Talk:Aviation accidents and incidents/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Aviation accidents and incidents. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Death toll table ACRO does not match

The table of deaths per year given in section "Aircraft Crashes Record Office (ACRO)" does not match with the table on the site it is linked to (currently footnote 9, http://www.baaa-acro.com/Liste%20des%20deces%20par%20annee.htm ). For most years, the deviation is small or even zero, but for 2001, the table on the acro site names 1535 victims instead of 4140 as in Wikipedia. Probably, the ground victims of 9/11 were later taken out of this statistic. Since the list on the page is sorted by victims, here is the comparision sorted by year:

year	ACRO	Wiki
1999	1'139	1138
2000	1'582	1582
2001	1'535	4140
2002	1'415	1413
2003	1'233	1230
2004	771	771
2005	1'461	1459
2006	1'295	1294
2007	973	971
2008	884	884
2009	1'106	1103
2010	1'120	1115
2011	828	828

I did not check the number of accidents, though.193.52.24.11 (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The reason is that ACRO does not take into account all fatalities only those realated to "an event in which the aircraft has suffered such damage that it is not in a position to be used anymore and that it is removed from service" as metionned on their website. I think this should be mentionned on ACRO section as we can mislead this number as the total fatalities related to air accidents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.241.110 (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Lead picture is insufficiently captioned

Ladies and gentlemen, the picture of ejecting pilot in this article would never be adequate without a text describing of the person's sexual orientation, opinion on abortion and pet dog name. I hope you do read me so far) Wishes, Ukrained2012 (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Better? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Way better. I really appreciate your understanding. Ukrained2012 (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Statistics on ACRO

The numbers of accident and deaths per year seem to differ in various places on the ACRO website. For example, looking up the number of crashes in 2009 here:

http://www.baaa-acro.com/general-statistics/crashs-rate-per-year/

shows 162 of them. However the wiki linked PDF on the same website lists 133. Admittedly the PDF says "accidents" rather than "crashes" so one could take it to be more inclusive, but then that number should be higher rather than lower. I'm not sure what the reason for this discrepancy is, but I'd tend to trust the database search tool more. Also, the PDF only runs up to 2012. Does anyone have any deeper insight on this? I wasn't planning on spending much time on this page, but thought it deserved to be brought up at least. Laanders (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Intentional acts are not accidents - in the US anyway, and the US section mentions only incidents

I am not accustomed to seeing intentional or criminal acts defined as accidents. AirSafe says this is not the custom among the FAA, NTSB, and industry, though my reading of the Annex 13 reference does not seem to exclude them. Is this really the custom worldwide?

Also, in the country-by-country investigation section, the US section says the NTSB investigates incidents. Only incidents involving paid carriers under Part 121 and Part 135 (and international carriers under... I think it's Part 127? Part 126? I used to dispatch them and I can't remember!) are investigated by the NTSB, as are all accidents (except those involving intentional acts and non-fatal, non-commercial accidents). The latter are investigated by the FAA, and the former are investigated by the FBI, or at least that was the case in the mid 1990s. Non-fatal general aviation accidents were also investigated by the FAA as of in the mid 1990's. I learned this through several safety seminars given by the FAA and NTSB around that time. I know the FBI still investigates all intentional acts. I might have some of the details wrong, but generally this is how it's done in the USA. There are several investigating bodies, and incidents are very different from accidents. (So fix it, right?) I don't have RS right now though. If I have time over the next week I'll look into that. Busy US holiday yesterday - personal stuff... I'll get back to it. Dcs002 (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Incidents are explicitly defined and not really covered here

I just added the ICAO definition for incidents to the lead, but I don't see incidents covered in this article. I think we should either give some coverage to incidents or move the article to Aviation accidents. Dcs002 (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

In aviation an 'incident' is an event that may or may not result in an accident.

Death Toll + Colon heading? What's up with that?

I've never seen that on Wikipedia before, and I'm fairly certain that's not how an article's supposed to be written. Shouldn't it be formatted into a table? Or otherwise move away from having the death toll at the front of each paragraph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WidowXTracer2Cute (talk • contribs) 06:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

9/11 or Tenerife?

Um, ground fatalities don’t usually count (depending on the amount of said ground fatalities). Plus all of the flights involved in the 9/11 attacks carried less than 100 people (including the hijackers). What would be the best thing to do to make this less confusing? Tigerdude9 (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Doesnt appear to be confusing, clearly 9/11 was the largest loss of life in an aviation-related incident or accident. MilborneOne (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems perfectly clear to me. The articles name is "Aviation accidents and incidents". 9/11 was incident and Tenerife was an accident. - Samf4u (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

No. The definitions used in the article, including accident and incident, are solely in the context of civil air transport—that is, aircraft operated by passenger air carriers.—Finell 05:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with both MilborneOne and Samf4u about 9/11 being the real deadliest aviation disaster. Because of this, I have to do a lot of major editing involving a massive amount of re-numbering aviation disasters and a lot of trivia editing (if any). I have already done some of this major editing, but this is still likely to take a while. I apologize if this ends up turning out as disruptive editing, but hopefully it will make things less confusing and more clear. I’m nervous that this might backfire though, so if it does, than I am extremely sorry.Tigerdude9 (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

It would be better to seek a clear consensus on the matter before embarking on such large-scale changes. See my comment in the next section. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The 9/11 terrorist attack does not belong in this article

The 9/11 terrorist attack does not belong in this article, in my opinion. This article is about civilian air transport equipment malfunctions and crew errors. The 9/11 terrorist attack was the hijacking of aircraft and deliberately using the planes as weapons. The aircraft functioned as designed and the terrorists who took command of the aircraft did essentially what they intended (except the one failed attack that some passengers foiled, and crashed the aircraft in doing so).

If you want to talk about aircraft involved in the loss of life and serious injuries, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki come to mind. But, with the exception of 9/11, this article does not discuss the loss of life from deliberate acts, be they hijackings or military operations.—Finell 04:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The article currently neglects to mention, or adhere to, the exception given in ICAO Annex 13, "except when the injuries are from natural causes, self-inflicted or inflicted by other persons". As an illustration of this definition, the 9/11 attack is clearly incorrect. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Burninthruthesky: I respect your opinion, but as 9/11 always held this position for who knows long, I disagree. Plus, EgyptAir Flight 990, (which might have been a deliberate crash but is disputed), is discussed. Also, (I don't want to be mean/rude or anything) don't call United Airlines Flight 93 "the one failed attack that some passengers foiled, and crashed the aircraft in doing so." It sounds very disrespectful to the passengers and crew of UA93, excluding the hijackers. Tigerdude9 (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Annex 13 is a legal document describing a country's obligations following an aviation accident. For example, an investigation by the relevant authorities. The NTSB issued this statement saying they would not issue a report. If there are better reliable sources saying the attacks fell under the ICAO definition, the material should stay. I am not yet convinced.

P.S. the comment you quoted above wasn't mine. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Air Littoral Flight 701

Very minor incident with just 1 casualty. We're not covering every car crash either, even though those often have more victims. Randykitty (talk) 12:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Bit of a daft idea to merge it here but I see it has now been redirected to ATR 42 so presume that this request is void. MilborneOne (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I realized that, too, and reversed myself. The redirect has been undone, but that is indeed a much better merge target (in fact, no merging is necessary as the accident is already listed there). --Randykitty (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

List of accidents incidents on commerical airliners listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of accidents incidents on commerical airliners. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Colonies Chris (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Lockheed L-188 Electra

The Lockheed L-188 Electra had a particularly poor safety record and perhaps should be referenced in this article.

Of the total of 170 Electras built, as of June 2011, 58 have been written off because of crashes and other accidents.[58] In an 18-month span, these accidents occurred:

February 3, 1959: American Airlines Flight 320 en route from Chicago to New York City crashed on approach, killing 65 of 73 on board.[59][60]

September 29, 1959: A Braniff Electra (Braniff Flight 542) crashed in Buffalo, Texas, en route to Dallas, Texas from Houston, Texas. All 29 passengers and five crew members died in the crash. The Civil Aeronautics Board blamed the crash on the "whirl-mode" prop theory and in-flight separation of a wing from the aircraft.[61][62]

March 17, 1960: Northwest Orient Flight 710, en route from Chicago to Miami, Florida, broke apart in flight over Perry County, Indiana, in the second "whirl-mode" crash. All 63 people on board were killed (57 passengers and six crew members).[7][63]

September 14, 1960: An Electra operated as American Airlines Flight 361 caught its landing gear on a dike while landing at LaGuardia Airport. The aircraft came to rest upside down. There were no fatalities among the 76 occupants (70 passengers, six crew).[64][65]

October 4, 1960: Eastern Air Lines Flight 375 crashed on takeoff from Boston, Massachusetts's Logan International Airport, killing 62 of 72 on board. The crash was eventually determined to be the result of bird ingestion into three of the four engines.[66]

June 12, 1961: KLM Flight 823 crashed short of the runway at Cairo killing 20 of the 36 on board.[67] 96.242.191.180 (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Kolef96.242.191.180 (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Dont believe it is relevant to the bigger picture about the history of aircraft accidents. Unless you have reliable sources that the type was a significant milestone in making aircraft safer or a breakthrough in investigation technique. MilborneOne (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

This is a section for Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 which is getting an absurd amount of edits and revisions that are wholly biased and inaccurate. This page is about aviation, not geopolitics. There must be a neutral stance in all issues. And no, that neutral stance doesn't involve zeal! I have personally edited the MH17 section so that it sounds pretty neutral, taking an excerpt from the primary Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 Wikipedia page. Further discussions and talks of edits should happen, here. Mbman8 (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Statistics: Presenting Incidents Relative to Total Number of Flights Taken.

Current statistics show how the number of incidents/fatalities varies from year to year. How about also showing how these numbers compare to the number of total flights in a given year?

For example, 1971 and 1993 both had about 270 flight incidents. It’s highly unlikely however, that they had a comparable number of total flights.

If 1993 had way more flights than 1971 but still had a comparable number of incidents, then it means flying was way safer in 1993 compared to 1971. Having the tables/charts show the total number of flights per year would help make this more obvious. Tamedu quaternion (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Crash, not accident

I'm tired of using the word "accident" regarding transportation system fatalities. It's a loaded, political word used to dismiss deaths and injury as unavoidable and/or unpredictable. We need to stop using the word "accident" throughout Wikipedia regarding transportation deaths. It's already being phased out in news publishing best practices.

To keep the conversations in one place, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft)#Crash, not accident. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)