Talk:Mohawk Airlines Flight 40

message: Reading what the FAA Airworthiness Directive has to say I think the valve was defective in design was not installed backwards?
And the replacement valve has to be insulated and the piping replaced with higher melting point Stainless Steel.
Mkouklis 09:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just got through doing some wikification to the article and making sure the links work but now that I've read the whole NTSB report I'm inclined to agree with Mkouklis. I couldn't see anything explicitly stating the part was in backwards, only that it was defective, its flaps were warped, etc. It appears that the only thing 'backwards' or 'reverse' was the airflow due to the defective part, not the part itself. Welcome any proof to the contrary because otherwise, while it's a worthwhile article, the investigation section wording would have to be modified and it negates the reason it was nominated for DYK... Cheers, Ian Rose 10:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The entry at Mohawk Airlines said it was installed backwards. - Blood red sandman 16:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So I see. Was that your only source for the wording in this article? Maybe the guys who wrote the Mohawk Airlines article misinterpreted their sources and it started there. I checked that mechanic's memoir and he didn't say anything about the part being installed backwards either. As ever in the wonderful world of Wikipedia, I'm not so much concerned with truth as verifiability and at this stage I can't see anything to verify it. I'll see what I can find from the Mohawk Airlines editors and if no joy there we'd better change both articles to something more in line with the NTSB report's wording. Cheers, Ian Rose 05:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'm going to go ahead and remove the information about faulty instalation from the articles for now, before it does any more damage. If a source turns up it can allways be replaced. Changing the wording from "installed backwards" to "failed" shouldn't be a problem since even if it was installed backwards, it still failed. Therefore, while slightly more vague, at least it isn't downright misleading. - Blood red sandman 06:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Installed Backwards?  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mohawk Airlines Flight 40. 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/20101201150810/http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR68-AG.pdf to http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR68-AG.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201150810/http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR68-AG.pdf to http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR68-AG.pdf
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) 21:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: I examined all 34 death certificates of the victims and added their names here. Each is listed with their year of birth.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.215.48 (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names of the Victims added (February 2020)