Talk:Comair Flight 5191

message: An edit was made that says "Clay called for rotation,[6] and the aircraft sped off the end of the runway."  In the foot noted article attributed to the Lexington Herald is written Did the pilots realize at some point they were on the wrong runway and decide to go for takeoff, perhaps because they were past the point of safely aborting? Or did Clay call for rotation because the plane had reached the designated speed, and the pilots didn't realize they were in the wrong place until they ran off the runway? (next paragraph) Debbie Hersman, a member of the National Transportation Safety Board, said last week she couldn't answer that..  Did NTSB release a tape or statement saying Clay did call for rotation or has the article incorporated a speculation by the newspaper?  It seems to me a different reference ought to be used.  If there is not a better reference it will be edited.  Mfields1 11:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if you reread what you have pasted here it seems to suggest that rotation was called for, and the newspaper is just speculating whether that was because they reached the appropriate speed or because they realized they were out of runway? Peyna 13:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd like to see where NTSB stated that "Clay called for rotation" or if they have released the actual transcript.  I doubt the actual transcript was released any time soon.  Maybe someone heard a press conference by NTSB stating "Clay called for rotation"?  Mfields1 13:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been unable to find any other reference than the article you cite above.  I just drew the logical conclusion from the reporter's statement, but I don't see anything to back it up.  However, it is unlikely the plane was going fast enough to gain any lift without some rotation, so is it a safe assumption that at some point prior to running off the end of the runway the nose was lifted?  Otherwise it seems it would have crashed much closer to the end of the runway and there would be more significant tracks in the grass at the end of the runway and in the berm. Peyna 15:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Peyna, please have a look at the slideshow at: http://www.heraldleaderphoto.com/multimedia/unfinished/journeys.html  I'm requesting this because of the 6th photo in the slideshow.  Since it has been pretty well established that the airplane was moving at somewhere near 135 miles per hour, as it got to the end of the runway it was near the speed required for rotation.  Did they pull back on the yoke or not?  We (Wiki) are not the experts but I think NTSB will be able to use the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder in timeline fashion to put the pieces together.  If Clay in fact did "Call for rotation" and NTSB has reported that, then it's fact and should be reported.  What we don't know is the urgency in his voice, for example.  If it was a "normal" voice, e.g. just Clay calling off speeds to Polehinke and stating "rotation" then it will be safe to assume neither knew anything was wrong, perhaps realy ever.  If on the other hand, there is some conversation, even a quick "ROTATION!!!" then maybe they learned at the last second.  I think it takes something like 2 seconds (on average) for the human mind to 1) sense something is wrong, 2) go through a denial stage that it is not happening, 3) accept that it is happening and 4) take corrective action.  In TWA Flight 157 the pilot aborted at just beyond V1, with the result that the runway was overan.  In the photo http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=255693  there are tire tracks off CVG runway 27L but when the terrain falls away one could say the plane "became momentarily airborne".  Of course that was never intended in this case, instead they were trying to stop the aircraft and because of running off the runway the and then over the embankment there was enough lift generated that the plane sort of glided down the embankment and skidded to a stop after the undercarriage was sheared off.  I'd like to see some additional opinions on this because the article indicates they intentionally tried to take off.  Intentional meaning "they never knew they had chosen the wrong runway" or meaning "they discovered they chose the wrong runway and decided to make a go of it anyway".  I think it is early to put in that Clay called for rotation without knowing the intention.  Mfields1 17:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Yes, all those factors increase reaction time.  There's a neat on line test for reaction time: http://getyourwebsitehere.com/jswb/rttest01.html  Maybe there's a better term for the whole cycle than reaction time.  What I'm suggesting is that an event like taking off on the wrong runway is not an anticipated event, whereas an engine failure would be an anticipated event.  In other words, when the pilots are accelerating down the runway they already know that if the engine failure occurs they must decide between takeoff and abort.  For the Comair 5191 pilots they most likely had no idea what was going on (ran out of runway because wrong runway was selected), but when / if Polehinke is able to recall accurately we might find out.  Edison, I didn't understand "IIRC" in your statement.  Can you let me know what that means?  Mfields1 20:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: IIRC is short for "If I recall correctly" when you remember some fact but cannot privide the book or magazine citation to check it, and do not wish to be called a liar if the recollection is faulty. Edison 17:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: What the Herald-Leader article also states is, and I quote, "Clay called for Polehinke to begin lifting the nose."  This is the newspaper's way of saying to the general public, which does not know what "rotation" means, "Clay called for rotation." This was clearly stated in an NTSB brief on the CVR transcript. I've removed the  tag as a result.--chris.lawson 01:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regarding the NTSB brief - is there a video or audio file on the internet, or a transcript of that brief?  If so would you let me know where it can be found.  I have searched and find no reference except the Hearald-Leader article.  If it was broadcast and you heard it, was it on CNN or something?  Mfields1 22:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The crash

message: I have been invited  to informally mediate on this page. This may well not be a good idea; you might find you prefer King log. I have no idea what this dispute is about; I have no preconceptions as to what it should contain; I have no experience of mediation. But if the edit warring continues I'm just as likely to protect the page :-). So... anyone in favour? Against? William M. Connolley 21:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main edit warring I currently see regards the complete victims list. (There was some earlier edit warring about whether certain fringe details were relevant, but that seems to have mostly died down).  Those editors arguing for the inclusion of the complete list (e.g. Mfields1, Paul venter, etc.) seem to be reasonable-yet-misguided folks, at least to me.  Just having a neutral party read over the relevant sections in the Talk page and assert that the consensus is against inclusion (and correct me if I'm wrong on that, please!) might be enough to stop the edit warring...  --Jaysweet 21:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the issue is premature for mediation.  Some people apparently are quick to jump for such things when discussions are still ongoing and have not broken down entirely. Peyna 22:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am hopeful that the brief dispute regarding the victims list is on its way to a resolution, but I am less confidant about the previous arguing.  I'm afraid that while it has been mostly quiet for the past few days, the issues at hand remain unresolved and those with opposing viewpoints are in no danger of reaching consensus.  In favor of receiving your guidance in the matter, especially with regards to certain policies where the interpretation seems to be a core part of the dispute. VxSote 23:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the important thing is to bring back the sense that we can be bold in editing this article. Hopefully we can find a alternative to deleting and reverting other peoples work and make this an inclusive exercise. Informal mediation will help bring back some much needed civility. Mytwocents 02:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  THings seem to be moderately peaceful today... I shall watch the discussion William M. Connolley 08:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We have all beat each other senseless... :-) Mfields1 22:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: ha ha ha!  Yeah, things have been going well the last two days.  Glad you could help us out ;p --Jaysweet 22:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation?

message: I still don't understand why any of the victims' names are being removed.  This article is only about the crash of a commercial airliner.  If there were not passengers it would not be notable.  Every one of the passengers and crew killed in this incident are notable because without them the crash is not notable. I also object to the use of victim over the use of casualtiy as victim has connotations of blame.User:Pedant 15:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There might be notable aircraft accidents without passengers, e.g. cargo aircraft accidents. (This article is about the aircraft accident, not about the passengers, is it?) An accident could be notable regardless of whether passengers died or not because of the causes that led to the accident. To determine the causes is mainly the task of NTSB. The focus here is more on how to avoid similar accidents in the future and less on the fact that passengers died, however tragic this may be. "Casualties" are not necessarily notable (think of car accidents, etc.; do you have articles about every person that died in a car accident, because of heart failure, etc.?). The death of a person is notable if the person was notable before its death but not necessarily due to its death. Since i'm most likely not notable to Wikipedia, my death also won't be notable (unless the circumstances are rather unusual). Should i ever die in an aircraft accident i won't insist on being mentioned by Wikipedia. Gerd Badur 19:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Every casualty is notable

message: Whenever I make a major edit to a controversial article, I always pre-emptively justify it on the talk page.  I added to the "Aftermath" section an article about Comair's announcement that the pilots were using outdated charts, and that they had issued a warning for their pilots to exercise "extreme caution" during the taxi to the runway.  I think this is significant only because of the announcement, i.e. if it were just that they had outdated charts I would not have included it -- but the "extreme caution" proclamation I think makes it a notable part of the aftermath.
(On a side note, my personal pov on this accident is that the outdated charts are an incredibly minor contributor at best -- part of the takeoff checklist is to confirm your compass matches the runway heading, and fifty bucks says that will be cited as the primary cause in the NTSB's report) --Jaysweet 20:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal view is that the announcement and email are probably more of a CYA / PR move than anything else, and probably tend to imply blame (at least as portrayed in the media) where it is not necessarily justified, much like the tower staffing issue.  It is however, a result of the accident, and I think we should include it in the aftermath section for the same reasons that we decided to include the tower staffing details there.  I think I might have also seen a comment in the media along the lines of a NOTAM would have covered any outdated info regarding the taxiways, and we might want to see if we can find and work that (or other statements) in somehow in order to present a more balanced view.  In other words, I don't want to imply that the pilots didn't have all of the appropriate information available to them when that hasn't necessarily been determined. VxSote 21:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't agree with you more, and in fact CNN has consistently frustrated me with loaded statements like, "the lone controller turned his back before the takeoff to do paperwork" (which is his freaking job people!).  If there's a NPOV way to assert that the pilots, updated charts or no, still should have been aware of which runway they were on, that would be great...  I'll see if I can't find something like you mentioned.  ---Jaysweet 21:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Okie-dokie, I added it.  Heh, actually, my last edit there feels a little pov...  But it's not the worst, so I'll let others fix it if they like. --Jaysweet 22:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I linked to the NACO airport drawing last week and it was correct and updated to reflect the taxiway change. If it is published correct, there would be no NOTAM issued. However, according to this page, Jeppesen didn't change their diagram until their "8 SEP 06 revision of the Airway Manual". I don't remember a NOTAM issued on that day, but I have no way of seeing historical NOTAMS. Still, I don't think one is issued if the published drawing is right. Could this be a problem with Jeppesen not being as current as NACO? Dual Freq 11:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, a NOTAM of some sort should have been issued if I'm understanding the construction properly. The taxiway re-routing was completed within the previous day or two, according to most of the news stories of the accident, which means that when the NACO chart was first issued, it was actually wrong, and therefore a NOTAM should have been issued explaining the differences between the chart and what was actually present at the airport. (Jeppesen's revision cycle, which is close to -- but does not match -- NACO's, disseminated the data in the first effective revision after the completion of the construction.)--chris.lawson 00:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The only problem I have is that the "new" Jep map matches the NACO one with A-7 on it that we downloaded and discussed here only days after the accident. It was dated 1 Aug 06 - 31 Aug 06. I'm thinking that the new Jep and the August NACO are both correct. I have no idea what the old Jep and the July NACO one looked like. I think they look like the image on the main page without the X on it. Meaning the taxiway with the X was open, but now (and the morning of the accident) it is closed. Dual Freq 00:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Added Comair's "extreme caution" warning to "Aftermath"

message: It is indeed Comair Flight 5191, not 191.  Comair uses four numbers for each of their flight numbers, not three.160.39.91.72 (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The pictures I've seen definately show a ground scar with some length, but I'm not sure if it was really 800 feet worth.  I'm also having trouble finding the 1000 foot number in the sources.  I think maybe it would be best to reword the article to something like The aircraft impacted the ground and came to rest about 1800 feet (305 m) from the end of the runway...  I suspect that subsequent NTSB reports will give a more precise description of the ground scars. VxSote 20:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where is the part where the aircraft was momentarily airborne, and that Clay called for rotation?  This "calling for rotation" is only in one published newspaper column.  Some persons have claimed this was stated at an NTSB news conference, but I would like to know how they could have called for rotation, yet "all three landing gear were on the ground as the airplane exited the runway"?  I feel the article compomises some things because the NTSB has not officially released the CVR transcript.  If someone can point out an actual transcript of the NTSB news conference I would like to see it.  I don't have much issue with the 800 ft vs. the 1800 feet because it is clear at the speed that the aircraft was going, the breakup would have been over a long section, when you consider some small parts would be on the ground where impact began. Mfields1 22:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've updated that section to make it a little more clear that the plane never left the ground; even if Clay did call for rotation, that doesn't necessarily mean that the plane actually rotated, so the two things aren't necessarily in conflict with each other. The NTSB may release more information that contradicts that statement, and if they do, then we can update the page accordingly. —LrdChaos (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If a plane never quite left the ground and slid 800 feet, (1800 feet vs 1000 ft) that is more like deceleration and less like a crash.Edison 04:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NTSB Press Release

message: All taxiways named "Alpha", is that really unusual, and looking at the chart it is not true. They have A, C, D, E and F. Are they not also numbered A-1 to A-7? Any opinions on the recent addition? FAA NACO diagram, shows taxiway names in case anyone has forgotten. Do we need to add the labels to the image on the page? --Dual Freq 22:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The official diagram you have linked, is not the same as what is at the airport.  Where "A" and "A-7" join the end of runway 26, the diagram does not show the additional taxiway in the actual photo.  In changing the runways they closed "A-7" to allow more footage in the setdown area of 22.  The taxiway that enters the runway, between the end of 22 and the intersection of 22/26 was supposed to be the taxiway to use; it will be up to the FAA or the airport or the map artist to explain why it was not on the map since it is clearly in the photo.  One guess is that the taxiway was less important when the taxiway that connected the (now closed) runway 15/33 was closed and 15/33 itself was closed.  Confused?  Probably Clay was too.  Mfields1 23:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Frankly, I'd really like to know who hired a British aviation safety investigator to take a look at this and compile a report on it. I can assure you it wasn't the UK government, nor was the NTSB or FAA involved. The point is, this guy probably has a very good reason (read: $$$$$) to find a problem. For him to state an "unreasonable risk" is present and to get very basic facts absolutely wrong (i.e., there are not multiple taxiways named "Alpha") is utterly irresponsible. Oh wait. We know exactly who did it. The plaintiffs' lawyers. Gleave will undoubtedly be called as an expert witness. Considering that the Global Aviation Law site is that of a law firm, IMO it fails the reliable source test and this addition should be stricken from the article. (It's no different than CNN speculating that the taxiway construction had something to do with it. Whether it's a reporter or a lawyer doing the speculating doesn't make any difference.) --chris.lawson 01:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suppose it would be a plaintiff's lawyer who hired this British aviation expert.  Does the taxiway matter anyway?  It has been widely reported that the government (in this case the local government, who operates the airport) cannot be sued.  By operates I mean maintaining the runways, etc.  The legal actions should not be a surprise.  I mean, these people lost their life, and others are dependent on them.  It would be callous to assume the attitude that "that's too bad" and ignore the loss of life.  Firstly we should all be concerned, as the NTSB will be likely to consider, what could have been done to prevent such an accident.  Will we be "safer" flying after they have made their study?  Hard to say, because typical for most accidents a chain of events or series of events occurred to cause the accident.  It's not the same as (for example) a mechanical component failure, where perhaps an inspection was not done properly, or maintenance not performed, etc.  Still, they (NTSB) will thoroughly look at everything and include it in their report.  It's always possible (not likely it would seem) that there will be some very tiny component that went wrong.  If that is the case then of course the plaintiff's lawyers will go after the manufacturers.  Typically though there is a shotgun approach to go after as large a group as possible, so that some of the defendants will settle outside of court and money will change hands.  Gleave may not have to appear in court, depending on how the lawyers make their case and how the litigants settle things.  In my opinion, an expert hired for something like this doesn't normally act in a responsible manner, only in a manner to get the results.  In this sense we are very lucky to have such an organization as NTSB where they will do a thorough job at looking at all factors even if they appear to not be related. Mfields1 00:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's all quite true, but you really hit the nail on the head with "an expert hired for something like this doesn't normally act in a responsible manner, only in a manner to get the results". That's precisely why his statement has no business in the article. :) --chris.lawson 01:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that Global Aviation Law did not have full access to primary investigation materials and artifacts, it seems all they're doing is stating what is obvious in retrospect. The "report" they compiled could be nothing more than a collection of newsclippings for all we know. It's pretty obvious to me that they're trying to advertise their services and I doubt these would be pro bono. I would place the quote somewhere between hearsay and spam. Askari Mark | Talk 03:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Taxiway, again

message: This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :
:1. Well written? Pass
:2. Factually accurate? Pass
:3. Broad in coverage? Pass
:4. Neutral point of view? Pass
:5. Article stability? Pass
:6. Images? Pass
Additional comments :
* Lead section adds new material and doesn't conform to WP:LEAD.
Lincher 02:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rightfully so, I just linked in here and it's fantastic. Maury 22:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA on hold

message: The required lead modification has taken place and the article now fulfills all the requirements for it to be of GA status. Lincher 18:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rightfully so, I just linked in here and it's fantastic. Maury 22:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA passed

message: According to the article "Human Factors Issues Key in Comair Flight 5191 Probe" in Aviation Week & Space Technology, dated 09/04/2006, the closed taxiway between runways 22 and 26 is the one indicated by the article here as "desired", and the taxiway the crew should have taken is the one indicated by the article here as "closed".
Enduser 19:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The aerial photo on this page is correct, there are several proofs linked in the archives. To summarize them, I looked at all of the post accident images (on yahoo news) and linked several in the archives. They all show the taxiway with the X as being the one that was closed and the desired one as the one that was open. The big change at the airfield was moving the approach threshold of runway 22. This move made the X'd out taxiway no longer intersect the runway proper. Any aircraft using the X'd taxiway would have entered an area that was no longer part of the runway. The desired route on the diagram is correct. --Dual Freq 19:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Error in runway diagram

message: The NTSB has just made a release stating that it will open a public docket into the accident in January 2007, and expects to close the investigation shortly after. I will add this to the article tomorrow, I have just run out of time today. Blood red sandman 19:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But I did manage to grab five minutes to say that, since this is a good article, and one that took a lot of effort (apreciation should go here to the many editors who got this article to high standard) to get there. Therefore before we just shove in new information, I'm gonna give this 24 hours for anyone to comment on the issue of putting this in, but it's a really minor adition and I don't anticipate a problem. All going well it will go in tomorrow without anyone having to say anything here. - Blood red sandman 23:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fine to add a brief update as to when the release is planned. Askari Mark | Talk 01:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must admit I agree. I'm going ahead and adding it. Blood red sandman 11:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the way to be bold! ;-) Askari Mark | Talk 02:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NTSB release

message: This New York Times article says, in part:
:Captain Clay followed the normal takeoff routine. He noted when the plane’s speed reached 100 knots, or 115 miles per hour. Then he said, “rotate,” the signal for Mr. Polehinke to begin liftoff.
Maybe it's just my mind playing tricks on me, but it sure sounds like they're implying "rotate" was said a whole lot earlier than 138 knots. Can anyone else find a source that's a bit more explicit about this? The AP has wire stories all over the place now but they don't seem to be saying much about this bit. What would really be useful would be the NTSB actually putting this stuff on their site, but if it's there, I can't find it.--chris.lawson 05:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference with timestamped CVR excerpts shows 13 seconds passed between the 100kts call and the call to rotate.  I don't know if the NYT article meant to imply anything or if they were just going over the sequence in a cursory fasion.  I don't think there's much to it either way. VxSote 22:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rotation @ 138 per Bombardier, but...

message: I received a very kind E-mail via the foundation from someone who has strong ties to one of the crew members of this flight. She kindly explained to me that there was misinformation in the aftermath section, which I have now corrected; please see this new source. Be careful in your wording of this article, as many people, including loved ones of those who were lost in this tragedy, are reading this article. —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 17:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aftermath section

message: Flight 5191 would have filed its flight plan as COM191, not as DAL5191.  Thus, I'm removing the DAL5191 designation from the article.  The reservations reference to DL5191 is correct, because Comair does not book its own Delta Connection flights.
For an example of how this works, check out these examples from FlightAware.  Try tracking flight DAL5190.  Next, try tracking COM190.  This concept will also work for Flight 5191 as long as COM191 remains in the FlightAware database (it's there as of today). Yayro 17:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Title of this article is wrong. It was Comair Flight 191, not 5191. Should be changed immediately. Mstuomel 22:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The title should be Comair Flight 191 or Delta Airlines Flight 5191, I'm not sure yet which one. Archtrain 20:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Technically, Mstuomel is correct.  However, most large public sources of information refer to this flight as Comair 5191, so it'd be confusing to rename the article "Comair Flight 191".  Folks familiar with the aviation business probably could make the connection between Flight 191 and Flight 5191 without a lot of effort, but the rest of the general public might not find that transition so easy. "Delta Flight 5191" is both incorrect and rarely cited, so I'd lean even further from that title. Yayro (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DAL5191

message: A long time ago when most of this article was written, there was dialogue about why the pilots would use the wrong runway.  There is an article written in the Lexington Herald that seems to show new information about the status of the runway lights on that day and a few days before:
http://www.kentucky.com/211/story/42385.html
Mfields1 01:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Runway Lights

message: There is some disagreement over the location of the crash. Both the article and Blue Grass Airport are clear that the airport is outside Lexington city limits, so the info box should say Fayette County, Kentucky, not Lexington. The first paragraph naturally should and does make it clear that we're talking about the Lexington, Kentucky airport here.--Prosfilaes 18:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The location of the airport is within the combined county-city of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County. Furthermore, Blue Grass Airport's location is unreferenced and unwholly inaccurate -- perhaps it was true before the city-county merger decades ago.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: To add, the airport is in the rural service area (RSA), not the urban service area, for which the boundaries should not be confused with the descriptors, Fayette County and Lexington, respectively. Just as it may lie in the RSA, that does not equate it to being outside of Lexington.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Location of crash

message: consider eliminating the chart of nationalities.  This can be summarized by text.  Also consider less of a diary style of writing (on September 12, ..... on September 14, .....).  Overall, an article that others have put a lot of work into and it shows! Archtransit 00:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: improvements?

message: Can someone please provide some references for the designation "Comair Flight 191".
* The NTSB consistently uses "Comair Flight 5191", never "Comair Flight 191"
* The BTI records the flight as OH5191, not OH191 or COM191
* The Courier-Journal calls it "Comair Flight 5191", never "Comair Flight 191"
* CNN calls it "Comair Flight 5191", never "Comair Flight 191"
* Delta Airlines calls it "Comair Flight 5191", not "Comair Flight 191"
* Even Comair itself calls it "Comair Flight 5191", not "Comair Flight 191"
In fact, not a single one of the references used in the article uses the designation "Comair Flight 191" (or "Delta 5191"). (A few of the aviation rumour sites use "Comair Flight 191", but even there it is quickly corrected to "Comair Flight 5191"; not that these are sites we can reliably quote from anyway). At present, use of "Comair Flight 191" in this article constitutes orginal research. 82.1.63.238 (talk) 06:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's absolutley no concensus in the archive and absolutley no reason to use Comair 191 in contradiction to all the references that use Comair 5191. 82.1.62.101 (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the specific section Talk:Comair_Flight_5191/Archive_1#Rename - Air traffic control uses the three digit original flight designation. The extra "5" is just added by the parent airline to signal that the flight is not a mainline flight. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I did see that section, hence my remark above: there was no consensus. And sources published since the time of that discussion, not least the NTSB reports, add extra weight to the arguments in favour of Comair 5191. 82.1.62.101 (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Flight number

message: I'm making a guess here that your recent edit here, and likely the creation of your account, was personally motivated.  If so, I'm very sorry for what you've had to go through.  No one should have to be subjected to that.  That said, no offense was intended in the reversion.  There were multiple, rather serious problems with the edit you made; it's nothing personal, and says nothing about your intent and does NOT mean that the content you added could not be included at some point.  It just needs to be done properly when it is, and there are literally thousands of people here willing to help you do just that, I'm sure.  I can only do so much myself, I've been editing anonymously on Wikipedia for several years, but only occasionally and I'm not exactly an expert on policies and procedures.
the key thing though, is that this actually IS an encyclopedia.  While I'm sure you feel very strongly about this, personal comments don't really belong in the article itself.  Here on the talk page, sure fine, whatever.  The article however, has to conform to a number of guidelines regarding tone and sources of information.  A few big ones to start with would be WP:NPOV WP:CITE and WP:OR.  Others that know more can help point you to others I suspect, I'm pretty limited in my policy knowledge to tell the truth.  Regardless, you may honestly believe what you said in the article is true, but unless there's a reliable, published source stating as much, it cannot be included.  I understand that you likely feel very strongly about this, but unfortunately your personal testimony would qualify as Original Research at best, and thus would not be allowed.
If Michael Ryan was included as an American Casualty in the statistics, it is likely to be because the sources used in compiling it listed him as such.  As we all know though, no source is infallible, this is why multiple sources are preferred if possible.  If a source supporting what you said is found, it will greatly aid in getting the information into the article.  In fact, it's likely that someone else might actually change it before you had the chance, in such a case!  I tried checking the most likely source, one of the articles that had profiles of all the passengers, but unfortunately the original is down and the archived version did not have Michael's profile included in the archive.
Finally, and someone else will have to explain this because I don't know how the code works myself, your addition to the statistics box, perfectly fine if backed up by sources, didn't work right, for reasons I'm not sure of myself as I don't know how the bloody thing works either.  It did pretty badly mess up the box though, which was actually the main reason I just reverted it rather than trying to edit it down.  I can't help too much with this one...as I simply don't know how.  Sorry.
Here's hoping this is worked out in the end in a way that satisfies everyone.  It'll be a damned shame if it's not, and I simply don't know enough to do it myself, or I would. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Darragh Ryan

message: This statement is totally irrelevant, and I suggest that it be removed:
This is the third accident involving a flight 191 in the U.S. The others were American Airlines and Delta Airlines flight 191.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gentleman wiki (talk • contribs) 04:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: Around halfway down the article I read "NTSB released its final report into the accident, citing this "non-pertinent conversation" as a contributing factor in the accident."
Ok, that sounds reasonable, the flight crew distracted each other by talking about something non-pertinent.  But "this"?  There is no mention of the conversation anywhere in the article (maybe there once was). The sentence should be reworded, or mention of the conversation put back in the article. Maproom (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: What conversation?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Comair Flight 5191. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929131211/http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060828X01244 to http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060828X01244
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060927075614/http://www.globalaviationlaw.com/pdf/faa_staffing.pdf to http://www.globalaviationlaw.com/pdf/faa_staffing.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080910073630/http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2006/a06_83_84.pdf to http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2006/a06_83_84.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Comair Flight 5191. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927222554/http://www.wsbtv.com/news/9743984/detail.html to http://www.wsbtv.com/news/9743984/detail.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120216135010/http://www.comair.com/comair/cdc.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=cdc_pg_0021&newsNodeId=%2FComairDotComRepository%2Fcdc%2Fnews%2F5191+Passenger+Manifest&_nfls=false to http://www.comair.com/comair/cdc.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=cdc_pg_0021&newsNodeId=%2FComairDotComRepository%2Fcdc%2Fnews%2F5191+Passenger+Manifest&_nfls=false
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070120070524/http://www.ntsb.gov:80/pressrel/2007/070112.htm to http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2007/070112.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080910073733/http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2007/A07_30_32.pdf to http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2007/A07_30_32.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080910073723/http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2007/A07_34.pdf to http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2007/A07_34.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071019111310/http://ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2007/070726.htm to http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2007/070726.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Comair Flight 5191. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120318081703/http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-kyedce/case_no-5:2006cv00316/case_id-50943/, to http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-kyedce/case_no-5:2006cv00316/case_id-50943/,
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120318081703/http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-kyedce/case_no-5:2006cv00316/case_id-50943/, to http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-kyedce/case_no-5:2006cv00316/case_id-50943/,
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120318081709/http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-kyedce/case_no5:2006cv00316/case_id-50943/, to http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-kyedce/case_no5:2006cv00316/case_id-50943/,
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Comair Flight 5191. 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/20110723173955/http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2007-SC-000602-TG.pdf to http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2007-SC-000602-TG.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114162749/http://www.baaa-acro.com:80/Dossier%20Photo/N431CA.htm to http://www.baaa-acro.com/Dossier%20Photo/N431CA.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Which sources are deemed unreliable in this article? I'm no seeing any that ring alarm bells. I propose that the tag is removed. Mjroots (talk) 11:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreliable sources?

message: I was immediately puzzled by the survivor's attorney claiming contributory negligence as a defence. Contributory negligence is a very specific and almost completely abandoned doctrine in tort law. Only 5 states still adhere to contributory negligence, and Kentucky isn't one of them. So I went to look at the references to the suit, only to find that the two I sought were both dead links. The references are part of a template, and I can't figure out how to delete these dead links. Toyokuni3 (talk) 07:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contributory negligence and dead links

message: What was the deal with the runways. Not just this plane had a problem with runway 22 and runway 26
Quoting from article: "In 1993, a commercial jet at Blue Grass Airport was cleared for takeoff on Runway 22, but mistakenly took Runway 26 instead. Tower personnel noticed the mistake and canceled the aircraft's takeoff clearance just as the crew realized their error. The aircraft subsequently departed safely from Runway 22. An identical occurrence took place in January 2007 when a Learjet lined up on Runway 26, but again the error was noticed and corrected before the flight took off."
Did this airport not have good maps or runway labeling? Bucky winter soldier (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: See the NTSB report. Polygnotus (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Runways