Talk:1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash

message: This sentence: 
Holland was the chief of the 92nd Bomb Wing's Standardization and Evaluation branch, McGeehan was the commander of the 325th Bomb Squadron, Wolff was the vice commander of the 92nd Bomb Wing, and Huston was the 325th Bomb Squadron's operations officer.
Could confuse readers without a basic understanding of AF unit structure, so i created a basic flow chart to help with any misunderstanding. Anynobody 07:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chain of command chart

message: Question to everyone: If the pilot flying flies the plane and the pilot not flying runs the radios, how is it that on the first two passes with the tanker that day McGeehan is heard on the radio as Holland flew and just before the crash Holland assumes the radios? This would indicate McGeehan was flying the plane in the steep closed pattern where it stalled.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Load Of Poop (talk • contribs) 11:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you really mean "low notability", or do you mean "uninteresting to you"? --Bongwarrior 12:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Look at the sources and they'll confirm that Holland's behavior and personality are at the core of this tragedy. The sources are very clear on this point. CLA 21:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *If you have something to share regarding Holland, please share it here. I would love to see some differing opinions. Check-Six 17:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. What a good and fascinating article! A tremendous read. Exciting, tragic and full of lessons. Very interesing. Very worthy of a Featured article and the excellence of the contributors. What a joy to read.WHEELER 17:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. --Haizum  μολὼν λαβέ 11:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Um sorry but opinions of Holland are not what this talk page are for. I suggest you take that to your personal talk page. The talk page is only for ways to improve the article Nil Einne 21:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that since the accident investigation board determined Holland's personality was a key factor in the accident, and that the accident IS the article, the principle way to improve the article is by gaining a better understanding of Holland. I flew with him on several occasions, and understand him as well as anyone else in the squadron did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.177.20.134 (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. This is an extremly fascinating "personality" story. If there is an explanation out there, may it one day surface. Marksmithhfx (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  In my mind, after carefully researching certain aspects of this crash, the explanation is clear: Holland requested a last-minute 360 around the tower, but misjudged the path of the aircraft which would have likely entered the area of restricted airspace had he continued at his original bank angle. When he realized his position, he reacted instinctively by banking harder to avoid the restricted zone, not realizing that this would result in an accelerated stall until it was too late. Boardhead (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to what I read on the web while researching for this article, Holland's supporters have a different theory about what happened during the 360 turn. They appear to believe that someone else in the cockpit interfered with Holland's piloting during the turn and therefore helped cause the crash. I believe some of the comments on this talk page are veiled references to this theory. Since there is no evidence, as far as I know, to support this other theory, it will probably always be nothing more than speculation. Cla68 (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a valid point, and I have no way of knowing who was actually at the controls. My explanation was intended to shed light on "why" the crash occurred, and not "who" caused it. So it is fair enough to read "flight crew" instead of "Holland" in my statement above, although isn't Holland ultimately responsible for the actions of the flight crew? Boardhead (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: wow

message: The second paragraph of the 'Other factors' section says "Pellerin, however, was unavailable for the flight on June 24 and Wolff was selected as the replacement aircrewmember. Due to the short notice of his assignment to the mission, Wolff did not participate in the pre-flight briefing and boarded the aircraft after the engines were started. Thus, Wolff was not aware of the planned mission profile and did not have an opportunity to raise any objections before take-off." But the second paragraph of the 'Crash' section says "The flight was also Wolff's "fini flight"—a common tradition in which a retiring USAF aircrew member is met shortly after landing on his or her final flight at the airfield by relatives, friends, and coworkers, and doused with water. Thus, Wolff's wife and many of his close friends were at the airfield to watch the flight and participate in the post-flight ceremony."
How did his friends and family have time to arrive at a special ceremony for his final flight when he didn't know it was to be his final flight until so soon before takeoff that he didn't even have time to review the flight plan?
Otherwise, indeed, an excellent article. 216.77.231.70 19:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what the sources say. It appears that Wolff actually knew that he was flying as early as the day before or at least early the morning of, but for whatever reason didn't join the flight crew until after engine start. Nevertheless, his friends and co-workers had sufficient time to set-up a fini-flight ceremony for him including having an official photographer and videographer present to document the ceremony (this is one reason why there exists video and photographs of the crash). CLA 20:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Is it possible that Wolff didn't know, but that everyone else did? ie. a "surprise" Fini-flight? I know nothing of this tradition, so I am only speculating here. Boardhead (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Safety observers aren't a part of the regular crew complement. While they're not required to attend any of the mission planning, they should attend the pre-flight briefing. As for the fini-flight, it may have been scheduled aboard another aircraft. However, the 325th was ramping down at the time of the accident (skeleton squadron only), so flights may have been few and far between, resulting in a last-minute change to marrying Wolff's fini flight with the pre-airshow dry run. Also, you'd be surprised at how quickly the word can spread for any similar event, as the Air Force is a fairly tight community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.177.20.134 (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: One seeming inconsistency

message: I just wanted to explain an edit I made, the edit summary is too short to really justify it. In this edit I changed some of the measurements in meters slightly. For instance, where it
said "2,500 feet (762 m)" I changed it to "2,500 feet (760m)".
Now, 762 m is a more exact equivalent to 2,500 feet, so why did I change it to 760 m? The measurement "2,500 feet" is clearly approximate, to about two digits of precision. Whatever source that measurement came from, I doubt they actually meant "2,500 feet, and not a foot more or a foot less." More likely, it was a few feet different from that (and either they rounded it off, or their own source of information was inexact).
Saying "762 m", though, implies a value a lot more precise. One very close to 2,500 feet -- closer even than the original statement "2,500 feet" was supposed to imply. That's why I changed it to the less precise "760 m".
I didn't do this for values in other sections; those values seem to have matching precision in their metric and non-metric forms.
Kudos to Skybunny for adding these translations in the first place. -- Why Not A Duck 22:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: excessive precision

message: Several photographs in this article are labeled "This photo was taken on a U.S. military reservation which makes the photo property of the U.S. government and thereby public domain, even if the photo was taken by a private citizen." This sounds, um, totally made-up to me. Is there any source for this theory?--Pharos 22:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps they are a tiny bit edited. This would make them copyrighted. --Ysangkok 22:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Me too. I'm not aware of any law making photos of U.S. miltary reservations public domain, only works of federal government employees conducted as part of their official duties. Dcoetzee 23:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo copyrights

message: Can we see it? Brutannica 02:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Search YouTube, it's there. - PatrikR 02:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Check-six site listed in the references section also has a video of the crash. I would have tried to put a copy of the video in the Commons and linked to the article but the technical issues were beyond my abilities. CLA 02:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Video

message: Beautiful article! It's odd, though, that there is no picture of Holland's while those of some of the other crew members is.
Still, beautiful article! 210.7.132.72 16:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure that photos exist of Holland, but I haven't been able to find any. Cla68 14:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Holland's Picture

message: I wonder, did Holland ever attempt to roll a B-52, like the famous roll of the 707 prototype? I had wondered when I first saw the video of this crash years ago whether he was attempting a roll (although it's clear when you think about it that it's just an overly steep banked turn, as described). A2Kafir 18:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Holland reportedly talked about trying it, but no evidence exists that he ever actually attempted a roll. I don't think he was trying to roll the aircraft when it crashed. CLA 20:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Holland? No. There was a rumor among the oldheads (Vietnam-era pilots) that someone had rolled a D model while dodging a SAM during 'Nam, but that the roll was inadvertant. The rumor had it that after a gyration or two, the pilot found himself nearly upside down and instead of trying to fight it, just went with it, instead, and recovered a few thousand feet lower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.177.20.134 (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Did Holland ever attempt, or intend to attempt, a roll?

message: ...because, if there were, the transcript of this crash would probably be public by now. A2Kafir 21:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering the same thing myself. In researching for the article I observed indicators that some people believe that there was an altercation occurring in the cockpit between McGeehan and Holland just prior to the crash. If there was a CVR that, of course, would help to confirm or deny whether this was true. CLA 01:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: B-52s did not have CVRs at the time of the crash. By that wording, I am not implying that they have them now. Shawn D. 12:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted. The AF neither confirms nor denies whether there are CVR on their B-52 aircraft. Cla68 14:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be argued that given the mission type of the B-52 and the high likelyhood of craft being downed during strategic bombing campaigns, that a CVR could be considered a mission security risk. That could explain why CVRs weren't (or aren't) considered on the B-52. Frankly, it'd suck if we lost one over wherever and the CVR survives and feeds the opponent with some idle cockpit banter about "We're going to be here again next week too"... --Mfree 14:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could perhaps be solved by encrypting a digital recording and making sure the key to decode it remains off-flight. 80.203.20.65 (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: I assume there's no [[cockpit voice recorder]] on B-52s

message: An image used in the article (:File:FairchildB52Crash.jpg) has been proposed for deletion on commons. See  --rogerd 14:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue has been settled. The image is in the public domain.Rsduhamel (talk) 14:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: image copyright issue

message: I would be interested to know the actual flight path of the plane, and its relation to the reported weapon storage facility (WSF). I haven't been able to find this information anywhere, but here is a satellite image from Mapquest [image deleted due to improper copyright] with my notes about locations of landmarks from a video of the crash (runway, control tower, water towers and buildings). Also indicated is my best guess at the location of the WSF (the fenced area south of the runway). Does anyone have a reference which would give some of this information? Boardhead (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. My main question is the location of the WSF. I can draw the flight path fairly accurately on a map, but I don't know for sure where the WSF is. Also, maybe I'll switch to a Google Earth image because I understand their copyright better. Boardhead (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 250px|thumb|right Here are two screenshots showing the flight path from above, and from the point of view of the camera that took this video [perspective image deleted by bot - 2008-02-17]. The images display a Google Earth KML file where I have calculated the approximate flight path based on landmarks and flying time at the airspeeds specified in the article. (To view the KML file, download and open with Google Earth) Boardhead (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is your question really "Where is the WSF?" or "Where did the impact actually occur?" I won't answer the former, but the answer to the latter is: between the leftmost two buildings in your orange-shaded area and S. Arizona Avenue. EDIT -- I was editing while you were posting your flight path estimate. Your pin location doesn't continue the path far enough. Shawn D. (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments Shawn. Knowing exactly where the plane crashed would be good. I understand if you don't want to specify the location of the WSF, but if there was an airspace restriction in effect, this certainly could have had an impact on the flight path and be a contributing factor to the crash. I find it hard to reconcile the crash location you gave with the satellite images and the photos/videos from the event. Boardhead (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. Using Google Maps, I estimate the coordinates to be N47.6105 W117.6505. Also note that the description of the crash says the aircraft made it about 3/4 of a turn, whereas your drawing shows about 2/3 of a turn. Sorry if that still seems hard to reconcile, but you don't know the exact filming locations. Shawn D. (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Shawn, thanks for these coordinates. I had thought you had indicated a location approximately 300m further along to the north east. The coordinates are outside the shaded yellow area, and consistent with my estimates. The "Crash" pin on my map is the estimated location for the first contact of the left wing with a set of hydro lines. The crash debris would of course be further along, with the tip of the right wing contacting almost 2 seconds later (approx 150 meters at 145 knots). The location you gave is 180 meters further along the path, which makes sense if you are talking about the debris field. Boardhead (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I have updated the KML file with Shawn's indicated crash location. Boardhead (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: In hindsight, my question about the WSF was not the appropriate thing to ask. Instead, I should have asked about the location of any airspace restrictions. Perhaps this is a question that can be answered. Boardhead (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The USAF survival school is also in that area somewhere. Was it located in the same compound as the suspected WSF or was it in an adjacent area? Cla68 (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The school was, and is, in an adjacent area. You wouldn't do unrelated training in a WSF due to the danger to students and due to the need to keep the weapons segregated & secure (the whole point of WSFs). Shawn D. (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Another question, is that strip of white concrete above the suspected WSF a taxiway? Did the aircraft crash below, on, or above this taxiway as it is shown in the picture? Cla68 (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not a taxiway, but a long-ago-decommissioned runway. Zoom out on a satellite view and you can see it and other decommissioned runways and taxiways. If you take note of the coordinates I provided above, you can see that the aircraft did not crash on, north of, or very near this decommissioned runway. Shawn D. (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, in the video you can see the aircraft slice through some power lines just before impacting the ground. If the power lines and support poles could be identified from the sattellite photo, that might provide better evidence of the aircraft's flight path. Cla68 (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think I have identified the hydro lines from the satellite photo, and they are marked in the KML file I posted. They are very near what appears to be a hydro substation just to the south of the crash site. Boardhead (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Ah. I just found this reference, and now see the reason for Cla68's questions. The flight path indicated by this reference is not accurate (the turn-around is wrong by about 2km, and the crash location is off by about 800m). I was very careful in drawing my flight path, and it should be accurate to within 100 meters horizontally and 25 meters vertically with 90% confidence. Boardhead (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the images. I'm going to try to place one or both in the article. Cla68 (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WSF and its relation to the flight path?

message: I am confused by two examples of a similar sentence construction in the article, one stating, "The accident investigation concluded that the chain of events leading to the crash was primarily attributable to Holland's personality and behavior, USAF leaders' delayed reactions to the event, and the sequence of events during the mishap flight of the aircraft," and the other very similarly stating, "The accident investigation concluded that the chain of events leading to the crash was primarily attributable to Holland's personality and behavior, USAF leaders' slow reaction to the accident, and the sequence of events during the final flight of the aircraft." The phrases in bold seem to be attributing the accident itself in part to things that happened after the accident (which would be impossible; an effect cannot precede a cause). The text of the article, though, shows that the USAF leaders' reaction was to repeated violations of flight safety rules as evidenced by both direct observation by those leaders and by reports from crew members who flew with Holland. It would seem that the more accurate phrase to use would be something like, "USAF leaders' slow response to the evidence and reports of that behavior" or something to that effect.
I tend to be cautious when editing a Wikipedia article with such a substantial possible error, so I am posting this here in the talk page in hopes that possibly the original author or an editor with some experience can examine the issue. 170.141.56.4 (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see this as an inconsistency in the article. I believe this is an inconsistency in the enforcement of flight profile restrictions. Bank angles were officially restricted to 45 degrees, however Lt. Holland did brief a flight profile exceeding these restrictions for the 1994 air show.  The fact that the restrictions weren't enforced is is evidence of the breakdown in the chain of command. Boardhead (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There is a paragraph that begins "After that mission, the crew decided that they would never again fly with Holland". Boardhead (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's that. However, roughly half our squadron refused to fly with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.177.20.134 (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article and talk page errors

message: Looking at the view history for this article at Wikipedia article traffic statistics, I noticed that there was a huge spike in views of this article around Feb 3 and 4. Anyone know why so many people came to look at this article that particular day? Cla68 (talk) 08:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a quick forum search and didn't find any active articles around that time, but we can't just assume it was people who caused this spike. I have had some pretty outrageous spikes on my web server due to either errant bots or hacker attacks, although typically they are much larger when this happens (1000's of hits per hour, not per day). Boardhead (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It must be something like that. Interesting. Cla68 (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: View spike

message: The article fails to explain Bud Hollands background. How did a personality like him end up in a mud-mover B-52, rather than a fighter plane? This kind of aerobatic attitude is more commonly found and tolerated in fighter jocks. 91.83.18.103 (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I didn't find any sources that gave any better background of Holland's life than the sources used, and they only went into his personality and life in how they related directly to the crash. Was he a frustrated fighter-pilot wannabe? His life might make an interesting story if a journalist were to look into it and write it up. Cla68 (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason could simply be the way slots/billets were awarded to his graduating pilot class, which could be based on class ranking, the USAF's needs at the time of graduation, and graduate choice. One does not get a fighter slot simply due to a "fighter mentality." For example, if there were ten graduates and two fighter, two transport, two tanker, and four bomber slots to be awarded, 80% of the slots would be non-fighter slots. If the top two graduates both selected fighters as their first choice, the #3 graduate would not get a fighter, even if he/she had the "fighter mentality." Shawn D. (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's how it works, from what I've heard. From what I understand, the top graduates usually, but not always, select fighters. Bomber slots are next in demand, followed by airlift aircraft and helicopters. I guess Predator slots are in there somewhere now. Anyway, how Holland ended up with a bomber slot, and if he actually wanted to be a fighter pilot, is not detailed in the sources that I found and used. Cla68 (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong person in the wrong plane?

message: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQa4PpIkOZU&NR=1
Just thought you guys should know...
Cernex (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Video about the accident in youtube

message: Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 08:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=6898
** In 1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash on 2011-05-25 06:09:20, 404 Not Found
** In 1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash on 2011-06-08 02:26:00, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5566
** In 1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash on 2011-05-25 06:09:20, 404 Not Found
** In 1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash on 2011-06-08 02:26:10, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: Is it worth mentioning that Meg Holland, Lt. Col Holland's daughter, has become a massive posthumous advocate/apologist for Holland? She's a truly driven individual, and has posted literally thousands of times in various Internet fora arguing that he was "completely innocent" and "the victim of a political witch-hunt". She curses people who condemn him, demands his "name be cleared", issues dire pronouncements/quasi-legal threats about "people who slander the dead" and has, according to several USAF sources, attempted to use Lt.Col Holland's not insubstantial remaining human assets (i.e- friends) in the USAF to "ruin the careers" (not my quote) of several active duty USAF officers and pilots who have spoken out against him, particularly those on the incident investigation board. I've witnessed one of these, and read reports of many others.
I'm actually fairly shocked to not find her name here on the talk page, as she has basically dedicated years of her life to canvassing internet forums dedicated to USAF accidents, air crashes, or piloting in general. The term "driven individual" is a kindness; obsessed might be a better term. I'd imagine she's probably editing under either an IP address or a WP:COI username. I can't imagine a fire that burns that hot is likely to give up easily. Vintovka Dragunova (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: When I was researching this article, I found and read some of her internet posts.  So far, no one has attempted to take serious issue with the conclusions stated in this article besides the turning flight stall and the tailwind.  If her campaign on behalf of her father is ever documented in a reliable secondary source, such as a newspaper or magazine, it could be mentioned in this article. Cla68 (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meg Holland 

message: At 07:30 local time, the B-52 bomber crew prepared to practice the demonstration flight. And the B-52 took off at 13:58. 
Why the mention of the practice run? Did anything significant happen through the rest of the morning? Valetude (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The original takeoff time was scheduled for 1000L.  However, the Secretary of the Air Force and Rep. Tom Foley were at Fairchild to visit victims of the shooting at Fairchild's hospital four days earlier.  According to statements made to the investigation boardhttp://fairchildhospitalshooting.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/4AFD-100510-030Statements.compressed.pdf, the conjecture was that the practice was delayed until after her departure because of (a) a desire to keep unnecessary noise down during the visit, or (b) not performing the practice where the Secretary could see it out of concern she might object to what was demonstrated.  The Secretary departed in the early afternoon and the practice began soon after.  N9XTN (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timings 

message: I'm trouble by the use of the word "demanding" in the fourth paragraph.  This sentence, "The mission plan for the flight called for a demanding series of low-altitude passes, 60° banked turns, a steep climb, and a touch-and-go landing on Fairchild's Runway 23." is not right.  I'm not sure if it comes from the source at the end of the para, I have no way to determine if the words come from that source.  If they don't, I suggest changing the wording to, "The mission plan for the flight called for a series of low-altitude passes, 60° banked turns, a steep climb, and a touch-and-go landing on Fairchild's Runway 23.  
There's nothing demanding about that series of maneuvers. You can't argue the crash showed it was demanding.  A private pilot would be expected to be able to fly those maneuvers in his checkride.  Admittedly it is a big aircraft and the maneuvers would require more thought and finesse, but anybody with a little experience in a multi-engine aircraft ought to be competent to so this kind of thing.
That's my suggestion.  I leave it those who care about this change to consider whether to implement it.
Best, MF.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.210.115.100 (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Fair point. That adjective isn't really necessary and seems more like editorializing. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest Wording Change 

message: I am reviewing this article as part of WP:URFA/2020, and I am concerned that this article might not meet the FA criteria anymore. My concerns are outlined before:
*There are lots of paragraphs that have been tagged with citation needed, which I agree with. 
*There are sources in "Further reading" that don't seem to be used in the article. Should these be included?
*There is a "page numbers" needed banner at the top. These page numbers should be added. 
Is anyone interested in fixing up this article? If not, should it go to WP:FAR? Z1720 (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA concerns 

message: I've been looking at the sources. Can you tell if  in what's now the bibliography the same as  in what's now the external links? Or are these two different works by the same person? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fairly similar, but not exactly the same.  From a quick scan, the web version has a slightly different structure, and the names are real while in the print version, Kern uses pseudonyms (it looks like the pseudonyms are correct first names, with similar but varied surnames).  I haven't looked at both side-to-side to compare all of the material, but the text does look similar. Hog Farm  Talk 16:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  sorry to ping you when you're trying to go incognito but do you have a link to a version of the book or are you working from a hard copy? Good luck with the exams! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Kern