Talk:Pan Am Flight 214

message: I removed a section that stated that this accident held a  World Record for "most fatalities for lightning strike to this day". I followed the given link and could not find such reference. Also, see LANSA Flight 508 for an accident with more fatalities also caused by lightning (in 1970). Crum375 02:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World record 

message: Crum375, if you're interested in the Guinness Book of World Records entry regarding Pan Am Flight 214, visit this link:
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=53285
I don't know why LANSA Flight 508 didn't make the Guinness Book of World Records like Flight 214, but I am guessing it was because while more people died on Flight 508 when it was hit by lightning, the investigation ultimately ruled that it was pilot error, since the crew chose to fly despite the hazardous weather. In contrast, the investigation into Flight 214 found no evidence of pilot error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.66.184.134 (talk • contribs) 04:48, September 3, 2006
:While I see the Guinness entry and understand your theory as to Flight 508, I think it stretches logic somewhat. I can see the accident as a whole being categorized as 'Pilot Error', but then so are the vast majority of accidents. The Guinness record should be simply the actual event that brought down the plane, not the original poor decison making by the crew that exposed the plane to that event. When I have time I will dig deeper into the Guinness issue. Thanks, Crum375 07:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the reason is fairly obvious...14 of the passengers of the LANSA flight didn't die from the initial crash of the plane, but died awaiting rescue, thus the lightning strike didn't actually kill them. Ttony21 (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't know the medical condition of the passengers who survived the initial crash and died while awaiting rescue. From an aviation accident point of view, they were still killed by the crash, which was caused by lightning. By your logic, any passenger who dies in the hospital after a crash could be considered as killed by poor medical care, not by the original crash. We don't go into such details in aviation accidents — if you die from causes related to the accident within a few days of its occurrence, you are considered a crash victim, regardless of the quality of rescue efforts or medical care. Crum375 (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a look at the LANSA Flight 508 article on Wikipedia, and I think I found the answer as to why this incident wasn't designated as the highest death toll from a lightning strike by the Guinness Book of World records. The Peruvian investigation attributed the crash to two causes: lightning strike and pilot error. By contrast, the investigation by the Civil Aeronautics Board attributed the crash of Flight 214 to just one cause: a lightning strike. And003 (talk) 08:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a very old discussion, but I thought I'd add to it just in case it came up again- the current GBWW lists the Lansa Flight as the highest death toll caused by a lightning strike,  so I removed that fact a little while ago.  RecycledPixels (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  World record (Clarification) 

message: :Image:B707-PAA-Porto Rico.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:B707-PAA-Porto Rico.jpg

message: lightning discharge wick does not point to a section about aircraft protectors.  —141.150.23.67 (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information about aircraft protectors? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Pan Am Flight 214. 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/20130526222124/http://dotlibrary1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=%2AP%3A%5CDOT%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C120863.pdf to http://dotlibrary1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=*P%3A%5CDOT%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C120863.pdf
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120707104455/http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetGOJG/081263.htm to http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetGOJG/081263.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080827192334/http://dotlibrary1.specialcollection.net/ to http://dotlibrary1.specialcollection.net/
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) 21:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: In the "Aftermath" section, it states "The complete left wing tip was found a little under two miles (3 km) from the crash site." and in the "Investigation" section, it states "The wing tip had been found about three miles (5 km) from the crash site..." in direct contradiction to the previous statement.
Since the references given for these two sections are different, and the first statement references the actual accident investigation report, I'm inclined to trust the statement in the Aftermath section instead of the one in the Investigation section.  Can someone closer to this article decide which is correct and fix the article? Bz8x8c (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, both statements are correct.  The statement in the investigation section is based upon the New York Times article stating the investigators were telling them that the wingtip was found "about three miles away", whereas the final investigation was more precise with its 1.8 mile measurement.  However, I agree, having the different distances is confusing, so I changed the article to say that within a few days of the accident, investigators said they found the wingtip a few miles away, which I think is accurate to the sources without confusing the reader.   RecycledPixels (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction on Location of Left Wingtip 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
* 
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion