away. Guidod 18:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  deletions 

message: External links on Wikipedia are supposed to be "encyclopedic in nature" and useful to a worldwide audience.  Please read the external links policy before adding more external links.  
The following kinds of links are inappropriate:
*  Online discussion groups or chat forums
*  Personal webpages and blogs
*  Multiple links to the same website
*  Websites that are selling things (e.g., books or memberships)
Links which do not comply with the policy must not be included in the article.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: On April 10, 2008, editor Cynjut (Talk | contribs) made a number of changes, which added a new section, "Analysis". None of that section cites reliable sources. It speaks about research in the passive voice.  The section ends by saying, "...If the accident had occurred 50 feet east of where it did, it would have ... probably killed me." If "me" refers to the editor, then I understand why they would have expertise and passion about this topic. It makes me wonder if the entire Analysis section is original research, which is against Wikipedia policy.  I think this section needs at least a change to remove the "me" reference, and some citation of reliable sources which do the analysis. I'm leaving the editor a message on their Talk page. --Jdlh  | Talk 19:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research, esp in "Analysis" section? 

message: Personally, I feel as if the timeline presented on the article would better be suited for a table. Hence, here is my crack at it:
Time	Details
3:40	Start of the Frecce Tricolori
3:44	Collision
3:46	Fire fighters arrive
3:48	First American ambulance arrives
3:51	First American ambulance helicopter arrives
3:52	Second American ambulance helicopter arrives
3:54	First American ambulance helicopter takes off
4:10	German ambulance helicopter Christoph 5 from Ludwigshafen arrives
4:11	German ambulance helicopter Christoph 16 from Saarbruecken arrives
4:13	10 American and German ambulances arrive
4:28	About 10 - 15 ambulances arrive. 8 medical helicopters (US Air Force, ADAC, SAR) at the scene
4:33	First medical helicopter of the Rettungsflugwacht arrives
4:35	Doctor on emergency call over the radio:  "We are searching for burnt patients that are pulled and transported unaided away from us by the Americans. They told us nobody from them are here no more. Not all the injured people are transported away by helicopter or ambulance. There is total chaos around us and some of the injured are even transported on Pick Up trucks that are not leaving on emergency exit, they are driving beside the drifting visitors. It was a terrible sight to see people with burnt clothes and sagging burnt skin, squirming with pain of transfixed and shocked with pain on these vehicles.
4:40	First low platform trailer for transport of the dead bodies arrives
4:45	Second low platform trailer for transport of the dead bodies arrives
4:47	At that time the German headquarter for emergencies had no clue of the dimensions, obvious by the radio communication: "Yes, and that is the problem. We don't know yet what had happened, how many injuries and what else. The leading emergency medical did not send any feedback yet. He wants to have a synoptic view first"
5:00	At that time several medics arrive with helicopters. Later they said: "At the time we arrived shortly after 5:00 there where no injured people no more. We could see that the last badly injured people where loaded into American helicopters. We could see some Pick Up trucks with injured people transporting them away. It was not possible to find a officer in charge, a director of operations or even a contact person [...] so we got to the Johannis hospital in Landstuhl by own initiative. Asking several action forces, paramedics, police officers nobody could name a director of operations. I was asking for a managing paramedic of the operation to coordinate the evacuation. But there was none."
6:05	A ambulance helicopter arrives at the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center. The paramedic said later: "We found a large number of severely burnt, badly injured people absolutely unaided. [...] When I arrived in Landstuhl, severely burnt people partly lay on wooden planks and no paramedics where there. After I aided a injured person and left her with a hospital nurse that attended us at the flight, I was treating several injured people at the helicopter landing zone at the military hospital and did not see even one American medic there"
6:20	Dead bodies are transported away from the scene with the two platform trucks
6:30	A bus full of injured people arrives in Ludwigshafen (80 km away). A paramedic later said: "5 severely burnt people where inside the bus. There was no paramedic attending this transport. Just a not German speaking driver unfamiliar with the area, on an odyssey through the town until he was able to find the hospital."
If you support this format of display the timeline, please say so here. If you oppose, please voice your opinion and reason as well. I do believe that minor things like the header-text should be tweaked, but other than that, I think it looks much better than the fragmented way it is shown right now. Aly89 (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: . Please feel free to critique my modifications. Aly89 (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, seems someone made their own edit and added "1994 - The greatest band ever, Rammstein, started." Although I do agree it's a good band, I took it off anyway. --96.30.148.240 (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: This needs some work, in addition to reliable sources.  
# what is the Ramstein air show should be the first section.
# types of exhibits that were planned for this day
# pierced heart incident (what you have is good, great description)
# Bi-furcated Emergency response
::How did the poor emergency response influence the death rate -- didn't most of the victims die afterward? not immediately (except the pilot who hit the runway without a shute...)
# Aftermath -- 
::media feeding frenzy immediately aftward
::investigation, emergency response protocols revised
# cultural references, etc.
Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I added reference to a study on the psychological evaluations.  As to the setting, it was a normal airshow - might be able to find which demo teams were there.  I sold programs as a choir fundraises most of the day and finally stopped for a late lunch when the accident happened.  (I had seem them practice the day before at what seemed barely treetop level.)  The Germans came as much for American ice cream and sweet corn as for the airshow, except for the German youth model airplane club that was positioned where the lead plane went into the crowd - most local media frenzy was the loss of the schoolchildren.  Somewhere I have a photo of the aircraft wreckage where it hit the corner of a 'V' between two refrigerator trucks and stopped its further progress into the crowd.  And yes, most died from burns from hot jet fuel. --DeknMike (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: assessment

message: I was there on this sad day. I was standing approx. 50 meters left to the impact area of Ivo Nutarelli´s plane.
As i was trying to understand what had happend around me,i looked up. 
I saw two formations (the freece tricolori had a ten planes with three just crashed):
one formation of three with one plane trailing smoke and the others as escort heading for Spangdahlem airbase.
The other one of four flew in a missing man formation over the field. But i had the feeling then and now still i believe it
was a personal fairwell and not ordered by ATC or some other power. They flew much to high to be regognized by the the stuned crowd.
It was a private tribute to the victims of the accident.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.221.218.123 (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Man formation 

message: I tried to create a diagram showing how the disaster happened including the aerobatic figure (I guess that was requested). The solist is marked red, the two formations are blue, the spectator area is orange, the impact points on the ground are numbered.
Obviously, the size of the aerobatic figure is not correct, I don't have any figures about the size of it, so that is only a very rough approximation. 
I would be happy to get some criticism on how I can improve the diagram. --Julian Herzog (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Julian. Brilliant diagram, however as you mentioned the scale is wrong, in this way the size of the ground diagram needs to be reduced to about 60%, i.e. the loops are larger. There is a video where you can see the curves the planes took, relative to the ground. 67.180.156.92 (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested diagram of the aerobatic maneuver 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ramstein air show disaster. 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/20160304070839/https://www.caligari-film.de/2008/05/25/ramstein-die-flugtagkatastrophe/ to https://www.caligari-film.de/2008/05/25/ramstein-die-flugtagkatastrophe/
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) 02:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: " In January 1991, Werner Reith, a German journalist from the newspaper Die Tageszeitung, suggested in an article that the Ramstein disaster could have been caused by some sudden technical problem—or even sabotage—in Nutarelli's plane. No supporting evidence could be collected. Reith pointed out that Lt. Col. Nutarelli and Lt. Col. Naldini were supposed to know details about another air disaster, the 1980 Ustica massacre, citing Italian press sources. Judge Rosario Priore, who was investigating the case at the time, found that they were performing training flights nearby minutes before the Ustica incident, but he definitely rejected their deaths as sabotage. "
Am I the one one who finds this paragraph baffling? What does the pilot's potential knowledge about another air disaster have to do with whether the jet was sabotaged? What do training flights at a nearby base have to do with sabotage? This appears to be a collection of unrelated statements collected here for no particular reason, and without any obvious relevance to the rest of the article.
Also, the way the text reads you'd think the main point of this article is to bash the emergency response. No doubt there are many important and relevant issues that were raised, things that could have been done better, but it seems like the general theme of every section is "they totally screwed it up, see??" Is this the official position of the German emergency authorities? Is there universal consensus that the response was basically a comedy of errors, or is this just someone with a chip on the shoulder?
64.223.162.221 (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What? 

message: The first sentence states there were 300,000 people at the air show that day. Really?! Can this figure be verified? 30,000 sound more probable to me. 91.85.42.17 (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The number of 300,000 is correct, it's in the official investigation report made by the German goverment. 188.100.221.183 (talk) 10:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attendance