Talk:Comair Flight 5191/Archive 3

message: Wikipedia:Consensus has clearly not been reached, though the straw poll above has closed. Obviously, more discussion is required. Where shall we begin?--chris.lawson 04:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. My proposal, was that if one side "won" the straw poll, that a consensus be reached on how to introduce it while retaining a neutral point of view. That offer is still on the table, if anyone is interested, with all parties involved encourage to input their discussion. I'm interested in hearing both sides on this.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lack of consensus doesn't preclude adding text to the article. The page isn't protected.  I would not object to semi-protection to prevent rv's from anon's.  That being said, the page is open and free to make changes upon. Nothing is set in concrete. There are alternatives to deleting text one thinks is POV or objects to.  You can info that balances the statement.  You can tag it.  You can request that it be taken off the page after consensus is reached.  You can reformat the text in a new section.  The is much we can do, that preserves the work of previous editors and does the work on the article page, not behind the scenes, subrosa in an intimidating environment. We need to be inclusive, not exclusive.  Mytwocents 05:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't, but common sense, politeness, and Wikipedia guidelines regarding edit disputes do, especially when the text you're adding is so highly disputed. I find it interesting that you waited all of 35 minutes after the close of an informal poll, where no consensus had emerged, to unilaterally decide that you had "won" and restore the article to "your" version.--chris.lawson 06:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This shows the revision that chris.lawson made of my last edit. Just minutes after I made it.   http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comair_Flight_5191&diff=73521824&oldid=73520490  He simply undid everything I did, end of story. The wrong plane, the contollers actions, the pov tag, the reciprical runway.  Everything gone at one stroke.  Is this page locked from editing?  Is every edit I make going to be undone. Mytwocents 05:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's see some proposed revisions to the article and see if that gets us anywhere.--chris.lawson 06:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps now would be a good time to compile some proposed revisions then open an RfC to get some outside opinions concerning the relevance of these edits? --Sykes83 04:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've been bold and added the section, along with the significant result that the FAA has required a second controller to be physically present in Lexington and other towers with similar traffic levels. Note that, as Seicer said, this section is not to be used as a catch-all for anything discovered after the fact. For example, the pilots boarding the wrong aircraft is not aftermath of the crash. That it was discovered in the investigation is not notable because a) investigations always follow aircraft accidents and b) there has as yet been no relationship announced between this action and the crash. At such time as this action is found to have bearing on the crash, it can be added in the appropriate section (which will not be Aftermath even should this event be found to have significance).--chris.lawson 06:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: An open question to anyone: What relationship is there between the pilots boarding the wrong aircraft and this crash?--chris.lawson 06:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, it is not our job to decide whether a relationship exists or not.  The pilots boarding the wrong aircraft is a verifiable part of the sequence of the events that led up to the crash.  Whether or not these events had a causal relationship with the crash itself is irrelevant.  With all due respect, as I interpret your standard, we should also be removing the fact that the aircraft took off from the wrong runway from the story because the NTSB has not officially determined it to be the cause of the crash yet.  At this point, how can you prove that fact is any more or less relevant than any of the points that others wish to add?  As long as the facts are accurate, sourced, and presented from a neutral point of view, it should be up to the reader to determine whether or not they are relevant to the crash itself.  --Sykes83 07:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The runway was demonstrably too short for a takeoff. The manufacturer said so. That's a proven relationship, and it's cited in the article. There is no such citation for the pilots getting in the wrong aircraft, which is why it isn't in the article right now. At such time as someone can provide a citation proving the relationship between their boarding the wrong aircraft and the crash, I will happily retract my objections to its presence. I'll even go so far as to say it doesn't have to be the NTSB, but it does have to be a reliable souce explicitly stating a relationship between these two events.--chris.lawson 07:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What Wikipedia policy indicates that a source "explicitly stating a relationship between these two events" is required?  And what kind of relationship is required?  We know that the crew boarding the wrong plane and the crash both are directly related to Comair Flight 5191 don't we?  Whether or not they have a relationship to the crash of Comair Flight 5191 is not for us to decide.  It is important to consider that an article such as this one is about much more than the crash itself.  It is about the event of the crash, which includes the details leading up to the crash, the crash itself, and the aftermath of the crash. --Sykes83 07:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you agree such a fact has no place in the Crash section of the article?--chris.lawson 07:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it belongs somewhere in the article; however, I don't think it necessarily has to be in the Crash section of the artcle.  Would you be opposed to creating a new section before the crash section to detail the events leading up to the crash?  With this detail, and perhaps the detail regarding the recent change in the taxi route? --Sykes83 07:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still not convinced it has any place here (nor am I convinced the taxi route "change" -- which was merely a taxiway closure -- belongs here), because it still feels like judging probable cause to me, but it's a hell of a lot better than putting it in the Crash section.--chris.lawson 07:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Quoting from WP:NOR "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.  Including the fact about boarding the wrong plane in the crash section directly implies relevance to the crash, and I see that as running afoul of NOR.  The synthesized material may not be explicitly stated, but to me it clearly leads the reader to (A) wrong plane right before (B) wrong runway and crash, therefore (C) the pilots' earlier error had something to do with their later one.  I agree that it would be much better to put this info somewhere other than the crash section, but I also feel that it probably doesn't belong at all.  The exceptional care that WP:NOR dictates when drawing mainly from primary sources (as we are here) tells me that we should leave it out for now. VxSote 14:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This argument only applies in relation to WP:NOR if we stated the "therefore C".  As long as we only report "A" and "B," it is not original research.  --Sykes83 14:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like to emphasize the distinction between a pure fact and the implication that this fact was contributing to the accident. The way the facts were mentioned in the crash section implied a relationship with the crash (it stated "therefore C") that is IMO not justified according to the currently available information. I guess that some people would like to see those facts at least mentioned somewhere in the article because they (the facts) might have been contributing to the accident and because the media are reporting them. I tried to think of some suitable way to include them but i found this very difficult without implying a causal relationship. If included there should be a clear statement that it is currently pure speculation that the facts might have been contributing to the crash. But then, why include them in the first place? Why not include other facts that might have been equally contributing (or not contributing)? Do we really want to add a section "Possible causes according to speculation"? The disputed facts should be omitted from the crash section. I think they should also be omitted from the article in general until more information is available that justifies inclusion. Why can't we wait for some official statement from NTSB or FAA? Gerd Badur 15:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I feel i should clarify my above remark: The facts are not disputed but their inclusion is. Gerd Badur 15:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Flight crew boards wrong aircraft, flight crew takes off on wrong runway. They obviously weren't on top of their game that morning, hence the first fact is very relevant. -newkai t-c 21:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See, there you go making assumptions again. On what basis do you think this proves "they obviously weren't on top of their game"? Do you know something about the circumstances surrounding their boarding of the wrong plane that the rest of us don't?--chris.lawson 00:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the facts that you would like to be included in the article would have a better chance to stay there if you tried to negotiate an acceptable wording with the others on the talk page instead of editing the article while there is an unresolved dispute. Gerd Badur 18:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Just because there's a new section called "Aftermath" does not give you licence to insert unrelated facts. As with the "Crash" section, the "Aftermath" section should include events that are non-routine direct results of the crash; e.g. the FAA's widespread policy change that two controllers are now required to be present around the clock in towers with similar traffic levels. That the pilots got into the wrong aircraft is not Aftermath of the crash; in other words, they did not get into the wrong aircraft as a result of the crash.--chris.lawson 19:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus still has not been reached 

message: I propose the section, Aftermath, be added to discuss details found post-crash. Clawton spoke of adding violations of the FAA staffing policy. I would like to add to this, that other relevant details that are supported by known facts. While this could open up a list of unwarrantable edits, I think we can solve this by coming to a quick vote on a case-by-case basis.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been bold and added the section, along with the significant result that the FAA has required a second controller to be physically present in Lexington and other towers with similar traffic levels. Note that, as Seicer said, this section is not to be used as a catch-all for anything discovered after the fact. For example, the pilots boarding the wrong aircraft is not aftermath of the crash. That it was discovered in the investigation is not notable because a) investigations always follow aircraft accidents and b) there has as yet been no relationship announced between this action and the crash. At such time as this action is found to have bearing on the crash, it can be added in the appropriate section (which will not be Aftermath even should this event be found to have significance).--chris.lawson 06:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: An open question to anyone: What relationship is there between the pilots boarding the wrong aircraft and this crash?--chris.lawson 06:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, it is not our job to decide whether a relationship exists or not.  The pilots boarding the wrong aircraft is a verifiable part of the sequence of the events that led up to the crash.  Whether or not these events had a causal relationship with the crash itself is irrelevant.  With all due respect, as I interpret your standard, we should also be removing the fact that the aircraft took off from the wrong runway from the story because the NTSB has not officially determined it to be the cause of the crash yet.  At this point, how can you prove that fact is any more or less relevant than any of the points that others wish to add?  As long as the facts are accurate, sourced, and presented from a neutral point of view, it should be up to the reader to determine whether or not they are relevant to the crash itself.  --Sykes83 07:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The runway was demonstrably too short for a takeoff. The manufacturer said so. That's a proven relationship, and it's cited in the article. There is no such citation for the pilots getting in the wrong aircraft, which is why it isn't in the article right now. At such time as someone can provide a citation proving the relationship between their boarding the wrong aircraft and the crash, I will happily retract my objections to its presence. I'll even go so far as to say it doesn't have to be the NTSB, but it does have to be a reliable souce explicitly stating a relationship between these two events.--chris.lawson 07:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What Wikipedia policy indicates that a source "explicitly stating a relationship between these two events" is required?  And what kind of relationship is required?  We know that the crew boarding the wrong plane and the crash both are directly related to Comair Flight 5191 don't we?  Whether or not they have a relationship to the crash of Comair Flight 5191 is not for us to decide.  It is important to consider that an article such as this one is about much more than the crash itself.  It is about the event of the crash, which includes the details leading up to the crash, the crash itself, and the aftermath of the crash. --Sykes83 07:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you agree such a fact has no place in the Crash section of the article?--chris.lawson 07:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it belongs somewhere in the article; however, I don't think it necessarily has to be in the Crash section of the artcle.  Would you be opposed to creating a new section before the crash section to detail the events leading up to the crash?  With this detail, and perhaps the detail regarding the recent change in the taxi route? --Sykes83 07:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still not convinced it has any place here (nor am I convinced the taxi route "change" -- which was merely a taxiway closure -- belongs here), because it still feels like judging probable cause to me, but it's a hell of a lot better than putting it in the Crash section.--chris.lawson 07:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Quoting from WP:NOR "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.  Including the fact about boarding the wrong plane in the crash section directly implies relevance to the crash, and I see that as running afoul of NOR.  The synthesized material may not be explicitly stated, but to me it clearly leads the reader to (A) wrong plane right before (B) wrong runway and crash, therefore (C) the pilots' earlier error had something to do with their later one.  I agree that it would be much better to put this info somewhere other than the crash section, but I also feel that it probably doesn't belong at all.  The exceptional care that WP:NOR dictates when drawing mainly from primary sources (as we are here) tells me that we should leave it out for now. VxSote 14:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This argument only applies in relation to WP:NOR if we stated the "therefore C".  As long as we only report "A" and "B," it is not original research.  --Sykes83 14:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like to emphasize the distinction between a pure fact and the implication that this fact was contributing to the accident. The way the facts were mentioned in the crash section implied a relationship with the crash (it stated "therefore C") that is IMO not justified according to the currently available information. I guess that some people would like to see those facts at least mentioned somewhere in the article because they (the facts) might have been contributing to the accident and because the media are reporting them. I tried to think of some suitable way to include them but i found this very difficult without implying a causal relationship. If included there should be a clear statement that it is currently pure speculation that the facts might have been contributing to the crash. But then, why include them in the first place? Why not include other facts that might have been equally contributing (or not contributing)? Do we really want to add a section "Possible causes according to speculation"? The disputed facts should be omitted from the crash section. I think they should also be omitted from the article in general until more information is available that justifies inclusion. Why can't we wait for some official statement from NTSB or FAA? Gerd Badur 15:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I feel i should clarify my above remark: The facts are not disputed but their inclusion is. Gerd Badur 15:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Flight crew boards wrong aircraft, flight crew takes off on wrong runway. They obviously weren't on top of their game that morning, hence the first fact is very relevant. -newkai t-c 21:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See, there you go making assumptions again. On what basis do you think this proves "they obviously weren't on top of their game"? Do you know something about the circumstances surrounding their boarding of the wrong plane that the rest of us don't?--chris.lawson 00:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the facts that you would like to be included in the article would have a better chance to stay there if you tried to negotiate an acceptable wording with the others on the talk page instead of editing the article while there is an unresolved dispute. Gerd Badur 18:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Just because there's a new section called "Aftermath" does not give you licence to insert unrelated facts. As with the "Crash" section, the "Aftermath" section should include events that are non-routine direct results of the crash; e.g. the FAA's widespread policy change that two controllers are now required to be present around the clock in towers with similar traffic levels. That the pilots got into the wrong aircraft is not Aftermath of the crash; in other words, they did not get into the wrong aircraft as a result of the crash.--chris.lawson 19:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath 

message: The Chicago Tribune is reporting an off duty pilot was in the jump seat.  I had not seen this before, has anyone seen that?  Is the jump seat in the cockpit or in the cabin?
I'm not suggesting this should be included in the article but I was wondering if this is true?
I forgot to sign the post, but as a follow up, if there was an off-duty pilot is he counted as part of the crew or as a passenger?  The article would need a revision if so.  Mfields1 22:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure I recall this being reported very early on, but is it significant other than that he also perished?  He probably sat in the jump seat because the flight was full. Peyna 22:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: In the cockpit. Dan D. Ric 22:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jumpseaters typically count as passengers, because they are not performing an official crew function. (There are notable instances where jumpseaters have, due to in-flight emergencies, been asked to perform crew functions, such as United Airlines Flight 232, but even in that case, Fitch was still listed as a passenger on the manifest.)--chris.lawson 23:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  We don't know that it is significant or insignificant at this point.  If the jump seat on this aircraft is in the cockpit, the NTSB may consider it significant, not because the jump seat "passenger" was performing an official duty, but it may have been a distraction.  Obviously before I am taken to task (LOL) it may not have been a distraction too.  Mfields1 23:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It could be a factor, or it could be entirely irrelevant... It really brings up more questions than answers.  If he was a distraction to the crew, that would definately be significant.  Hopefully the voice recorder will allow the NTSB to make such a determination.  It might be worth working into the article if it can be done without introducing POV, perhaps in the victims section.  Of course, if the NTSB indicates that the jumpseater played a role in the crash, then it would belong in the crash section.  Yes, I do recall seeing mention of the jumpseater's presence on the aircraft during the first few hours after the crash. VxSote 23:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the NTSB suspected the jumpseater was a distraction based on their preliminary review of the tapes, I suspect they would have said something by now. I agree that if he was found to be causal to the crash that his presence in the jumpseat should be included.--chris.lawson 00:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: In an early press conference, Debbie Hersman from the NTSB indicated that the jumpseater was riding in the passenger cabin as a normal passenger.  She either implied or said directly (don't remember which) that his presence was not significant.  That is probably why you haven't seen much about it in the press. --Sykes83 00:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess that settles that.  VxSote 01:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Does anyone know if an off-duty pilot, riding in the jumpseat or otherwise, has ever been credited with preventing an accident by alerting the flight crew to a problem they had missed?OmarFirestone 13:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: United Airlines Flight 232 is a well documented case of an off-duty pilot assisting the flight crew during an emergency. VxSote 14:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Off duty pilot in jump seat

message: The egregiousness of the "human error" factor will create an advisarial public debate, the facts of this tragedy, as in war, will ultimately reflect the winner's POV.  Some recent exceptions are notable as such:
#O. J. Simpson murder case
#Rodney King indcident and ensuing riots
#The Tower Commmission Report exonerating President Reagan in the Iran-Contra Affair
#Warren Commission Report
It is interesting to compare the Talk Page Length/Article Length ratio of the above articles, on extrememly controversial topics, to this one.  (Not even the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict  is this large)  My question is how much of this disparity is attributable to this event unfolding in the "Wiki Age", and how much represents this (putative) case already already being tried "online".
Considering the tens of millions likely to change hands, it would make sense for counsel for the losing side to subpoena the log-in records kept by the Wikipedia Foundation to see if any jurors were prejudiced by the article we are writing.--OmarFirestone 16:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precedent for Reporting "Official Findings" that contradict "what everybody knows ..." 

message: I was looking ofr a bit of information on the 1993 incident and happened across this page:
http://www.personal-injury.com/practice_areas/Airplane_Accidents.asp
It looks like they have nearly copied everything from the Wikipedia page Mfields1 00:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tell those guys they're scum, but they'd probably sue me. No wonder people hate lawyers.--chris.lawson 01:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like a GDFL violation. WhisperToMe 01:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know very much of the GDFL, but I clearly see there is something violating it unless it was originally from the page, which is apparently false, as there are many unlinked [##]s on their text.  I really wonder what we can do to deal with such would-be illegal quotations as the page.--Akira 16:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed does appear to be a violation of the GFDL, mostly because the text is not attributed as having come from WP as a source. What to do about it, though, is a practical issue: ask them to add attribution mentioning the GFDL and WP as a source? Legal action costs money... and unlike most parties, they are especially well prepared, being a law firm. Bottom line: it may be impractical to pursue this further, given the expense and little return on investment even if successful. BTW, the Wikipedia page on copyrights. Only my personal opinion, and not affiliated with anyone from the Wikimedia Foundation. Dsf 15:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some lawyers, part 2 

message: Could we have a proposed wording for the article worked on here, on the talk page, and gradually (hopefully!) reach consensus?  Will be a lot easier this way, rather than editing/reverting continuously. --Oscarthecat 21:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I've been suggesting for some time now. Certain editors seem unwilling to propose and discuss changes, instead reverting to the text that has been previously condemned as being too POV.--chris.lawson 22:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed wording for the article

message: I'm a private pilot. I read many accident reports,  and I'm also doing academic research on the nature of "human error" and system failures. There's a lot of solid literature on what can be done to prevent errors from happening again in complex systems (nuclear power plant control rooms, chemical plants, hosptial operating rooms, aircraft cockpits). An example is James T. Reason's book Human Error. As I understand system failures, typically there are many small events which, individually wouldn't cause a problem, but together they are coupled in unexpected ways and result in the problem.  They are not "causal" in normal usage of that term, or the legal meaning of the term,  but they contribute to or are required for the error to occur. It's relevant because often these things are relatively easy to fix, which prevents new accidents, even though they weren't "causal".   Usually these things are so "minor" as to be viewed as "insignificant." The ability to spot which of these actually matter and which can be ignored is what distinguishes a high-reliability team from an accident-prone team.  (pause for breath.) These are hard distinctions to make, but relevant to what you want to include in the wikipedia article.  By going "upstream" of the accident, you can find many places where changes could be made, even if they didn't actually cause this event this time. For example,  a decision was made by some collection of people that it was safe to maintain airport night operations during construction, instead of closing the airport and reopening it when the construction was done.  Maybe, in some cases, that is not the best decision.  Similarly, the number of controllers in the tower and the amount of sleep the one had are very relevant to system safety design in general, even if they were not legally "causal" in this particular case.  If the purpose of this article is to assess legal blame and "fault",  probably anything not actually "causal" in a very strong sense should be included.  If the purpose is to help people prevent future accidents of similar types,  then anything remotely contributory  is  helpful and relevant.  If the audience is experienced investigators,  more information is helpful.  If the audience is the news media or an attorney seeking to take something out of context, that's a different question.  Whether something is "relevant" depends on your purpose. Take for example the location of the closed taxiway in the photo (source unknown).  If the runway signs weren't lit, and the taxiway markings had been paved over, and all the lights were out around there, then the pilot taxing the plane might have used a rule of thumb like "Stay to the right, taxi as far as you can, and when you get to the end, that's the runway."   Without the taxiway blocked, that rule would have worked but with the taxiway blocked, that rule would have put them on 26 instead of 22.  It would be a factor that didn't "cause" the accident, but one that "set the stage for it", as did all the construction in general. Maybe there needs to be two sections, one that wikipedia contributors see as possibly directly "causal" facts, and one for possibly "contributing" facts to this general class of accidents.   Number of controllers is in the second category legally -- it's not causal, but it could be preventive in other cases, and apparently was in an earlier (1993?) similar mistaken runway error.  
Wade 23:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said Wade.  I encourage you to be bold and write the article as you have expressed it on the talk page.  You can revise a older verison that has the bulk of the statements you have expressed and modify. Whenever I do it chris.lawson reverts it within minutes (Like here;reverted after 18 minutes) . We all need to make an attempt to make this article have all the facts, written in a balanced and fair way.  This needs to be done on the article page, not the talk page.  We need to assume good faith and be bold. The editors that have supported the inclusion of facts in evidence and statements from involved parties contained in news articles from the CNN, ABC News, AP and other sites, have been too timid until now.  If we all assume good faith, and work together, we can make this a better article.  We can build this page to be more than just a stub.(BTW, who deleted the stub tag?) Mytwocents 04:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Wade, while I can admire your drive to understand all aspects of an accident which have even the slightest chance of being relevant, I feel the need to reiterate that Wikipedia is not a forum in which to develop theories or perform investigations.  Right now, the majority of information available about Comair 191 is from primary sources.  WP:NOR dictates that contributors drawing predominately or solely from primary sources should be exceptionally careful to comply with both conditions (emphasis added), those conditions being that the resulting article (1) makes only uncontentious descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims.  This article is about an airplane crash.  It is very difficult to add facts to such an article without necessarily implying that they are relevant or giving the appearance of advancing a theory.  "All the facts" do not automatically belong in the article, especially when almost none of the facts come from secondary sources.  I'm sure the investigators do want to know a great many things, and I would like to know them as well.  But until the investigators tell us what those things mean in the context of the crash, there is a good chance they don't belong in this article.  VxSote 06:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nature of causality in system failures 

message: I'm probably kicking a dead horse here, but what happened to the whole discussion on naming of the article. 68.211.44.196 20:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion regarding the naming of the article can be found on the first archive page.  The concensus was to keep the Comair Flight 5191 name.  You can view the archived discussion there; however, if you wish to re-open the discussion, it should be done on the current talk page. --Sykes83 21:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: It has been published in many places that "the pilots noted during the takeoff roll the runway was not lit". 
Terry Williams, a spokesperson for the NTSB, told AFP. They "made some comments about the fact that there were no lights," Williams said. 
The conversations between the tower and the pilots only referred to runway 22.  NTSB has reported runway 22 was lit down both sides of the runway.
The Notice to Airmen is a separate fact.  I have not seen the notice published.  How do we know if they saw or read the NOTAM?  
Why do do you continue to treat this article as your property and delete factual information?  You are making the article into a biased article by deleting the facts.  The next sentence shows bias in reporting the pilots made no effort to slow the plane.  Are you trying to bias the article that the pilots knew they made a mistake and attempted takeoff anyway?  Mfields1 02:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Current NOTAM KLEX 08/007 - 4/22 RCLL OTS WIE UNTIL UFN. That's runway centerline lights. Nothing about edge lighting. Another one for TDZ lights and one for ALS on 4, but not edges. I don't know how to get historical notams, though. Dual Freq 02:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like to see a reference or NOTAM number that says 22 edge lighting was OTS. May as well remove the NOTAM statement if there is no ref. Dual Freq 02:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed.  Was published on this forum but want to see official publication:
http://www.aero-farm.com/ubbthreads/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=124256&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&vc=1
Mfields1 02:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I posted that above. KLEX 08/007 -  4/22 RCLL OTS WIE UNTIL UFN. That's center line lighting, not edge. It's still published, https://www.notams.faa.gov/ What of edge lighting. TDZ is touchdown zone. ALS is approach lighting system, nothing on edge lighting and they can't change 08/007, it said RCLL the entire time it was out. Dual Freq 02:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: At http://www.airnav.com/airport/KLEX  it says "Runway edge lights:  medium intensity.  Next line says MIRL RY 08/26 OTS INDEFLY . It has stated that since the day of the crash (I did not look any earlier) that Medium Intensity Runway Lights are Out of Service Indefinitely.  Since the crash was 08/27 it looks like per the NOTAM they were placed out of service the day before.  Since the runway info about 8/26 gives no information about a centerline light then there is no centerline light.  For the record, 4/22 has HIGH INTENSITY edge lights.  Also, the the runway info has the leading zeroes, I did not add it to start a debate.  Mfields1 02:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Edit conflict on this one.) Correct me if I'm wrong, airnav may not be current, but it says 4/22 has High intensity edge lighting and that 26 had medium intensity, but they are unusable indefinitely. To me that reads like a) take off from a dark runway, or b) take off from a lighted runway (edge lighted). Dual Freq 02:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: After reading your post about airnav, the 08/26 is the runway, not the date. Notams are not by date and there is not current notam for MIRL OTS, but that could be because it is now published that those lights are off, so no need for a notam. Dual Freq 02:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, AirNav's data source is the A/FD, and once data goes into the A/FD it's no longer published in NOTAMs (usually; NACO doesn't always get to it right away, but they do get to it eventually). That's why there's no current NOTAM saying anything about Rwy 8/26 lighting being out -- it's been in the A/FD for at least a couple of years (based on what reports have said about the duration of the outage).--chris.lawson 03:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: What I removed said, "The pilots noted during the takeoff roll the runway was not lit. A NOTAM had advised that lighting on Runway 22 was inoperative due to recent construction." The part about lighting notam is misleading because it does not differentiate centerline and edge. If a NOTAM is included it needs to be clear that the NOTAM said centerline. As for what the pilots thought. I wish I knew, but why would they have taken off from a dark runway with no lighting, edge or centerline? That doesn't seem common for a passenger flight to depart on an un-lit runway. The part about the CVR, was not referenced, did I miss the reference or was it in the next reference a couple sentences later? Dual Freq 03:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The pilots noting the unlit runway is in the AJC ref; that's from the CVR transcript (which I dearly wish the NTSB would hurry up and release). I posted the above before you removed it from the article, and as it stands right now, I agree with your removal. We need more information in order to demonstrate the relevancy of these facts to the reader. I know there's a connection, you know there's a connection, and in all likelihood the NTSB will mention a connection, but in order to spell out what the relationship is, we need a little more information. Once we have the sources we need to make the connection, I fully support this being returned to the article.--chris.lawson 03:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I cannot see that a significant majority voted to include. In addition, it was my understanding that there was rather broad consensus that, if the material was included, the wording should be changed so as not to imply a causal relationship with the crash. Gerd Badur 16:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Runway not lit 

message: Wikipedia:Editing policy explains where I'm coming from.  I suggest all the editors that have been working on this article read it.  All the reasons offered for deleting other peoples work from this article pale before the reality that there are alternatives to deletion. We can tag content that we disagree on, add text that balances a statement or place statements in a section, where they are a better fit. The Wiki editing policy is why I am an inclusionist, rather than a deletionist, when it comes to this article.
This policy in a nutshell: 
Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. However, avoid deleting information wherever possible. 
During this process, the article might look like a first draft—or worse, a random collection of notes and factoids. Rather than being horrified by this ugliness, we should rejoice in its potential, and have faith that the editing process will turn it into brilliant prose. Of course, we don't have to like it; we may occasionally criticize really substandard work, in addition to simply correcting it. It is most important that it is corrected, if it can be corrected. For text that is beyond hope we will remove the offending section to the corresponding talk page, or, in cases in which the article obviously has no redeeming merit whatsoever, delete it outright. The decision to take the latter action should not be made lightly, however.
With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, lest the original author be discouraged from posting again. One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work destroyed without warning.
I hope we can bring back much of the text that has been removed from the article, in the past few days. We can do the work of perfecting the article, on the page, instead of seeing our work chopped out.  None of the work that was deleted is beyond hope.  Instead of just one or two editors seeing thier work survive, we can have a wide range of people working to make this a better article. Mytwocents 04:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Perfection is not required

message: "The aircraft clipped the airport boundary fence, cleared a barbed wire fence, and became momentarily airborne after hitting a berm." I'm puzzled here - surely the aircraft was already airborne when it clipped the boundary fence and cleared the barbed wire fence. Was the berm before the fences or after?; and if after, did it get the aircraft airborne for the 2nd time?  Paul venter 06:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was poorly written.  The jet was never airborne.  The photographs show the terrain dips after the boundary fence.  There is no mention of the tire marks in the grass.  Mfields1 09:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Strange sequence

message: After posting the item on the talk page about Northwest Airlines Flight 255 I went to the page and cleaned up the article a bit.  Nothing was removed but the page was broken into similar sections like Comair 5191.  I read the NTSB summary of the accident and used that for the aftermath.  Then I started reading the full report, and got a bit of a surprise on page 9. .  Quoting from the report "During the taxi out, the captain missed the turnout at taxiway C".  Now that is just one sentence from the report and it is out of context.  The takeoff performance data from the dispatch report given to the crew was based on using either runway 21L or 21R (10,000 ft and 10,501 ft respectively).  But the controller told them to take runway 3C (located between 21L and 21R, opposite direction, and only 8,500 feet in length).  The crew checked the aircraft performance against the shorter runway length and verified they could use the shorter runway.  In the end, some proper settings not made and the takeoff roll was longer than normal (as reported by eyewitnesses).  There was much testimony from pilots in nearby aircraft about flap positions, etc.  Anyway, I mention this only because there are a lot of puzzle pieces to put together and many of the items continue to be gathered to get all the details.  Mfields1 01:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding missed runways 

message: Why don't we call for an admin to come in and clear things up for us? They can act as an informal mediator.  The way I see it there are 5 (yeah five) policies or guidelines, that are the bones of contention.
*Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
*Wikipedia:No original research
*Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
*Wikipedia:Verifiability
*Wikinews:What Wikinews is
An admin could explain with authority how each of these policies should be used in deciding what should be allowed to remain in the article.  So far most of the back and forth on this talk page has been strident, even shrill dogmatic statements about how wikipolicy forbids (or allows) knowledge to be added to this article.  The refreshing change with an admin discussing wikipolicy is that he or she will know what they are talking about. I have a particular admin in mind, but before I ask him to come by here, I would like to here from others. 
That being said, I would also suggest that we all take a second look at our own comments on this page. With a cooler head, I think some of us will want to delete anything that comes across as a personal attack. I intend to do this myself.  Sincerely, Mytwocents 03:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You go right ahead and call in whomever you want. Enjoy the consequences, by the way. Oh, and you're doing an absolutely horrible job of not working on this article any more.--chris.lawson 05:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clearly gotten personal with both of you.  Time for some more eyeballs. --Neurophyre(talk) 06:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's call for an admin

message: *Wikipedia:Citing sources
* (deprecated)
*, tagging a request for citation, used for quotaions that needs citations to make it complete, but not for seemingly doubtful or false texts
*, tagging a request for quoting inaccessible source, used for requesting a direct quote from the cited source for verification
*, tagging a request for source verification, used for information that is doubtful or appears false.
*, tagging a request for source verification, used for information that is doubtful or appears false.
*, popping up a box saying an article or section may have inappropriate or misinterpreted citations
*, popping up a box saying an article or section has not been verified and may not be reliable
*, popping up a box saying an article or section has no citation or reference for its information
als:Vorlage:Beleg
et:Mall:Lisa viide
el:Πρότυπο:Εκκρεμεί παραπομπή
es:Plantilla:Añadir referencias
fa:نیاز به ذکر منبع
fr:Modèle:Citation nécessaire
he:תבנית:מקור
it:Template:Citazione necessaria
ja:Template:要出典
lv:Template:Nepieciešama atsauce
nl:Sjabloon:Geenbron
nn:mal:kjelde manglar
no:Mal:Trenger referanse
pt:Predefinição:Carece de fontes
ro:Format:Necesită citare
ru:Шаблон:Нет источника
sr:Шаблон:Чињеница
sv:Mall:Källa behövs
te:Template:మూలాలు అవసరం
vi:Tiêu bản:Cần chú thích
zh:Template:Fact
--Neurophyre(talk) 06:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: See also

message: Maybe ihatepickles was a little premature in unilaterally deleting the quote -- one could make an argument either way -- but the comments in the history are already shaping up to spark a nasty revert war.  Please don't say "vandal" in the comment unless it's a case of bv.  That really bugs me.  I see it all the time.  The excuse is, "If it makes the article worse then it's technically vandalism," but I think it was clear ihatepickles was making a good faith edit even if he/she was a tad hasty.  Calling someone a vandal because you disagree with their edit just sets up a holy war.  Ugh.  --Jaysweet
:I tend to agree with the removal of the quote.  Imo, it didn't really add much to the article.  Even as a bit of human interest, as ihatepickles called it, I'm not sure we have a clear idea of the context in which it was said. VxSote 23:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's see, an "editor" named Ihatepickles makes (your term) a good faith edit.  We click on the user contributions and see nothing was contributed before or since.  We look at the user page and see nothing. It's likely somebody registered a new name solely to go to work on the article  (sockpuppetry).  Regarding assume good faith, This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. I won't bother to re-insert the quote.  At least it stayed in the article 24 hours which is more than a lot of the items that have been added to the article.  Mfields1 03:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of whether it was sockpuppet or a bad faith edit, it was hardly vandalism. Peyna 03:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Peyna. Feel free to have someone use Checkuser to verify it wasn't a sockpuppet, as I don't think Jay really has a horse in this race and thus has no reason to be engaging in sockpuppetry.--chris.lawson 07:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  chris, agree if you like with Peyna, but on 17:39, 31 August 2006 your edit was to remove the adjective "book" added to the Victims section by an editor at IP 130.49.219.93.  The comment you made was "rv apparent vandalism".  I apologize for not using the word "apparent".  I apologize for using the word "vandalism" instead of writing "rev edit by Ihatepickles".  I've seen other editors revert edits and call them apparent vandalism for unregistered users.  Still waiting to see what else "Ihatepickles" contributes to Wikipedia.  I have no intention of starting a war.  I have never seen a Wiki article that has more deletions in the edits (as opposed to minor rewording or removing possibly a word or two) before this one.  I am aware of the 3R rule so generally on Wiki I don't revert edits because it is ususally a waste of time, unless it is vulgarity, patent nonsense, etc.  Mfields1 17:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand by my assertion that this edit, which made no grammatical or logical sense, was obviously vandalism. Note also that the user who made it was not registered and has not contributed anything else to Wikipedia before or since, nor was there an edit summary. The edit by Ihatepickles not only had an edit summary, but the edit summary explained exactly the reasoning for deleting what was removed. The two edits are in no way comparable. Do not attempt to confuse the issue here.--chris.lawson 18:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't call someone a vandal when it's obviously a [[WP:AGF|good faith edit]] 

message: The section says "During the course of the investigation, the FAA discovered that tower staffing levels...".  Did the NTSB's investigation discover this or did the FAA discover this on it's own?  Generally the NTSB takes the lead on these accidents and has in the past, found a fault with FAA.  I believe this was why the NTSB was made independent - for investigating transportation accidents.  When the CAB did accident investigations (before the creation of FAA) there was one organization who coordinated aircraft accident investigations but they were not independent from the same organization with responsibility for safety rulemaking and economic regulation of the airlines.  CAB was in the Department of Commerce.  Has anyone seen a reference for who "discovered" the tower staffing discrepancy?  The FAA has admitted they violated their own policy, but did they report themselves to the NTSB or just go ahead and issue the statement concurrent with reporting their own violation?  The Aftermath section makes it seem like FAA is conducting the investigation.  There is no mention of NTSB.  NTSB is in a position to provide a more unbiased investigation than FAA.  Mfields1 18:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is surprising that the FAA addressed this problem on its own.  The FAA also recently issued some other new guidelines regarding ATC policies.  Since ATC personnel are under the FAA, and the FAA can't afford to sit around and wait for the NTSB to issue its findings in 3 years, I suspect they conduct their own investigations into some parts of the accident.  Perhaps a slight reword that the FAA found tower staffing levels to be inadequate, but point out that the NTSB is responsible for the main investigation.  It's not like the FAA is powerless and at the beck and call of the NTSB. Peyna 19:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most likely, when news reports appeared mentioning the lone controller, the FAA leadership investigated and then issued their instructions. Askari Mark | Talk 22:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath section