Talk:Comair Flight 5191/Archive 1

message: The copyright tag says "This is a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit." I don't exactly think putting this photo on a page about an aircraft crash promotes Bombardier's work in the media. Although it does illustrate the work in question. Any opinions? Perhaps Image:Lufthansa.crj-100.d-aclp.arp.jpg or Image:SkyWest-United Express Canadair CRJ-700ER.jpg although they are not ideal. Todd661 08:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely not either of those. Lufthansa is the wrong airline. The SkyWest/United Express image is not only the wrong airline, but not even the right aircraft type (at least a CRJ-200 is nearly identical to a -100, the -700 is notably bigger). Obviously, the best option would be a photo of N431CA, but I don't have any of those. I do have a photo of a different Comair CRJ-100ER, N941CA I could upload. Will do that tonight if nothing better is proposed by then. Oh, and new topics are supposed to go at the bottom. ;) -- Hawaiian717 21:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comair CRJ Image

message: The bullseye on the image showing the crash site may be incorrect; looking at the New York Times images it would appear that the crash site is much closer to the airport (right next to the buildings off the approach end of the runway).
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/08/27/us/27cnd-crash2.650.jpg
:The bullseye image is almost certainly incorrect; see below for more discussion of this. That's why I removed it from the article.--chris.lawson 06:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of Crash Location 

message: There appears to be articles in the media about this being the second crash involving a Comair plane within the last twelve months, that the parent company has also gone bankrupt in this period of time and there has been massive reductions in spending and staffing.  This information would be relevant to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.99.188 (talk • contribs) 
:Do you have a reference for the other crash? Do you have reliable sources that explain the connection between the parent company bankruptcy and this accident? We don't want to invent such a connection ourselves. Weregerbil 15:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mentioned a second crash within the last twelve months. I still can't spot it. There was a crash in 1997 which is older than twelve months, did you mean that one? What would be needed is a reliable source explaining the connection between parent company bankruptcy and this crash. We can't go around suggesting there is a connection if we don't have reliable sources saying there is a connection. Weregerbil 15:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Please read Wikipedia's policy on original research. We cannot report things even if they appear "obvious" to you unless we have reliable sources saying they are relevant. Weregerbil 16:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: yeah, but i think theres a pretty firm case that when an airline gets in money trouble one of the first things that suffers is maintnence. all that you need for proof is a generalised article about it to quote.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.165.8 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Make the case for that in the face of everything so far saying that this was not even remotely maintenance-related, and a fairly straightforward case of pilot error. Go ahead. I'll wait.--chris.lawson 19:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I fixed some spelling errors and made the statement more readable.  Mfields1 22:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comair history & investigaion 

message: Would it be appropriate to list as fatalities the two known crewmembers who succombed in the crash?  /Swank
:that looks like about what wlex18 is saying.
:yeah, list them. - Lexington Local.
::Done.  I'm not sure if it's best to list their positions on the plane (to differentiate them from passengers), but I did as follows:
::*Jeffrey Clay (pilot)
::*Kelly Heyer (flight attendant)
::*Less Morris
::
::/Swank
(victims listed)
No! not at all! how will we find out comprehensively if there are similarity's in coincedences. I think this kind of list would be a just contribution to wiki.
And since they are available now, it's best to list them now so we note when there are iregularity's, like the 2 japanese civilians, and other possible edits...
Victims need our consideration sometimes to be regognised. 
80.57.242.87 22:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fatalities

message: A google search showed some lawyers are already looking for victim's families
http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/airplane_accidents
Sorry, this is not with the Wiki policy to post on the talk page but it seems to be a sad commentary on the legal profession.Mfields1 17:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, i added another section about that on the page. :P -Lexingtonian
dang, gone already. well, this is what i added.
It looks a law firm that has as one of their specialities airplane accidents, and they have a list of other airplane accidents on there as well.  It's not surprising that they would include the latest news regarding airplane accidents.  Almost all states, afaik, prohibit direct solicitation from anyone known to need legal services in a particular matter.  Peyna 02:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The article doesn't currently state that (there was some bad math earlier, briefly) and every source I've viewed has 47 pax and 2 (of 3) crew dead.  I'm not sure what you are referring to... is there something I've missed? VxSote 05:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some lawyers

message: I made an edit in the section on the crash, changing "intense fire resulting in the crash" to "intense fire following the crash." The previous wording seemed confusing to me, in that it suggested fire broke out aboard the plane before impact which, according to the rest of the section and the news, is not the case. From what I've read it was crash, then fire. So I made the change. "Resulting from" would work, too, I guess. Plumbob78 18:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causation v. Result 

message: i'd like to introduce a motion to clear this talk page because it's getting pretty cluttered. if anyone needs to read past edits then they can look in the history, but right now this is pretty nuts. anyone 2nd the motion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.165.8 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-27T20:18:24
:Sorry, but no. You can halp matters by signing posts and posting in the normal fashion (new comments at the bottom, proper heading levels), see: WP:TPG & WP:TALK. Thanks/wangi 19:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: new motion

message: got more info on that. it was a bit past that white building with the black roof.
oh, and heres my signiture for the anal-retentive types that keep ruining the fun of this for everyone else 68.217.165.8 20:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: crash location

message: Anyone know what the copyright statis on the major news websites is? i'm wondering if we might be able to use those in our article.
i'm also wanting to get a more humanitarian strain in this article. what about all the other people that are not involved in this?
here's my sig for the ppl that ruin wiki
68.217.165.8 20:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Their status is "copyrighted" which means they are NOT, with very limited exceptions, fair game for use in this article.--chris.lawson 20:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, i know. thats why i'm saying lets find out what exactly that copyright issue is. there might be some images that are useable, or in public domain. also it might be that we just need to ask them if we can use their images on the wiki. could even be that we just need to link to the image and give them credit or something. 68.217.165.8 20:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find any images that are unquestionably public domain, or if you can get written permission, please feel free. I think you'd be wasting your time, though.--chris.lawson 20:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All major news sites have full copyright: CNN - © 2006 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. All Rights Reserved. FOX - Copyright 2006 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. ABC - Copyright © 2006 ABCNews Internet Ventures. All Rights Reserved. BBC - © BBC 2006. All Rights Reserved. NBC - © 2006 MSNBC.com. All Rights Reserved. They will not waive these rights for Wikipedia. Alexj2002 23:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images on news websites

message: I won't put a tag at top since it's a current event, but the punctuation should be standardised to appear before the citations, not after. Anchoress 20:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, good work. I came back to do it but it was already done. Anchoress 09:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I really like Image:Flight_5191_crash_site.png, but it has no source information, and so will likely be deleted from the commons. Can someone come up with a replacement? -Harmil 01:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind. I just saw :Image:Blue Grass Airport, USGS Urban Ortho, approx crash site.jpg, which will do just fine. -Harmil 01:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noted above that that photo show the crash site way too far away. See Here. Dual Freq 01:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The current image was uploaded as a replacement for that one. I presume the uploader created it himself, but he needs to confirm that (it appears he's new to Wikipedia and hasn't realised that we need source information yet).--chris.lawson 01:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep, I pretty much agree with that. I would have put it about 20-30 meters further east (right), but that's the general ballpark. Clearly, the crash image we have now needs to be revised.--chris.lawson 04:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I based my image on several sources at the time... at that point it was still 1/2 to 1 mile from the runway and various news shows were running sat images with the area matching mine. I'll updated. Thanks/wangi 08:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Comparing the cited photos with the current diagram, I concur that the approximate location is marked correctly, however it does appear that in the time since the satellite photo was taken, the two long buildings have been replaced, a number of trees have been removed, and some roads have been resurfaced and/or reconfigured.  These differences initially led me to question the accuracy of the diagram.  165.236.112.245 17:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram with no source 

message: That the NTSB has launched an investigation into this crash is not remotely noteworthy; their standard practise is to investigate *all* crashes involving loss of life. However, I didn't want to remove the line entirely because the NTSB investigation is arguably part of the government's response. It seems really silly to point it out, however, which is why I inserted "routine" in there in an attempt to emphasise the fact that this was a "standard" investigation just like any other. If someone has a better way of saying that, please do so, or remove the sentence entirely if you think that's appropriate. (Removal would be my favoured course of action.)--chris.lawson 01:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Government reaction" section 

message: I say it's notable to link to a list of airliners.net photographs taken of the specific aircraft involved in the accident.
:There's a link in External Links that does exactly this.--chris.lawson 03:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 50 people who, largely, apart from their status as victims of this disaster, are otherwise entirely non-notable. Number is irrelevant here; the criterion of notability is what must be applied. My heart goes out to the victims and their families, but the line must be drawn somewhere.--chris.lawson 03:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photographs

message: Can anyone confirm the spellings of the first responders' names? The New York Times article  differs from what we have here, and from what I saw in one or two other articles earlier.--chris.lawson 03:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spellings? 

message: I've nominated this article for peer review, as I think the core group of people working on this article throughout the day have done a bang-up job with it. Good work, all!--chris.lawson 05:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of what has been added has been deleted. :-) Mfields1 22:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: Can someone explain to me the relevance of the section on crashes of other airlines with the same flight number? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 06:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps its creator can? I think it's sort of dubious too, although it's awfully odd that that flight number seems to be so "jinxed" in the US.--chris.lawson 06:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed this section as useless coincidental trivia. Feel free to do the same yourself in future articles as this problem is unfortunately widespread and recurring. — GT 08:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's much more than useless coincidence. Flight number curses are quite a big thing. When a flight crashes, an airline (particularly in the US) will not use that flight number again for many years, if ever again. I do agree though that this article doesn't need a whole section on it. 81.77.202.210 13:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd section 

message: Has anybody read anything on what the airport's tower was doing/saying at the time? One would hope an alert tower would radio the cockpit well before any real buildup of speed. Perhaps it's a very small affair and they were preoccupied by a simultaneous flight? Might even be a story of staff cutbacks leading, at least indirectly, to these deaths, JDG 07:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Tower

message: There may be no connection, but here's a list of recent crashes of the smaller, private, Canadair CL-600 series aircraft.
From:
http://www.zap16.com/civ%20fact/civ%20Bombardier%20Challenger.htm
* 10oct2000    C-FTBZ    CL-604    Bombardier Aerospace    during take-off from Wichita-Mid-Continent Airport, KS USA the airplane stall at an altitude too low for recovery.    2 fatalities / 3 on board. 
* 04jan2002    N90AG    CL-604    Agco Corporation     crashed during take-off from Birmingham IAP, United Kingdom.    5 fatalities / 5 on board. 
* 28nov2004    N873G    CL-600    Air Castle    crashed out of control in take-off from Montrose County Airport, CO USA.    3 fatalities / 6 on board. 
* 02feb2005    N370V    CL-600    DDH Aviation    the pilot aborted the takeoff at Teterboro Airport, NJ USA, but the plane skidded off the runway. It went through the perimeter fence, crossed a highway and crashed into a building. About 15 people were injured, one critically, but nobody was killed.    0 fatalities / 11 on board. 
* 09mar2005    N660RM    CL-600    Romeo Mike Aviation    during take-off at Tupelo Regional Airport, MS USA.    0 fatalities / 7 on board.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.193.221.144 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 28 August 2006  (UTC)
:You're right, I really don't think there is any connection. Firstly that's a different aircraft, secondly this accident was caused by the pilot using too short a runway. The crashes you mention were caused by other reasons that could not have possibly caused this accident (for example N90AG was caused by icing on the wings, see Birmingham International Airport (UK)). 84.65.155.165 20:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's not really a connection, since this was an airliner, and those are bizjets operated under different operating rules. 132.205.44.134 22:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other take-off crashes by Canadair CL-600 series aircraft