Talk:Comair Flight 5191/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Number of Controllers on Duty

I'm not sure it is irrelavent. Even if it would not be his responsibility, a second controller might have prevented the accident and the lack of same is probably going to be cited as a contributing factor. Dan D. Ric 14:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This is pure speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and what you think is "probably" going to be cited as a contributing factor is irrelevant. Geoffrey Spear 14:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether my comments are relevant or not I still think the fact that only a single controller was on duty IS relevant. Even so, I merely suggested that that fact should be considered for return to the article, just for discussion. Dan D. Ric 14:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I had a feeling someone was going to argue this. And I quote [1]:

After clearing the airliner for takeoff, the controller -- a 17-year employee at the Lexington tower -- then turned around to perform a traffic count, and turned his eyes away from the plane, Hersman said, which was lining up on runway 26 for takeoff.

The controller was performing a routine duty not associated with radar services (which is the second duty that, according to FAA policy, he should have handed off to Indianapolis Center when alone in the tower). A second controller, had one been present, would have been tasked with handling radar services, and would (from my experience with controllers) probably not have been paying close attention to traffic on the airfield. As Geoff said, whether or not that second controller would have made any difference is pure speculation, and regardless, it wasn't the responsibility of any controller(s) to ensure the aircraft took the proper runway for takeoff. It's irrelevant. Do not let the media draw conclusions for you.

On a side note, this is what, the fifth or sixth "theory" that's been put forth by the mainstream media as to the cause of the crash? The NTSB will have the final say on cause, and as I've said before, let them have it. The media is not the NTSB, and just because a news story implies an association between a fact and the crash does not mean that we should.--chris.lawson 14:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to make one final comment. Just as it isn't our (or WikipediA's) job to decide what caused the accident, it is also not our job to decide what DID NOT cause the accident, and I think the fact that only one controller was on duty where FAA policy required two is significant information. The accident investigators will most certainly consider it and withholding the information from readers of the article deprives them of facts. Note that in no way do I wish to imply that the controllers are at fault. It is always the pilot's responsibility in the end. Dan D. Ric 15:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Darn it! I said one more and here I am again. If put back in the article this should be worded so as not to imply any direct resposibilty by the controller. Dan D. Ric 15:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If one reads the CNN article, it tells the tale. --FAA: Tower staffing during plane crash violated rules http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/29/plane.crash/index.html

From the article:

"The acknowledgment came after CNN obtained a November 2005 FAA memorandum spelling out staffing levels at the airport. The memo says two controllers are needed to perform two jobs -- monitoring air traffic on radar and performing other tower functions, such as communicating with taxiing aircraft."

The FAA should have scheduled a second controller for the overnight shift or should have shifted radar responsibilities to Indianapolis Center, FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said

There are some conflicts in the story. Some people at the FAA are quibling and saying two staffers in the tower wouldn't have made a difference, but to me that's a red herring. A specific letter to the very airport tower in question said, they had to have two controllers, they only had one, and a plane carrying 50 souls took off from a too short runway..... Mytwocents 15:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The NTSB may indeed find, or not find (for that matter), that the tower staffing was a contributing factor. However, it has been clearly stated that the controller was not responsible, and therefore it really has no place in the crash section, which describes the basic sequence of events leading to and including the crash. At best, tower staffing should be mentioned in a seperate section regarding unrelated fallout (the FAA got caught violating its own rule -- that in itself could become notable, but still not have anything to do with the crash) or something similar. For now, I still think it's best to leave it out entirely. VxSote 15:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

How about putting this in the crash sequence?;

The lone air traffic controller had an unobstructed view of the runways at the time he cleared the aircraft for takeoff from the longer runway. He then turned his back to perform a traffic count.

It just states the facts baldly without implying blame. I personaly wish someone had been looking straight at the plane, as it started its roll on the wrong runway... they would have had radio contact, and could have told them to hit the brakes.... but that didn't happen. I think the FAA memo that said two controllers were needed in the tower should be mentioned somewhere in the article, perhaps a different secton. Mytwocents 16:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not a final government report, so it is unreasonable to exclude verifiable facts which appear to have relevance to the accident. It is a current event, so a reader can expect to find information of interest, and if it comes from newspapers or FAA statements why exclude it? Seems very POV on the part of the censors. Edison 18:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

On one hand, we have media reports that imply that two controllers would have prevented this accident (speculation about a fact, not fact itself). On the other hand, we have reliable sources stating that it was not the controller's responsibility. We even have a statement from the FAA that "Had there been a second controller present on Sunday, that controller would have been responsible for separating airborne traffic with radar, not aircraft on the airport's runways." http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/30/plane.crash/index.html If the implication that two controllers would have prevented the accident is removed from the equation, then we are left simply with an unrelated fact. Omitting that unrelated fact from the article is about proper editing, not about censorship. VxSote 20:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

While we can debate all day on whether the no. of controllers on duty was relevant to the accident, I am 99% certain that one fact regarding this in the article is incorrect: It says that the similar incident in 1993 was spotted by an air traffic controller. It is my understanding that, in the 1993 incident, it was in fact the pilot, who realized during the standard pre-flight check procedure ("Visually confirm runway heading") that his compass reading did not correspond with the listed heading of the runway. Here is my source [2] --Jaysweet 21:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I am wrong... the report does say it was the ATC who noticed the problem and cancelled takeoff clearance. However, the crew claims they noticed it as well, which they indeed they should have if properly following the pre-flight checklist... --Jaysweet 21:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I just saw that paragraph was removed, so I thought I'd weigh in on that: I think it should be mentioned, because if FAA regulations were being broken during an air disaster, that is relevant even if the regulations in question had nothing to do with the accident. But, the way the deleted paragraph was written, it seemed pretty POV, pushing the idea that two controllers would have prevented the disaster (personally I think that is unlikely, since the 2nd controller would most likely have been staring at an air radar and not out the window). So yeah, maybe just a mention, but not some POV-loaded phrase about how the '93 incident was prevented by the ATC. --Jaysweet 21:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If anything, the staffing was changed because of the crash, in that suddenly the violation became highly visible and the FAA decided to fix it. But that statement is loaded with speculation and original research, and woudln't be something appropriate for the article. I'm not sure that the correction of one staffing violation is notable anyhow. If the staffing patterns at all towers were to be impacted, then it might be worth writing about, but still we would need to be very careful about how the information is presented. VxSote 22:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It's my understanding that having a single controller in the tower was not a violation of FAA policy. The violation came from the controller's failure to hand off radar services to Indianapolis Center (ZID) when the second controller went off duty. Policy dictated that when only one controller was in the tower, that controller should not be working both tower/ground/clearance (essentially, all local services) and TRACON. Even if the controller had picked up the phone and handed off TRACON to ZID -- in full compliance with the FAA staffing policy, mind you -- he still could easily have missed the aircraft's attempt to take off from the wrong runway.

Jay makes a very good point -- had there been a second controller on duty, it's extremely likely that he would have been working TRACON (since that's the whole point of having a second controller!) and would not have been looking outside. The local controller still would have had responsibility for traffic counts. So that changes the situation, well, not at all. (I'll also second his objection that the paragraph, as removed, was clearly not NPOV.)--chris.lawson 23:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that this incident is going to result in probably the largest airline civil liablity case to date. If anyone here thinks that the staffing is not going to be an issue and one that requires notation here they wold be very wrong.

It is rare that a major incident, hull loss deos not have several casual factors. We already know that one controller on duty represented a violation of policy. To say that the FAA breaking its own policy is represented by the FAA as not contributory and therefore does not belong here, is problematic.

Also the change in runway and paving is relevent. Among other things it newly placed the actual runway numbers behind any aircraft pulling onto the runway.

I think the fact that the pilot bears the responsiblity for insuring he/she is on the correct runway is not diminished by noting the serious contributory problems such as the new paving and employment of one controller where two were mandated.71.252.106.49 00:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is cited material being deleted from the article?

Vote on whether or not cited material about air traffic controller(s) and whether a timeline should be added to the crash that occured at the Blue Grass Airport in Lexington, Kentucky below. Poll ends September 2 at 23:59 EST.

Discussion

The flight crew had started the morning by mistakenly getting onto another plane. Initial analysis of the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder indicates the aircraft was cleared to take off from Runway 22, a 7,003-foot (2,135 meter) long strip used by most airline traffic at Lexington. Instead, after confirming "Runway 2-2," Captain Jeffrey Clay taxied onto Runway 26, an unlit secondary runway just 3,500 ft (1,067 m) in length and then turned the controls over to co-pilot James Polehinke for takeoff. The lone air traffic controller, who was working on only two hours of sleep, had an unobstructed view of the runways at the time he cleared the aircraft for takeoff from the longer runway. However, he turned his back to perform a traffic count. Based upon a takeoff weight of over 49,000 pounds (22,000 kg), the manufacturer estimated a minimum of 3,539 ft (1079 m) would have been needed for takeoff. There is no indication either pilot tried to stop the plane, which reached a top speed of 137 knots (158 mph or 254 km/h) before rolling off the end of the runway."Comair flight almost made it". Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retrieved 2006-08-31. The aircraft clipped the airport boundary fence, cleared a barbed wire fence, and became airborne after hitting a berm. It then hit a group of trees, separating the fuselage and cockpit from the tail, and came to rest largely intact in an area less than half a mile (0.8 km) from the end of the runway where it burst into flames.

All the information in this section is cited. Why is it being removed?Mytwocents 04:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

See discussion about ATC above. I removed the line about the pilots getting into the wrong plane because it didn't fit the way you had written it. I agree that fact is potentially significant and should probably be worked in somewhere, but probably not in the Crash section, since it isn't directly involved in the crash. (Then again, it's entirely possible the media is making a big deal of something that had no relationship to the crash whatsoever. Perhaps the pilots were given a wrong gate number, or tail number, or any number of other possibilities.)--chris.lawson 04:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Original research or speculation on your part. Edison 17:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I take serious issue with this sentence:

The lone air traffic controller, who was working on only two hours of sleep, had an unobstructed view of the runways at the time he cleared the aircraft for takeoff from the longer runway. However, he turned his back to perform a traffic count.

The mention of the controller's lack of sleep and the use of the phrase, "However, he turned his back" both imply that the controller is somehow at fault here. That violates NPOV and original research policy. At the risk of repeating what has already been said a number of times by the FAA, the NTSB, and other people on this page, it was not the controller's responsibility to ensure the aircraft was taking off from the proper runway.--chris.lawson 04:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

So you don't accept CNN as a reliable source? Mytwocents 05:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I accept CNN as a reliable source. Is CNN now reporting that it was the controller's responsibility to ensure the flight was using the proper runway?

I do not accept the conclusions you are drawing from their reporting as meeting Wikipedia's neutral point of view and original research policies. I thought that was clear. Do I need to explain it further?--chris.lawson 05:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, actually. Edison 17:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that censoring this article of facts which YOU feel are irrelevant, most certainly does not fall under a NPOV. Arrogance of the sort being displayed by you, should have no place in Wikipedia. Paul venter 16:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not at all arrogant to remove information that has been deemed irrelevant by reliable sources. Your edits to include such information are not appropriate. VxSote 16:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry the information has NOT been deemed irrelevent by reliable sources. Your implication is a tuatology.71.252.106.49 00:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That is simply not logical. One needs reliable sources to establish facts - relevancy on the other hand is a judgement call, and it seems that there is some bad judgement and a large amount of arrogance that goes with this particular edit Paul venter 17:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A couple of editors have deemed themselves the arbiters of relevancy. That is unacceptable, and anyone is free to make his own determinations, especially when consistent with coverage by mainstream media such as CNN or with information releases by the FAA. Editing is being done to remove facts which many editors of this artivcle view as relevant. Please do not make unilateral decisions to delete materisl which many view as relevant, notable, from verifiable sources, and encyclopedic, so as to avert an edit war. Lets negotiate in a responsible way.Edison 17:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No. We have deemed ourselves, as any other Wikipedian ought, arbiters of NPOV and original research. If someone can find a way to add in these (apparently unrelated) facts in a way that does not find fault where none has been found by reliable sources (and in terms of judging fault, I do not find mainstream media reliable, because they'll report anything that sells newspapers/website ads/magazines/TV ads, and will do so in whatever manner seems most sensational, without regard for whether or not such facts truly have anything to do with the subject at hand), I will be more than happy to let the edit stand.

To add a line to the "crash" section stating that the "lone controller on duty had his back turned" is unquestionably in violation of NPOV policy, as it implies that a) the controller was in the wrong, b) having only one controller on duty was in the wrong and b) these two factors caused the crash. It is impossible for these two factors to have caused the crash; there are thousands of airports in this country where there is no air traffic control at all, and pilots somehow manage to take the correct runway for takeoff the vast majority of the time. The controller's undivided attention to the flight -- which, again was not his responsibility once the flight crew accepted the takeoff clearance -- perhaps could have prevented the crash. But to say definitively that it would have prevented the crash is speculation and original research. To say that it could have prevented the crash...well, lots of things could have prevented the crash. Having two different pilots in the cockpit could have prevented the crash. Taking off an hour later could have prevented the crash. Having less than a fully loaded aircraft could have prevented the crash. Yet I don't see anyone trying to add explanations of these factors, which are equally important -- and all equally irrelevant, to that section. Describing the myriad ways in which the crash could have been stopped is not the province of a section discussing the crash sequence.--chris.lawson 17:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry Chris, you seem to have a misunderstanding of "NPOV." You are finding an implicationon of finding of fault in the statement of basic facts. By this logic no facts should be stated at all. The fact that there was alone controller is a very serious fact, it is hardly NPOV in any sense whatsoever.71.252.106.49 00:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you denying that it's an accurate summary of the CNN article? C'mon now! Do you want me (or anyone) to place the direct quotes in the article? Are you saying that's not what was said by particular parties? If you think it's NPOV then do some work. Add something from a reliable source that can be cited. Nobody has said would or could. That's a straw man argument. The lone controller did have his back turned! The CNN article says that, in the context of the crash. The flight crew did get in the wrong plane! Absolute fact per CNN,ABC News, ect.! Where are facts in the article, as of now? Gone. They've been censored out! I think that needs to be rectified. Mytwocents 19:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone is denying that it's an accurate summary, or that CNN, et al. have their information wrong (I, for one, don't have enough information to contradict them). However, just because something is a fact, that does not mean it belongs in this article. It's been clearly stated in a large number of places that the controller did not have the responsibility to watch the plane as it lined up on the runway. Had been been looking, he might have been able to tell the pilots and avert the crash; however, his actions did not actively contribute to causing the crash, they would merely have prevented it. To say that "the controller's back was turned" in the context of causes of the crash is POV and wrong, because it does not follow from his back being turned that he had any responsibility whatsoever for the crash. The same applies to the flight crew boarding the wrong aircraft: it's a fact, but at this point, we don't know what it means in the context of causes of the crash, and it's wrong to present that as a cause of the crash, because it is not a fact that it meant anything. This article is about the crash and those factors responsible for causing it. Presenting facts in a context that implies they were causes of the crash is not NPOV, and it's not right for an encyclopedia. —LrdChaos 20:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think some editors have made their point that this information does not belong in the "Crash" section since it does not directly relate to the crash. And I agree with them completely. So why not create a separate section, say, "Timeline" or "Miscellaneous" or "Trivia" or "Media Reaction", without any implication that it influenced the crash at all. Geoffreynham 20:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Avoid trivia sections in articles. "Media reaction", like "Government reaction", is unlikely to be encyclopedic unless something notable (i.e., out of the ordinary) occurred. Thus far, that is not the case, and at this point, it is very unlikely to be the case.--chris.lawson 21:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

or just rename the "Crash" section to "Timeline" Geoffreynham 20:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not how other air disaster articles have been handled on Wikipedia, and I see no reason why this one should be treated differently. Furthermore, presenting a timeline section has the same problem: what's relevant in the timeline, what isn't, and why? 5 AM: Captain Jeffrey Clay takes a shower. 4:08 AM: Clay has a cup of coffee and a toasted bagel at the crew hotel's free continental breakfast. 4:25 AM: The flight crew boards a shuttle to the airport. 4:35 AM: The flight crew arrives at the airport. 4:37 AM: The flight crew passes through security. 4:45 AM: Clay and Polehinke board the wrong aircraft and attempt to start its APU before being informed of their mistake by a gate worker. 4:50 AM: The flight crew begins the process of preflight inspection on N431CA. 5:10 AM: Polehinke completes the external preflight and joins Clay in the cockpit. 5:30 AM: Passengers board. 5:48 AM: Clay receives permission from Ground Control to begin engine start and push-back. 5:55 AM: Clay requests, and is granted, a taxi to Runway 22 for takeoff. 5:59 AM: Comair 191 is cleared for takeoff from Runway 22 by Lexington Tower. 6:01 AM: Clay taxis aircraft onto Runway 26, thinking it is Runway 22, and hands the controls over to Polehinke. 6:02 AM: Comair 191 crashes just off the end of Runway 26.

Not a single element in that hypothetical timeline has any proven causal link to the crash up until 5:55 AM, and the only reason the taxi and takeoff clearances are significant is because they prove the flight crew attempted a takeoff from a runway other than the assigned runway. (The clearances themselves had no effect on the crash.)--chris.lawson 21:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The burden of proof lies with those claiming these facts to be significant. You are welcome to present your case on this Talk page, where the community may come to a consensus on it.--chris.lawson 21:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, "indiscriminate" and "proven casual" are not synonymous. If it was dark, and this is not cited as the cause of the crash the fact of it being dark is not "indiscriminate"!

Like all accidents there is very seldom one single cause; rather there are a number of factors which are normally termed contributory. I cannot imagine that the NTSB would dismiss the presence of the air traffic controller and what he was doing at the time of the plane entering the incorrect runway, as irrelevant. Certainly no one should say or imply that he was negligent and therefore responsible for the crash, but at the same time there are certain factors which might very well have influenced the course of events. Facetiously putting the pilot's shower in the same category as the ATC's actions before and during the crash, displays a remarkable lack of judgement, certainly not appropriate in a flight instructor. Paul venter 22:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly no one should say or imply that he was negligent and therefore responsible for the crash

Which is exactly what everyone has been doing. When someone can find a way to include this information in the article in a manner that both demonstrates its relevance to the crash and accommodates neutral point of view, I shall be happy to let it be. Until then, please desist from pushing original research and points of view in this article, and consider this to be a reminder that Wikipedia has as its official policy to be civil, which your impugning of my professional judgement violates.--chris.lawson 23:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

My original reference to the ATC read something like "A single traffic controller was present in the control tower and was busy with administrative duties at the time the plane entered the incorrect runway". I don't think one can get more NPOV than that - there is no suggestion that he caused the crash. The sentence was swiftly deleted by you. I do feel that your behaviour and reactions regarding this article are autocratic in the extreme and contrary to the Wikipedia policy of a collective effort. Nobody owns a particular article and stomping about shouting the odds about every word and punctuation mark, is at odds with what I see as the spirit of Wikipedia. Paul venter 11:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

His tone and refusal to answer questions (and instead dole them out) is also counterproductive to the process. I suggest that we take a short vote and add it back in swiftly. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 11:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As an outside editor who has had no involvement with this article (sans a formatting issue), and one who has not kept up with the news on the plane crash (despite the fact I live in Lexington...), I am going to disagree with lawson. An air traffic controller, receiving only two hours of sleep and having to man the controls for other flights demostrates extreme conditions. The controller was not only overwhelmed, but fatigued and could not make coherent decisions given the short amount of time that was given between flights. This not only highlights a problem at Blue Grass Airport, but one nationwide which has a shortage of 100,000+ controllers IIRC. As an outside editor, I am going to request this be reinserted with speed. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Your supposition that the controller was "overwhelmed," "fatigued," and "[unable to make] coherent decisions" are all uncited speculation on your part. Furthermore, your use of the phrase "given the short amount of time that was given between flights" demonstrates a lack of awareness of the air traffic situation at Blue Grass Airport at the time of the crash. Finally, your controller shortage numbers are off by at least one order of magnitude (and really closer to two) depending on who's describing the shortage. I humbly suggest you refrain from offering seemingly authoritative commentary on matters in which you demonstrably lack a clue.--chris.lawson 04:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ad-homiem attacks do nothing to the value of this discussion. Judging from the replies of other users on this subject, you are not making very valid points. See [3] [4] [5] [6] Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

None of those articles says anything definitively and conclusively linking any of the disputed passages to the crash. Please explain.--chris.lawson 05:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the unfortunate ad hominem in the last sentence, Clawson makes a very valid point, but it's a rather nuanced one that I think a lot of other editors aren't quite getting (apologies if I'm misrepresenting anyone or their views). My position, which I think is very similar to the one Clawson holds, is that just because something is a fact that can be backed up with reliable sources, that does not mean it needs to be presented in this article. For those facts that many people feel should be included (the air traffic controller, the wrong plane incident), these should be phrased in such a way as to be neutral to blame, and not make any implication that the air traffic controller had any responsibility for the incident (the same reliable sources say he didn't) or that the pilots getting on the wrong plane indicated anything about their condition (the only fact we have is that they got on the wrong plane and began starting it up; we don't know why). Wikipedia is not, and should not, be in the business of outlining facts so that readers can draw their own conclusions, nor should it draw any conclusions of its own; the phrasing usually used when these things are added to the article carries with it an implication that the actions were meaningful, but at this point, we don't know that. In the case of the air traffic controller, it is never going to be anything more than speculation as to whether he could have prevented the crash. —LrdChaos 13:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not, and should not, be in the business of outlining facts so that readers can draw their own conclusions". Ummm, what? That is exacty the business of wikipedia. As far as the case of of the ATC, it is correct that it would be speculation as to whether he could have prevented the crash, but it isn't speculation that the FAA had mandated two.00:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

A "timeline" section would be very appropriate. Most disasters have a multimodal causality. There were several points at which the tragedy could have been prevented, whether it is the Bhopal disaster, Mrs. O'Leary's cow starting the Chicago Fire of 1871, the collision of the Stockholm and the Andrea Doria, or this event. It is POV censorship to delete facts which a reasonable person might think relevant and which are verifiable. I have investigated catastrophies, and one element of the investigation is a timeline, without making the jump of "this caused that." Just cite the sequence of events. It is most arrogant POV censorship to claim that verifiable facts are OR. Edison 04:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I will put the same question to you that I put to Mytwocents: Please explain the relevance that you see in the various disputed passages. Please do so without resorting to speculation, original research, or ludicrous accusations ("most arrogant POV censorship").--chris.lawson 04:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As an outside editor who has had no involvement with this article (sans a formatting issue), and one who has not kept up with the news on the plane crash (despite the fact I live in Lexington...), I am going to disagree with lawson. A timeline is necessary and very much approperiate to streamline the facts and condense them. I don't see how any of the comments that lawson made are relevant to the timeline at hand, since I cannot find said disruptions within the text. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that Clawson's objection is the same as mine in this case: we don't dispute that these things are being reported by reliable sources, and we're in no position to refute them, but they are not necessarily connected to the crash. I take issue with the votes below because they try to make black & white an issue that has shades of gray: I think that the air traffic controller information should be included, so long as it's done in such a manner as to not imply blame where none exists. The same holds true for the issue of the pilots boarding the wrong plane at first: I concede that it probably happened, but that doesn't mean it's connected to the crash. It might be, or it might not be; we won't be able to say with any certainty until the final NTSB report is released. It can be included, but again, we need to find a way to phrase it so that it's neutral on the issue of whether it was or was not a factor of the crash. —LrdChaos 13:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that the tower was improperly staffed. However, the FAA and at least one other independent expert have been cited as saying that the tower staffing was not relevant to the crash. How much more clear can that be? The irrelevance of the staffing is just as much a fact as the staffing itself, and if you wish to dispute that fact, you will need to come up with at least one source that supports your opinion.

It is also fact that the pilots boarded the wrong aircraft prior to boarding the accident aircraft. However, the relevancy of this fact has not been demonstrated. No reliable source has indicated that this prior action contributed to the crash in any way. It may serve as an indication of the flight crew's attentiveness, or it may not; any attempt to draw a conclusion about the information without context would be foolish.

As others have said, it is up to the editor to meet the burden of showing verifiability and relevancy of facts added to the article. The tower staffing and the boarding of the incorrect aircraft do not meet both of these criteria, and should not be included in the article. VxSote 14:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Vxsote, please reread your statement -- you will see the obvious problem. the FAA has stated it is not to blame for its own failure to staff the tower to its own recommended levels? so a party with a possible liability has stated its factual deficiency is not causal. big deal! (noit to mention the FAA is not the investigative party)71.252.106.49 00:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I added the 'Content' tag to show that there is a discusson about the 'relevance' of particular statements stayinf in the article. I trust the tag will be allowed to remain until the poll is closed? Mytwocents 04:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added information about other flights number 191 to the similar incidents section of the article. This information is significant in so far as it is an extremely unusual coincidence and this information has been similarly included in the articles detailing other doomed "191" flights. See American Airlines Flight 191 and Delta Airlines Flight 191.

This was discussed previously. Please see the Trivia section in archive 2. This information definately does not belong, and I've removed it. VxSote 07:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

There is just no reason to remove facts with verifiable references from an article without discussion. If they are facts, relevant to the topic, and are verifiable, that is enough to keep them! User:Pedant 17:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Objection to vote

I feel I should register an objection to the vote currently being conducted about "whether to keep cited material, such as those regarding the air traffic controllers, into the article." First, the phrasing of the issue, and the strict "include / don't include" voting options, make this seem like a black & white issue when it fact it's not. My feeling is that the information can be included, so long as it's phrased in such a way as to not draw or imply any conclusions that have not also been stated in reliable sources. I haven't seen that yet in most of the edits adding it to the article, and I would continue to object if it was restored that way following the vote. —LrdChaos 13:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As to the other vote, that of a timeline, the same issue is at hand there. I can support the addition of a timeline, but not until we have a reliable source (in this case, I feel that anything less than the final NTSB report or coverage of same would not be suitably reliable for the issue) to cite for which issues were, and which issues were not, contributory to the crash. By simply presenting information in a timeline, regardless of its relevance, it's easy to imply that certain events are directly related to the crash, when in fact they might not be. Case in point: the pilots boarding the wrong plane. You could put this into the timeline, as it is a verifiable fact, but we don't know how it relates to the crash, if at all. It's possible that the pilots were simply misdirected or given wrong information at the time, but if this included as part of a timeline, it's really a very short step for a reader to conclude that the pilots weren't paying attention to what they were doing. Again, I would support its inclusion, but not at the current time. —LrdChaos 13:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I second LrdChaos's objections to both votes. This is not a black-and-white issue, and no matter the outcome of the vote, if edits are made to the article that fail to comply with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV, WP:WIN, and WP:OR policies, they will be reverted, with exactly that rationale.

I will support the addition of a timeline once the NTSB has definitively established one, but I will not support the addition of a timeline constructed by the news media, by Wikipedians reporting the news media, or by anyone less qualified in accident investigation than the NTSB.--chris.lawson 15:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I just want to make clarify... there are two votes going on below, right? One for include or not include certain facts, and one for include or not include timeline? I think it might be appropriate to have a proposed wording of the proposed additions posted on the talk page. On the note of a timeline, note that this article is titled "Comair Flight 5191" not "The Crash of Comair Flight 5191" - so we include information relevant to the flight, not just information relevant to the crash. Geoffreynham 14:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

By that reasoning, information relevant to any flight ever operating as Comair Flight 191 is relevant to this page. I don't think anyone would argue the point that this page exists because of the crash (again, I point to other air disaster articles on Wikipedia as examples). In that way, this page, despite the title, is precisely about the crash of Comair Flight 191 and should be confined to information related to the crash itself.--chris.lawson 15:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This page exists because of the crash, certainly, but we need not limit our scope to the crash alone. We can cover the flight itself, which is certainly related to the crash. Geoffreynham 16:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

While this vote is going on, is there any major objection to including a section along the lines of (and feel free to edit):

Aftermath of the Crash

In the immediate days following the crash, it was noted that only one air traffic controller was present in the control tower of the airport at the time of the crash. Two other airports, in Duluth, Minnesota, and Fargo, North Dakota, were noted to also have had only one air traffic controller present in their control towers, and were cautioned by the FAA to have two controllers present while operating.

While there seems to be considerable debate about whether the controller getting two hours of sleep, the controller having his back turned, or the pilots entering the wrong plane are relevant, I think there is far less debate that this fact is relevant, and we might be able to add it safely. Geoffreynham 16:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I might be ok with something like this, although I would like to explicitly include the FAA and expert opinions that the controller was not a factor. I'm still not sure that it's worth mentioning at all, but this definately feels more NPOV to me than any other ways that I've seen the info presented. What does everyone else think? VxSote 16:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The above does not address the fact that according to FAA policy at the time, having a single controller in the tower was perfectly OK. (See the bottom of the page for an explanation of this.) It also fails to address the fact that there are numerous airports in the country that are staffed by a single controller for long periods of time that have not been affected by this FAA directive, and that there are numerous airports in the country where the FAA does not even have direct operational control over the air traffic controllers -- they're employed by private companies which, in turn, have contracts with the FAA to provide ATC services. It also raises the questions, "Why just Duluth and Fargo?" (surely there are more FAA-operated control towers with similar airline traffic levels) and "Were staffing levels in Duluth and Fargo in violation of policy as well, or is this just a precautionary measure by the FAA?" It would be nice if the inserted material could avoid raising these tangential questions, although I admit that it probably raised more questions to my mind than it did to anyone else's :-p

If we're going to include an Aftermath section, I think it's perfectly appropriate to say something like this instead:

The FAA announced that, effective immediately, two controllers would be required to be on duty at Lexington at all times. It also extended this directive to other airports where policy had previously allowed a single controller during light traffic periods.

or something to that effect.--chris.lawson 05:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked at several other air crash articles. I do not see a timeline laid out graphically in them, but one is often included in the final NTSB report. It would be useful to have a timeline during the two or three years we may wait for the final NTSB report, because we tend to be a nation of investigators. When that comes out, I would be happy for the timeline to be eliminated from the Wiki article. The NTSB reports often include facts which are not causally related to the crash or incident. They often include facts far less causal than the 2 hours of sleep by the controller, or the attempt to fly the wrong plane by the pilots. It may not be the controllers job to watch for the plane to get to the correct runway, but that policy could be changed by a stroke of the pen on the part of the government. Safety rules are written in blood, and many rules now are based on accidents which could have been prevented had policies been different then. When the Titanic sank, ocean liners were not required to have a radio operator on duty 24 hours a day. After that, they were. I would like to see the verifiable facts in the Wiki article which a reasonable person would think to be of interest in relation to the crash. Any factors which call into question the fitness of the pilots or controller, or the mechanical state of the plane, or the weather seem approproate to include at this time. They will likely be in the NTSB report even if not direct or contributing causes, because to omit them would smack of a cover-up. The article will doubtless merit rewrite and condensation in several years when the report comes out, since then the various details shold be available in the actual report. Please avoid strawman arguments of having to include completely irrelevant factoids.Edison 22:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If and when "polic[ies] [are] changed by a stroke of the pen on the part of the government", then they can go into some sort of "Aftermath" section which lists those changes taking place as a result of the crash. Before that, it's only speculation on our part as to what is, and what should, change.

This Wikipedia article is not the place to try the case, and Wikipedia is not a place for original research: we should only be presenting those facts which have been proven, by reliable sources, to have had an effect in the crash. We don't know the "fitness of the pilots", and we would only be able to speculate as to what it was and what, if any, effect it had; we know that the controller was running on little sleep, but we do know that didn't have anything to do with causing the crash, or likely preventing it (the controller turned to other work after clearing the plane, which he probably would have done rested; he didn't fall asleep or anything of that nature). I haven't seen any information about the mechanical condition of the plane (other than the standard "we weren't aware of any problems" from the airline), nor have I seen any indication that weather was a factor. The NTSB report is likely to list all of these things, but it's likely to eliminate most of them as having a contributory effect to the crash, which means that they're not relevant, to the report or to this article. We should not be in the business of speculating as to what was and what was not a factor in the crash; we should only be including those factors which reliable sources have confirmed. At this point, I don't know of any which were confirmed; I do know that several, such as the number of controllers on duty and the amount of sleep the controller got, have been eliminated. That the pilots boarded the wrong plane has not been shown to be connected to their mental state, but it's easy to draw the inference that something was wrong with them because of it. Since we can't prove things like this either way, they shouldn't be included, because a normal person shouldn't be able to draw any inferences from the facts we present. I think it's irresponsible for the news media to be doing it, let alone an encyclopedia (and, as I stated below, Wikipedia is not Wikinews; what we have here should be limited to only those facts known to be relevant to the crash). —LrdChaos 02:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You state "we should only be presenting those facts which have been proven, by reliable sources, to have had an effect in the crash. " as if it were a Wiki policy, but it most certainly is not, and it means that Wiki articles would be devoid of all information until an official report was published, often years after the event, and then sometimes constituting a whitewash. Wikipedia has no policy whatever restricting the content of articles to what a final report says is "proven to have had an effect." It just has to be a fact with a verifiable source. The disputed facts we are arguing about such as trying to fly the wrong plane, the number of controllers, where that controllers attention were directed, are clearly relevant, but not necessarily causal. We can present the facts without saying "And that's why the crash occurred, and it is this or that person's fault." Edison 14:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So far i haven't seen the facts being included without implying that they might have been contributing to the accident. I believe it is difficult to do so. How do you explain why you include these facts but omit others when any relationship with the crash is speculation at the moment? Gerd Badur 16:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Vote on cited material - "Status of Ongoing Investigation"

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Vote on whether to keep cited material, such as those regarding the air traffic controllers, into the article. See discussion above.

Add your name and YOUR NAME ONLY using the format #~~~ (three tildes) after Include/Do not include. You cannot vote more than once. DO NOT change and/or otherwise edit votes that are not yours. Do not discuss principles or otherwise leave comments here. Please discuss in the relevant sections above. Poll ends September 2 at 23:59 EST.

Include

1. Seicer (talk) (contribs)
2. OmarFirestone
3. Geoffreynham
4. Mytwocents
5. Paul venter
6. Edison
7. CrossBlade
8. Neurophyre^(talk)
9. -newkai t-c

Don't Include

1. VxSote
2. --chris.lawson
3. Dual Freq
4. Mexcellent
5. Mfields1
6. LrdChaos

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Vote on timeline inclusion

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Vote on whether you believe a timeline would be appropriate for inclusion into the article. See discussion above. Add your name and YOUR NAME ONLY using the format #~~~ (three tildes) after Include/Do not include. You cannot vote more than once. DO NOT change and/or otherwise edit votes that are not yours. Do not discuss principles or otherwise leave comments here. Please discuss in the relevant sections above. Poll ends September 2 at 23:59 EST.

Include

1. Seicer (talk) (contribs)
2. Mytwocents
3. Paul venter
4. Edison
5. Mfields1
6. Neurophyre^(talk)
7. OmarFirestone
8. -newkai t-c

Don't Include

1. --chris.lawson
2. VxSote
3. Dual Freq
4. CrossBlade
5. Mexcellent
6. LrdChaos

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Consensus still has not been reached

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

An RFC would be fine. But unless the page is locked, any editor can edit the article. Good faith edits are never against consensus. Consensus by it's nature on wikipedia, is bound by NPOV. And no one can seriously maintain that a statement, cited to a reliable source is not at least, capable of being added to any article in an NPOV way. And where do we modify the text of the article, to reach NPOV? The article page itself, of course. Here is my last edit. I think it should be placed on the article page as is. Consensus can be built in the article using this block of text as a foundation;

Initialy, the flight crew had started the morning by mistakenly getting onto another plane. Analysis of the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder indicates the aircraft was cleared to take off from Runway 22, a 7,003-foot (2,135 meter) long strip used by most airline traffic at Lexington. Instead, after confirming "Runway two-two," Captain Jeffrey Clay taxied onto Runway 26, an unlit secondary runway 3,500 ft(1,067 m) in length. and then turned the controls over to co-pilot James Polehinke for takeoff The lone air traffic controller, who was working on only two hours of sleep , had an unobstructed view of the runways at the time he cleared the aircraft for takeoff from the longer runway. However, he turned his back to perform a traffic count.

There is no indication either pilot tried to abort the takeoff as the aircraft accelerated to 137 knots (158 mph or 254 km/h) before rolling off the end of the runway. The aircraft clipped the airport boundary fence, cleared a barbed wire fence, and became momentarily airborne after hitting a berm. It then collided with trees, separating the fuselage and cockpit from the tail, and impacted the ground less than half a mile (0.8 km) from the end of the runway, killing most victims instantly. The aircraft was destroyed by the resulting fire.

Working together, we can raise this page to be more than just a stub article. We need to more bold in adding text, and very reluctant to delete. Mytwocents 04:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Aftermath

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)

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)

I'm having difficulty what the dispute is about. Why is such information not relevant? Or are the opposing editors waiting for the FAA to release this in a final document? Without the "controversial" paragraph the article states no background on what happened that day and why no one stopped the crew from taking off on the wrong runway. -newkai t-c 06:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Then you agree such a fact has no place in the Crash section of the article?--chris.lawson 07:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Anyone who want's a clear picture of the changes I made to the page today can use this link I think this edit includes facts that illuminate the story, with a particular emphasis on the human aspect of the crash, the rescue, and the investigation of the crash. Most of this has already been on the page before, in the crash section. I think there is a oppurtunity to expand this article further, given the new aftermath section, we now have in place. Mytwocents 18:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Missing Info Tag

As per discussion above, we need to come to a consensus on how we will include this info into the article; preliminary findings reported widely in the media indicate that there was only one controller who had only two hours of sleep, and that the pilots started in the wrong plane. I will not be here tonight, to participate, but I hope everyone can resolve this dilemma, in short order. Mytwocents 19:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be included at all until it is shown to be somehow relevant to the crash. We don't know for sure yet what caused the crash, therefore speculation (and that's what it is) on what might have prevented it is useless and should not be included. Mexcellent 20:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It should not be included. The crash resulted from starting on the wrong runway -- one that was not long enough for the planned flight. Anything a controller would have done, would have been a corrective action to the problem of starting on the wrong runway. Once the plane started rolling, every action taken would have been a "possible" corrective measure to the original mistake. If the NTSB report shows the controller was responsible for directing them to the wrong runway, then it would be included. It is too early to know that. Mfields1 21:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The burden of proof lies with those claiming these facts to be significant. You are welcome to present your case on this Talk page, where the community may come to a consensus on it.--chris.lawson 21:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

An Air Traffic Controller does just that - he is supposed to control air traffic. Whether his action or inaction led directly to the crash or not, really is not possible to say at this time. What is relevant is that he is a link in the chain of events leading up to the crash, and he will remain forever in that chain irrespective of whether a NTSB inquiry exonerates him or not. Paul venter 19:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

An air traffic controller is not responsible for directing each and every action taken by a plane. In this case, the controller's responsibility ended when he cleared the plane for takeoff on the correct runway. I've said this several times on this page already, just because the controller might have been able to notify the pilots of their mistake, he is in no way to blame for it. There can never be any source that can legitimately claim that, had the controller watched the plane, that would have completely prevented the crash. His role as a link in the chain is merely that he cleared the plane for takeoff, nothing more. —LrdChaos 19:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I should be very surprised if the manual for air traffic controllers states that their responsibilty to a plane ends when they have given it detailed instructions for take-off. Checking that their instructions have been understood and followed - either by ground radar or by radio confirmation or by visual checking - is as necessary and vital as the initial instruction. Paul venter 20:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, everything I've read indicates that while the controller wasn't paying attention to what the plane was doing, he wasn't required to do so. The controller issues the takeoff clearance, and makes sure that the pilots correctly acknowledge it, but really, once a plane is cleared for takeoff, the controller doesn't really have much to do with it until he hands it off to another controller. —LrdChaos 20:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I know of at least 1 airport tower that is closed from Midnight to 6 am, yet commuter jets somehow find their way in and out during that down time. Several depart between 5 and 6 am and they receive clearances from a center via remote radio equipment and find their own way to the runway. No controller ever sees them. In this situation, could a controller have stopped them from using the wrong runway? Probably. Lots of other things could have prevented this accident as well. Could someone else have stopped the plane by buying a hand-held radio and sitting in the airport parking lot and calling to the aircraft, "Hey that's runway 26 not 22"? Probably, but it's not that persons job and I'm not sure it was that controllers job either. Regardless, this is all hindsight, I'm sure he wishes he ignored the radar screen a bit longer and watched that plane. My money is on the the majority of blame going to the flight crew, maybe some of the blame goes to staffing of the tower, but we should wait for the report before passing judgment. Dual Freq 20:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Paul, prepare to be surprised. That is precisely what the FAA has been saying.--chris.lawson 05:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

lawson you lied about "indiscriminate_collection_of_information" purely to bolster your point of view. Why on earth should anyone believe you about the FAA? Paul venter 16:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Paul, making such accusations about other editors is not going to help anything. If you find some sort of factual inaccuracy in another editor's statements, feel free to document the error using appropriate sources. VxSote 17:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, Here's the list of indiscriminate collections of information;

1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions.
2. Travel guides.
3. Memorials
4. Instruction manuals -
5. Internet guides -
6. Textbooks and annotated texts -
7. Plot summaries -

How does any of this pertain to keeping this info Preliminary findings reported widely in the media indicate that there was only one controller who had only two hours of sleep, and that the pilots started in the wrong plane.. out of the article? Mytwocents 02:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

My two cents (pun wholeheartedly intended) is that because the media is reporting those events so widely, we should include that fact here. However, I think those statements need to be seperate from each other, together they imply that the crews working that day were incompetent. Put the "lone controller" bit in the beginning of the section describing the sequence of the crash, and the pilots getting into the wrong plane at the beginning of said section. They are facts, and belong in the sequence of events, but are seperate incidents and need not be put together to imply something more. Cool? -Maverick 03:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

On another note, I took the tag off. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, if you want more opinions please make a RFC. Thanks. -Maverick 03:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, obviously that didn't work. How about this: will the people who believe this information should be in the article please explain, in detail, why they deem it to be relevant to the crash? Please do so while avoiding the use of phrases like "might have," "could have," "should have," "maybe," "possibly," etc., because all these phrases are part of speculation (which is necessarily POV and original research), which has no place in this article.--chris.lawson 03:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The whole purpose of the tag is to place it above the article to alert people that there is a dispute and to avoid an RfC. The tag should stay at least 48 hours. But, I agree with Maverick's suggestion, and encourage him to add the statements. Mytwocents 03:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It may or may not be relevant to the crash. The way I'm gonna try to put it in doesn't attempt to subtly or outrightly make a link to the cause of the crash, but the fact remains that those events (the lone controller and the pilots getting in the wrong plane) did happen. I believe those statements can be added in a neutral, verifiable, and non-accusatory way. -Maverick 05:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If it's not relevant, why does it belong in this article? This article's subject (at the risk of stating the blindingly obvious) is the crash of Comair flight 191, not how much sleep air traffic controllers get or whether a pilot has ever received bad information from a gate agent about which plane he should expect to fly. I'm very interested to see this presented in a neutral way, though.--chris.lawson 05:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I said it MAY or MAY NOT be relevant to the crash. We don't make that decision, the NTSB does. Thus far, the NTSB has cited those events as occuring. And gate agents don't tell pilots what plane to fire up. Dispatchers do. How do you know they told the pilots to go to the wrong airplane, and they didn't simply get into the wrong one?

I have already said, I have a very confident vision of putting the facts (cited in the NTSB preliminary report, and therefore relevant) into the artical in a very neutral way. I remind you neutrality and relevancy are very different things as far as this wiki goes. Just because something is not causal to an airline accident, doesn't make it irrelevent to an article about said accident. The statement I propose putting in meet the requirements (as set forth by other editors) of neutrality (they're facts), verifiability (the NTSB preliminary report, and news media reports), and notability (again, the NTSB report and news media accounts). I understand where you're coming from, but I disagree with not including those notable facts. -Maverick 05:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't much care about the tag. I think it's ugly and I think you should try to build consensus for including it, but that's beside the point. I'm much more interested in your reasoning for why these various disconnected facts should be included in the article in the first place.--chris.lawson 03:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Your punting to buy time. But it can't be kept off the page for long. Find it, verify it as reliable, put it in with a cite. That's what we do here. Obstructionism has no place on this page. Mytwocents 04:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not punting to buy time. I'm asking a legitimate question, one which you continue to ignore. Stop ignoring it, and start answering it, please. What relevance do the disputed passages have to the article? It's a simple question. Now answer it, or stop wasting my time.--chris.lawson 04:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

My answer was basically this; "Find it, verify it as reliable, put it in with a cite. That's what we do here.". As far as "relevance" goes, broadly speaking, if it has to do with this story, if it illuminates what happened on that morning, and it comes from a good news article, it should be included. The pilots got in the wrong plane at first, in; 1 controller when there should have 2, in; 2 hours sleep, in; the controller was doing paperwork when the plane crashed, in; most of the passengers died in the ensuing fire, in. Mytwocents 04:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's take these one at a time. Pilots getting in the wrong plane. What demonstrable, citable, verifiable link does that have to the crash?--chris.lawson 04:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What I mean, more precisely is; find a news item in a news article i.e. 'the pilots first got on the wrong plane'. Verify the source as reliable i.e. CNN,... done. CNN is reliable. Put it in the wikiarticle, with a citation back to CNN, so everyone else can see I didn't just make it up, for the fun of it. This my process. This is how I contribute to wiki. Find new facts, add them to wikiarticles. Mytwocents 05:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. These facts must have some demonstrable link to the subject matter at hand. I'm asking you to demonstrate what this link is. You continue to avoid this question.--chris.lawson 05:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well Maverick just anwered better than I ; "It may or may not be relevant to the crash. The way I'm gonna try to put it in doesn't attempt to subtly or outrightly make a link to the cause of the crash, but the fact remains that those events (the lone controller and the pilots getting in the wrong plane) did happen. I believe those statements can be added in a neutral, verifiable, and non-accusatory way." I support his attempt to add the statements to the article. Mytwocents 05:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As I responded above: If it is not relevant, why is it being added to this article? And we're right back where we started.--chris.lawson 05:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Relevance; this will be my last post for the night. IMO, if it has to do with the people, the plane, the airport, the conditions, or the government agencies involved with the crash,... it's relevant. Finding a place for such items is just a matter of good writing. Good night Mytwocents 05:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of information in /any/ article that would fit in the same category as these facts. Such as, "The flight was scheduled to land at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport at 7:18 a.m. local time." Would the flight still have crashed if it were destined to land at Dulles International Airport at 7:32 a.m. local time? We don't know, and yet it's still in there. The name of this article is not, "The crash of Comair Flight 5191" but "Comair Flight 5191" - that is, we include facts about the flight itself. In this case, the flight was overseen by a single air traffic controller. (And a result of this crash is that two other airports have been cautioned to have two air traffic controllers.) It's just as relevant, and should be kept. Geoffreynham 05:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the destination of the aircraft is significant, and especially so in this case. The distance to the destination is a major determining factor of how much fuel is on board, and fuel is a major component of the aircraft's weight. Lastly, the weight is a factor in determining the distance required for takeoff. As I've mentioned previously, the change in staffing following the crash was not a response to the crash itself, but came as a result of staffing violations being exposed. It is a result that was triggered by the crash, but I'm not sure that it's notable or relevant enough to include. To me, it seems like more of a footnote in an Actions Take as Result section. VxSote 14:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What about the time it was supposed to land? It's not relevant to the crash, but it's relevant to the flight - and a similar reasoning applies to the fact that there was only air traffic controller. 65.95.184.43 14:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not convinced that the "two hours of sleep" is relevant. But the fact that only one air traffic controller was on duty is relevent, even though it may not have played any role in the crash. As Geoggreynham mentioned, a result of this crash is that the FAA will now abide by its rule of having two air traffic controllers on duty. Cmadler 14:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"A single air traffic controller was present in the control tower and was busy with administrative duties at the time the plane entered the incorrect runway. It was reported that the controller had only had two hours sleep before his shift." Or thereabouts. --Neurophyre^(talk) 08:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that we should be including the bit about the two hours of sleep. It may be true, but it has even less connection to the crash than the fact that there was only one controller on duty, and it carries an implication that the controller was fatigued and therefore may have missed something he'd have caught had he been rested. It's already been established that after clearing the plane for takeoff on the right runway, the controller had no further responsibility for the aircraft, rested or tired. I can't figure out why some of the media is making such a big deal out of the "two hours of sleep" thing; had the controller cleared the plane for the wrong runway, then it would be relevant, but he didn't. He cleared the plane for the right runway and it looks like the pilots used the wrong one. —LrdChaos 16:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Please not that this article is not called "Unofficial investigation of the crash of Comair Flight 5191" so facts do not have to be proven to be a cause of the crash to be included. If they are deemed interesting enough to be included in stories by mainstream media, they may be included at the discretion of editors. If any facts are verifiable and of likely interest to readers of Wikipedia, they may certainly be included. The presence of some celebrity on a given flight generally has no causality whatsoever, but it is likely to be included in the article about that flight. Thus, if a majority of the editors want to mention the number of controllers, the amount of sleep they had, misadventures of the pilots such as trying to take off in the wrong plane, as was shown by a vote, we have the right to include those facts. We have absolutely no obligation to prove to the satisfaction of a minority of editors that any of those fact cause the crash or influenced it in any way. General interest of the facts is sufficient, and is proof against the often repeated template that Wiki is not a random collection of facts, etc. Edison 16:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Edison, I don't believe that Wikipedia's policies support your arguments. In addition to everything else that has already been said on this page, I would ask you to review Wikipedia is not a democracy. Editing is about consensus, not majority. Also, please take care not to blur the distinction between things not relevant to the crash section and things not relevant to the article as a whole. VxSote 17:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

VxSote, I agree it is not a simple democracy, but consensus is far different from some autocrat dictating what may not be in an article and deleting verifiable facts which other editors wish to include. No one has given veto power to one or two editors to delete any facts which others wish to include, and which seem relevant to the article, at least to mainstream media and the FAA. Issues such as the condition of the crew or the controller are not per se unrelated to a crash. Edison 17:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Edison, six editors voted not to include the information in the straw poll. While only perhaps two have been active in removing the information from the article, it's not a case of "one or two editors" with "veto power". The condition of the crew is entirely relevant to the crash, but we don't know what it was; that's why including the bit about the wrong plane in the "Crash" section is wrong. We don't know what, if anything, it means; as others have said, it could mean nothing, or it could mean everything. Wikipedia is not the place for discussing that, because we are not doing the research. We should be reporting on those facts which have been shown to be relevant to the crash, and merely being reported in connection with the crash in the media does not necessarily make them relevant (e.g., the controller's two hours of sleep).

The presence of some celebrity on a given flight generally has no causality whatsoever, but it is likely to be included in the article about that flight.

It has absolutely no causality; neither does the presence of only one controller or the amount of sleep he got before his shift. The wrong plane error has not been shown in any reliable source to be causal to the crash. No one here is disputing that it is a fact that the pilots boarded the wrong plane prior to the crash. However, that doesn't mean it belongs in the "Crash" section, which by its very nature implies that it was causal or connected to the crash; nothing from a reliable source has made that claim, though it's been implied in all sorts of media by simply noting it.

I keep making the point that Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Wikipedia is not the place for reporting any facts and letting readers draw conclusions from them; the facts that appear in Wikipedia, especially in a case like this, should be so unambiguous that there is little to no room for interpretation. To that end, only those facts that have been shown to be connected to the crash should be listed in the "Crash" section. As I (and others) have said before, we are not trying to exclude or censor acknowledged facts from this article; we are trying to prevent those facts from being presented in a misleading fashion, which is exactly what happens when facts without any demonstrated link to the crash are placed under the "Crash" section.

If and when any other sources make claims that contradict official findings, there can be a place for them in a "Criticisms" section, or something along those lines. We can then enumerate those criticisms of the report as what they are: criticisms, not official findings. —LrdChaos 17:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

LrdChaos's point about the number of editors is on the money. It would be a mistake to assume that nobody else would have removed (or added) the same disputed information in the absence of those editors who work more swiftly than others. VxSote 18:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with LrdChaos and VxSote on the above. Gerd Badur 09:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

So do you object about the fact of trying to start the wrong plane being included in the article before rather than in the "Crash" section? Edison 21:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Takeoff speed

Flight manual is available here User:Pedant 17:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Has the relative airspeed required for takeoff been calculated based on the weight factor? I have not seen it anywhere. Mfields1 22:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen it either, but presumably Bombardier would have calculated V1, V2, and Vr when they ran the numbers to come up with the takeoff distance. If anyone has access to a CRJ-100ER flight manual, it could be used as a reference for such a calculation. (Not sure it really makes much difference, though.)--chris.lawson 23:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying the necessary take off speed does not make a difference? The article reports the (calculated) required takeoff distance, but doubt that pilots are looking at the distance travelled when they decide. I'm not a pilot so please explain why it does not make a difference. It seems to me V1 would be relevant, especially since the article already states "There is no indication either pilot tried to stop the plane..." V1 and V2 would be more fundamental if the article has a POV about the pilot's actions. Mfields1 23:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

When a multi-engine jet pilot gets ready to taxi out to the runway, he should have, at minimum, three numbers already calculated: V1, V2, and Vr. V1 is "decision speed" in a balanced field takeoff, or the speed before which, if you lose an engine, you abort the takeoff, brake like hell, and try to stop before running off the end. (This is usually successful if the runway used isn't at the ragged edge of safety.) See also V1 speed here on Wikipedia. V2 is the minimum speed for climbout after an engine failure past V1 (see also V speeds), and Vr would be the calculated rotation speed, the speed at which the pilot would pull back on the stick/yoke and begin the process of lifting off the ground (typically higher than V1, probably less than V2). These speeds are dependent on (at minimum) the following factors:

• takeoff weight
• atmospheric conditions (primarily temperature, but humidity plays a small role too; wind is not typically a factor in V-speed calculations)
• runway length

The reason they're dependent on runway length is because shorter runways require a greater degree of precision and often require specific short-field takeoff technique. I don't know whether Bombardier calculated their takeoff distance and V-speeds based on a 7000-foot runway or a 3500-foot runway. The pilots almost assuredly made their calculations based on a 7000-foot runway. The V1 and Vr speeds would certainly differ between the two runway lengths. Further complicating the issue is the vagueness of the article (which has undoubtedly been "dumbed down" for the non-aviating public), which does not specify what is really meant by "3539 feet were needed for takeoff". I have no idea whether this refers to the distance required to achieve rotation, the distance required to achieve liftoff, or the distance required to clear a "standard" 50-foot obstacle (though I highly doubt it's the latter, and I suspect it's the distance required to achieve rotation).

Even if the aircraft managed to achieve V1 or Vr, that would not necessarily mean that a safe takeoff (from such a short runway compared to what the pilots expected) was possible. Of the various performance parameters, it seems to me like required takeoff distance is the most important and easiest to understand.

Does that clarify things for you a bit?--chris.lawson 23:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and incidentally, what "neither pilot tried to stop the plane" says to me is that neither pilot had any idea they were out of runway until it was too late, and at that point they probably tried to force the plane into the air. Thoughts of V1 and Vr probably went out the window at that point as the "Oh shit" factor took over. It's possible that, had they simply slammed on the brakes as soon as they realised they had overrun the available runway, that the accident would have been less deadly. (Of course, that's nothing more than informed speculation on my part and should not be construed to be anything more than an educated opinion.)--chris.lawson 00:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Saying "Oh Shit! and trying to force the plane into the air works every time in movies. At least I can't think of a single movie or TV show where the plane didn't just barely clear the trees in a situation like this one. Edison 20:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Off duty pilot in jump seat

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?[7] 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)

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)

In the cockpit. Dan D. Ric 22:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Well, I guess that settles that. VxSote 01:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Sequence of crash

The Crash section states "and came to rest largely intact in an area less than half a mile (0.8 km) from the end of the runway where it burst into flames." Do we know the sequence yet? Did it burst into flames after impact or was part of the plane on fire before all parts of the plane came to a stop? Mfields1 23:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There were some eyewitness(?) accounts related in the early news reports of the crash that said parts of the plane were on fire before it came to rest, but at what point during the crash sequence the fire started may never be known for certain. If there's a way to clarify that (does it really matter that much if it was burning five seconds before it stopped sliding on the ground?), be my guest.--chris.lawson 00:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we're all guests of the Wikipedia foundation? There may be a way to avoid the OR in the statement about the bursting into flames. The sentence might be stopped after runway and a sentence added "a fire occurred during the crash" or something like that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mfields1 (talk • contribs) .

The NTSB preliminary report cites a "post crash fire", so let's just leave it at that for now. VxSote 01:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think my recent edit will satisfactorily solve the problem.--chris.lawson 02:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

NTSB preliminary report -- where?

There must be two different versions of the NTSB preliminary report, because people are saying all sorts of crazy things are included in it that very clearly are not mentioned at all. Can someone please enlighten the rest of us as to where this NTSB preliminary report that mentions the pilots getting in the wrong plane, the presence of only one controller in the tower, etc., actually is?--chris.lawson 15:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As the NTSB is not charged with assigning "blame", where the flight crew was before they got into N431CA would not be in their final report, unless their presence could be shown to have compromised their ability to fly. The most authoratative citation I found for the "fact" in question seems to be at Aero-News.net: [[8]]

As posted above, I think where people (saying crazy things) are going with this is "trying the case on Wikipedia". --OmarFirestone 17:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Precedent for Reporting "Official Findings" that contradict "what everybody knows ..."

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:

1. O. J. Simpson murder case
2. Rodney King indcident and ensuing riots
3. The Tower Commmission Report exonerating President Reagan in the Iran-Contra Affair
4. 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)

Note to potential jurors: Be sure not to log on from home. Edison 22:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Some lawyers, part 2

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)

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)

It looks like a GDFL violation. WhisperToMe 01:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Two controllers in the tower were not required

There seems to be some confusion on this point. Allow me to clarify.

The FAA has never said that two controllers were required to be in the tower. FAA policy prior to this crash was when a single controller was manning Lexington Tower, that controller should hand off TRACON (radar) duties to Indianapolis Center. The controller on duty did not do this, but his failure to do so doesn't change the policy. Having a single controller in the tower was perfectly within policy as long as that controller was not working both tower and TRACON.

Tower controllers are required to perform traffic counts regardless of whether or not they're working other frequencies (ground, clearance, TRACON).--chris.lawson 01:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Then sombody needs to put this in the article. Mytwocents 20:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia is not Wikinews; we shouldn't be providing every detail about the incident, especially those that are irrelevant (and to include something along these lines is to acknowledge that the detail about the single controller is irrelevant). —LrdChaos 22:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This point deserves re-emphasis. Wikipedia is not Wikinews. There is an article over on Wikinews, linked from within this article, where the efforts of most editors here would be better spent. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.--chris.lawson 22:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been reported, it can be cited, and then it can be written in an NPOV way. That is wikipedia. That is what we do here. Information has been "eliminated" from the article. The mantra of those who have censured this page has been " It's irrelevent". Well, it is relevent. If anything has been reported, by a reputable source, it's fair game for any wikipedia article. Just ask Jimbo. Censorship has had it's season, on this page. But I think that is over now. If anyone finds something on this page, that they don't think is true, or written NPOV, they are free to tag it, or add a statement that counterbalances the statement. Or they can reformat the page into different sections. But censuring this page by deleting cited text needs to stop. We need to allow all editors to participate in the process, not just a few editors, who delete anything they object to (and mark it as a "m" "minor" edit just to show their distain for other editors work) Mytwocents 04:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If anything has been reported, by a reputable source, it's fair game for any wikipedia article.

Your statement is in direct opposition to the official policy of what Wikipedia is not, specifically, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Please re-read that page, keeping in mind that the listed criteria are but examples of what Wikipedia articles should not include, and they are by no means an exhaustive list.

Again, the burden of proof of relevance lies with the editor inserting the disputed information.--chris.lawson 05:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Please allow other editors to add information to this article. Denouncing other peoples work as "irrelevent" and "indiscriminate information" gives you a false carte blance to delete anything you don't like. There are alternatives to deletion. I made my last edit with an NPOV tag to faciltate discussion. We need to strive for NPOV. The "relevence" red-hering is intimidating people away from editing this article. Mytwocents 05:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Lawson, what's with the weird warpath against adding additional information in the article? People come here to look up stuff. A note on the policy on the tower isn't at all "indiscriminate information". Especially for events that occurred in the recent path, rumor control is a valuable part of a Wikipedia article. In 5 years it'll be regarded as noise and can be deleted then. Write for the now. Tempshill 06:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Edit for the future. Wikinews can be written for the now. We cannot be in the business of debunking every rumour the media starts, any more than we're in the business of parroting every fact the media reports.--chris.lawson 06:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if I were to accept that the information is relevant, which I do not, you still added it with the same language that other editors have previously objected to as POV. We are nowhere near a consensus on this issue, so lets keep the discussion here on the talk page where it belongs. I can assure you, however, that as long as you keep referring to relevance as a red herring, consensus will remain elusive. VxSote 06:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, discussions are for the talk page, editing is for the article page. If you, or anyone else doesn't like the language, change it, or tag it, or add additional text to balance the statement. If you want to debunk something, find a source, and debunk with facts and citations. I write NPOV, but if you think it's not written in an NPOV way, change it to be closer to that ideal. All wikipages are works in progress, but it does take that; work, to make them better. Do your research, and back up your edits with cites, like the editors who have added text to this article have already done. This page is not locked, and is free and open to change. Mytwocents 20:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed wording for the article

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)

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)

Nature of causality in system failures

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) Similarly, the "wrong plane" problem could be possibly contributing or helpful in several ways. If the pilot misread something, that's one small piece of information about his mental state. If the pilot went to the same plane they always used, but the actual plane for today was somewhere else, and no one notified him of that, then maybe a whole packet of messages was misplaced somewhere, including taxiway information. That could be a "handoff error" by someone else. Simply having to change planes must have put then at least 10 minutes behind schedule, so from then on they were more rushed than they had planned to be. That's certainly relevant to what happened next. If the ground crew laughed at him and made fun of him for being incompetent and got him angry, it would lessen his odds of calling and asking for help if he ever felt he was lost on the taxiway. We have no idea what else went on, or why, but the fact that they had to switch planes is a very relevant fact, and investigators would want to understand more about what caused it and what effect it had. Wade 00:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Naming

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)

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)

Runway not lit

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)

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)

Now this revision is worse. How do you know what the pilots were thinking? Hmmm. Mfields1 02:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

I'm not sure who has a problem with what here, but allow me to explain my edit.

We need something to tie together the two completely disconnected facts that "the pilots noticed the runway was unlit" and "A NOTAM had been issued advising construction on Rwy 22 had disabled the centerline lighting." Had that NOTAM never been issued -- and the pilots were aware of it, I'm almost certain -- the pilots could have known immediately that they were on the wrong runway. What the pilots' mention of the unlighted runway on the CVR tapes does NOT include, however, is the critical fact that the NOTAM was for inop centerline lighting on 22, not completely inoperative lighting. It seems that the pilots misinterpreted the NOTAM to mean that all lighting on Runway 22 was inop, rather than simply the centerline lighting (which, AFAIK, is still in the process of being replaced due to the recent repaving). Because of this minor oversight, they missed what would have been a very valuable clue as to the runway they were on.

Regardless, we need some way to tie these two sentences together, because it currently sounds awful. It doesn't flow at all.--chris.lawson 03:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Lawson puts words into another editor's mouth when he says regarding the startup of the wrong plane "your assumption that the pilots did so with some malicious intent." The censorship faction errs again whan claiming that MyTwoCents is the only one seeking to include the disputed info which a majority voted to include. We also voted to include a timeline section, so the verified facts in dispute could go on a "Pre-flight" section. The serial reverters might better include a sentence noting that the controller was not required to check that the plane actually made it to the correct runway, rather repeatedly reverting. A 3RR warning might be appropriate at this point, having lost a vote and still seeking to censor the article. Edison 15:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Consensus works both ways

Deleting text is actually the last and worst solution to improving this page. There are two sides to any debate about what stays or goes into the article. Any cited statements may remain in the article. No version is my version. If you don't like how the page is written, write it better. Mindlessly rv'ing a page just keeps it a stub, and has driven away countless editors from contributing to this page. This page needs more than one or two editors. If it's been revealed on CNN etc. it should remain on the article page, in some form. My last edit was NPOV and should not have been rv'd. Mytwocents 04:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Your last edit was just as POV as your previous two edits were, and just as objectionable. Would you care to present a proposal here that meets with NPOV guidelines?--chris.lawson 05:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, deleting any text should be the last resort to writing in a neutral way. But please assume good faith on my part. Last time I checked, the page is not locked. I like the way the page reads, with all the facts left intact. To my eyes, removing the statements in question leaves holes on the page. Could you quote the offending text and explain how that statement violates NPOV. Maybe if it proves to be POV, someone can fix it? If given a chance. Mytwocents 05:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, for the millionth time, here's what's wrong with the text you inserted:

• It places facts in the Crash section that have no relationship to the crash whatsoever. For example, the pilots boarding the wrong plane. If you have a source that demonstrates a link, please cite it. The CNN article is not such a source.
• It lays blame on the shoulders of the tower controller by implying that two hours of sleep caused a deficiency in his performance. The FAA and NTSB have both been very explicit in their statement that the controller's actions in clearing the plane for takeoff were proper, and no one (except you and the media) is trying to make a case that the controller's performance was sub-par. This smacks of POV and original research all by itself, to say nothing of the other three points here.
• It implies that the controller had a responsibility to monitor the aircraft's takeoff, which flies in the face of everything the FAA, the NTSB, and industry experts have said concerning controller responsibility.
• It completely removes the vitally important takeoff distance calculations. Are you suggesting these have no place in the Crash section?

Is that clear enough for you?--chris.lawson 05:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, your continued insistence that, in your words, "If it's been revealed on CNN etc. it should remain on the article page, in some form" reflects a very clear lack of understanding that Wikipedia is still not an indiscriminate collection of information, no matter how much you wish it to be. You must prove, using reliable sources, that a meaningful relationship exists between a reported fact and the subject of this article. You have still not done that, nor have you shown any leanings in that general direction. Until you demonstrate that you can understand basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you are going to find it very difficult going here, and you're going to find that people don't take your arguments very seriously. (That's not a threat, that's just an observation.)--chris.lawson 05:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes less is better; IMO, this is one of those times. Your continued argument that all facts should remain on the page regardless of relevance has really become quite tired. What part of your text is POV? All of it. By including it in the description of the crash sequence, you are attempting to advance the position that those facts were contributory to the crash. In addition to the more conventional notion of bias, I see this as a mild bit of sensationalism, but sensationalism none the less. Sensationalism is also a form of bias, and therefore contrary to NPOV. Furthermore, I see the presentation of the disputed facts in the crash section as blatent original research. If you want to find an acceptable way to put these facts into the article, the first step I would suggest is to quit trying to put them into the crash section. I have doubts about whether they should be included on the page at all right now, but I am quite certain that they do not belong where you keep inserting them. VxSote 06:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your thorough reply chris.lawson but your sarcasm is uncalled for. You are elevating you mis-perception of context, and what pertains to the crash to dogma. Several editors have said that the pilots boarding the wrong plane is clearly part of the story, on its face. I think it is, without a doubt, part of the story. Perhaps it can go somewhere else in the article? If you think the description of the controllers actions, which comes from the CNN article, is POV, then add a statement that counterbalances it. Again, several editors have supported the controller statement as written. And remember Me + CNN = Reliable Source...(hint, me can be left out of the equation and it still works). If I accidentally removed take-off calculations, I apologise. As for Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, I'm familiar with the guidelines. I simply know you are wrong about anything I've placed in the article falling under that definition. If any category applies to any thing I've contributed, please point that ICoI category out to me. The stakes to adding to the page have been raised artificially high. Also, all of the fun has been sucked out of the process for too many editors, by a misapplied, doctrinaire, deletionfest.Mytwocents 06:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you noticed that you're the only one still defending your position?--chris.lawson 06:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No lawson, Mytwocents is not the only one who feels as he does. The others have simply given up trying to change your autocratic ways - it's far too exhausting trying to deal with your peculiar brand of logic and your conviction that you own this article. Paul venter 07:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The argument over placement of peripheral facts within the article is valid, but the overarching theme of whitewashing the article of facts which could somehow imply that the accident the fault of an aviator or traffic controller is quite obvious and more than a little overzealous. --Neurophyre^(talk) 05:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

And the very fact that the pilots attempted to take off from an inadequate runway that they weren't cleared for doesn't somehow imply that they were at fault? Oops, I guess we should try to cover that up. Look, it's not about censorship. Those people who keep saying or implying that it is are way out of line. VxSote 14:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that the pilots taking off from the wrong runway is a vital fact in the crash, and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. It's the very cause of the crash; the pilots boarding the wrong plane was not, and no reliable source has provided any evidence (only implication) that the two events are connected. I don't understand why so many people are trying to claim that this is somehow "censorship" or "whitewashing"; there has been no reliable evidence that the wrong plane incident played any role in the crash, nor that the controller did anything wrong. If some reliable source provides evidence that the pilots boarded the wrong plane because, for example, they were drunk (speaking hypothetically; I don't believe this was the case, or we would have heard something by now), then there is information which is relevant, and I could support it being included. That they merely boarded the wrong plane is not, and several others have supplied possible explanations that would not be connected with the crash. On its own, however, and given that the plane those pilots were flying crashed after using the wrong runway, it's very easy to conclude that it somehow mattered, or that the pilots should not have been allowed to fly after the incident. It might be a contributing factor, or it might be innocuous; we don't know, and news stories have been careful not to explicitly connect the two events, though it's laden with implication.

Short version: point to me a reliable source that provides evidence that the two events are connected, and I have no problem with including it in the article. I'm not trying to censor or whitewash anything, I'm just trying to prevent incorrect information or assumptions from finding their way into this article. —LrdChaos 14:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think perhaps I was not completely clear with my sarcasm above, but in any case LrdChaos, I'm pretty sure we're in full agreement here. VxSote 16:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

what --Neurophyre^(talk) 19:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding that, there is an RFC about this article, which I think is a long time coming. Mytwocents 06:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's interesting, yet again, that you chose to file this without bothering to tell anyone who you did not perceive to be on "your side". The proper thing would have been to mention it here on the discussion page first. And might I further point out that merely because a reliable source makes a statement does not mean that statement is without bias itself. See, for example, Fox News on the right and Air America Radio on the left. I already deconstructed the bias in the CNN statement once; I will not do so again. Re-read my previous explanation if you need to be reminded. As for providing a "counterbalance," this is an encyclopedia, not an episode of Crossfire.--chris.lawson 06:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't file an RfC, but agree that we need one for this page. The "wrong plane" news item was widely reported by many news agencies. I just used CNN. We could cite from many reliable news sources. Politics has nothing to do with this article. Getting into the wrong plane is newsworthy because it is clearly aberrant behavior. If stating their action baldly seems biased, it can be written differently. Mytwocents 07:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Your assertion that "getting into the wrong plane ... is clearly aberrant behaviour", like your claim that this event is relevant to the crash sequence, is based on your assumption that the pilots did so with some malicious intent.

Let me tell you a little secret about aviation: this has happened before. We've had it happen at work -- students have preflighted the wrong aircraft, and even gotten into and flown an aircraft different from the one they were assigned at dispatch. Why? A host of reasons.

It is entirely possible that Clay and Polehinke were given incorrect information on where to find their aircraft by another Comair employee. (We've had dispatchers tell people a plane was on one ramp when it was at the opposite end of the airport, purely by accident.) It is also entirely possible that the pilots simply read a tail number wrong through an airport window. (We've had students mistake, for instance, a 6 for an 8 in a quick glance at the squawk book, and as a result, preflight -- or even fly -- the wrong plane.) The point is that we have absolutely no idea why this happened and as a result, we should not be assigning it any more meaning than can be factually proven by the facts at this time. To claim it is significant is to assign it more meaning, thus falling into the domain of original research. To avoid original research, we cannot claim it to be significant. If it is not significant, WP:WIN dictates that we should not include it in the article. This is pretty cut and dried.--chris.lawson 07:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I filed the RfC. My apologies for not signing it initially ... I indicated that I felt it would be helpful in the concensus section of the original debate above; however, I didn't directly sign it because I felt that not doing so would make the request itself more neutral.

That said, I do have to say that I agree with User:Mytwocents on this. I made my main points here; however, I feel it is appropriate to copy a small section from WP:DR (for both of you) and leave it to your own interpretation ...

Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than crying.

--Sykes83 07:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Resolution

I am responding per the request by chris.lawson on the WP:Aircraft Talk page [9] for expert comment on the NPOV debate here. It needs to be kept in mind that "contributing factors" can include more than just "causes". It's my understanding (but not certain knowledge) that the Blue Grass Air Traffic Controller was not responsible for ground traffic control. To the extent that this was the case at that airport, then the ATC's actions and/or inactions are not a "cause"; instead, they represent a "missed opportunity" to have possibly prevented the accident. Even if the ATC had remained at the radar, he would have likely been watching the radar, not the runway traffic, so there's no guarantee that he would have caught it in time to call for an abort.

I would recommend that after describing the basic facts of the incident, a section be added regarding "Possible causes and contributing factors". Begin the section with a note to the effect of "While an NTSB investigation has not yet been completed, the following have been suggested as possible causes or contributing factors." Each can then be summarized briefly, including remarks by critics as to how the particular action/inaction/event might not have been a relevant factor. Each should link to an identifiable and knowledgeable source (preferably not a news article itself, unless quoting - and identifying - the knowledgeable source), both for the suggestion and any criticism(s). This approach effectively summarizes expert opinions and ignores press speculation per se. --Askari Mark | Talk 18:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank's Askari Mark. I think your proposal gives us the room to include these items in non-contentious way. It gives us a healthy alternative to simply deleting text that doesn't fit the narrow framework, we currently have, in this article. Mytwocents 18:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The dispute seems to be about whether it's justified or not to suggest that the following facts might be possible causes of or factors contributing to the accident: Pilots initially boarding the wrong aircraft; Single controller in tower working both local services and TRACON; Controller had only two hours of sleep. (Did i miss anything?) From what i've read so far, these facts are reported by the media and the facts themselves are not disputed. However, apart from news articles that mention these facts in conjunction with the crash, i have the impression that, at the moment, there are no identifiable and knowledgeable sources that explicitly state these facts as possible causes or contributing factors. As long as this is the case, the information in question should not be added to the proposed "Possible causes and contributing factors" section. Gerd Badur 21:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Gerd, the debate has seemed more extensive than that to me, but for what it's worth, here's my read on the points you raised.

• Re: Boarding the wrong aircraft, it's irrelevant unless and until there's some firm evidence as to what led them to do so (e.g., the pilots, rather than the ATC, had had only 2 hours' sleep). There are probably more innocuous than potentially contributing possibilities, and there's no evidence that this mistake had anything to do with the crash; although it could indicate an inattentive state of mind, I've yet to see any information about the full story behind it.

• Re: Single controller in the tower, a second ATC would have had no more responsibility for ground traffic control than the first ATC had, although it might have modestly increased the chances of prevention.

• Re: ATC had only 2 hours sleep, I have seen nothing suggesting that the ATC improperly performed his responsibilities in a way that enabled or led to the crash. Given the preceding point, this one is irrelevant at this point.

So, should these issues not be raised in this article? If someone can find an identifiable and knowledgeable source as I outlined earlier, then that would be fine. (Ditto any criticism of this as a potentially contributing or causative factor.) The only bit I would rule out a priori would be the ATC having had only 2 hours sleep, since it is doubly irrelevant and intimates that the individual may have had some blameworthiness because of it. It would become an issue of note only if there was some radio traffic indicating the pilots had requested clarification on the correct route to the proper runway and the ATC may have given unclear directions. The only one I would be inclined to include would be the ATC's being unable to see the aircraft at the time; this issue has been all over the press and the general reader would not likely be aware of the limitations of the ATC's responsibilities. A clarification of this issue, linked to an authoritative source, would be beneficial — and would stem constant attempts to add it from novice editors who might think it had simply been overlooked. --Askari Mark | Talk 03:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you on points 1 and 3. I'm actually with you on point 2 as well, but I think the arguments against including either of points 1 and 3 in the article are very strong, absent an identified and knowledgeable source (which has thus far not been forthcoming), and point 2 has been adequately covered by the Aftermath section IMO.

The controller wasn't unable to see the aircraft, per se -- he simply wasn't looking at it. I'm not sure how much detail we really need to go into in order to explain that it's not his responsibility to ensure the aircraft is using the right runway, though, which is why I haven't been in favour of including this in the first place -- I think an adequate explanation will take up a disproportionate amount of space in the article, thus calling unnecessary attention to a non-causal detail.--chris.lawson 03:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, an edit conflict. All the stuff below, I typed before I saw Askari's second post, and oddly enough, it matches very much with it. Anyways...

I'm glad to see that we have (I think) reached a consensus to include information about one/two controllers in the tower in an Aftermath section (although I think the current wording could be revised, as it's not entirely clear exactly how many controllers there actually were in the tower. But I'm afraid of it getting totally deleted if I change anything, unfortunately.)

As for (1) two hours of sleep / (2) entering wrong plane / (3) back turned:

1. I agree that the two hours of sleep need not be included. It's neither causal nor relevant.
2. Whether or not they entered the wrong plane is meritous of inclusion is less clear. Indicative of any tendencies of the flight crew, certainly not. Contributory, in that it may have increased stress, decreased the willingness of the pilots to talk to the ground crew, or whatever, quite possibly. But I'm not going to push one way or the other.
3. The controller having his back turned is not causal, but quite possibly relevant. Indiscriminate, no (it does not fit in any of the accepted categories of Indiscriminate Collections). I think it should be included.

Can we include something along the lines of,

...turned the controls over to First Officer James Polehinke for takeoff. The air traffic controller in the control tower was not required maintain visual contact with the aircraft; in fact, he was performing other administrative duties at the time and did not see the aircraft taxi to the runway.

("other administrative duties" can, of course, be replaced with "a routine traffic count", although I think this would confuse the issue. And I think that the sentence about minimum takeoff distance can be moved to the next paragraph). Feedback is welcome. Geoffreynham 03:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Or even just,

...turned the controls over to First Officer James Polehinke for takeoff. The air traffic controller in the control tower was not required maintain visual contact with the aircraft and did not see the aircraft taxi to the runway. Geoffreynham 03:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The articles quote the NTSB and FAA sources. We're talking possible contributing factors, not determined factors. This will also allow any critics of the reported factors to add a contrary cited statement. We should add this section to the article and see how it works. Mytwocents 03:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Except that neither the FAA nor the NTSB has ever said anything identifying the controller's actions as being even possibly contributory, nor has either organisation identified the pilots' boarding of the wrong aircraft as being possibly contributory. They have simply stated what happened without identifying any possibility of a relationship. Absent a identified, knowledgable source (not the media) making a statement to this effect, what Askari Mark is saying is that these should not be in the article, and I agree with him.

As of this moment, all the NTSB and FAA have done is to explicitly rule out the controller's actions as being contributory by asserting that the controller fulfilled his responsibilities to the aircraft.--chris.lawson 04:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I like Geoffrey's first rendition best; it's short and clear and helps the non-expert understand the situation best. The second version is less clear. Heck, one sentence to resolve this controversy is ready small change and not "disproportionate" at all! As for unable = wasn't looking, well, same difference ... at least that's my two cents' — oops, that's somebody else's byline! Just sign me Askari Mark | Talk  ;-)

I concur. Geoffreynham's first rendition works for me as well. As always, Mytwocents 05:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

So I think we have reasonable consensus to add this, then... I'm going to go ahead and do so... Geoffreynham 05:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Perfection is not required

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)

Strange sequence

"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)

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)

Victims section, etc.

In reading the Victims section, and without any disresepect to the actual victims, the section does not seem to stand up to a 10-year test. We are seeing updates to the condition of the only survivor and it includes information about memorials, etc. These items may be important to the here and now but I don't think they are as meaningful to the article in 10 years. In addition, the article seems to put a bias towards certain people being notable and other not. If they are notable now (i.e. already in Wikipedia) then I agree the name should be mentioned and a link to a separate article. Also, we know they were injuries to persons (100% of all persons) and in 98% these proved fatal. The term "Injuries to persons" is more in line with how reporting is done and seems more encyclopedic (IMO). Also, crew information is given in the victims section and other sections. I suggest a separate crew information part for the aricle would enhance it.

Lastly, if persons who are editing now will continue at a future date, I suggest one day when all the information is released perhaps a new section will emerge. Some of this would be made of of actual cause information, etc.

I recommend some discussion on this. Mfields1 21:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there is an "official" memorial site online to which a link could be made? Askari Mark | Talk

Not yet, nor is it likely that there will be. Who would count as "official"? Comair? They certainly wouldn't want to call attention to the crash any more than the media already has, even given the good PR that might result from such a move. The FAA and NTSB certainly aren't going to be involved in such an endeavour.

I do think Mfields has a point regarding notability, though. I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, but the passengers who are named in the section right now were very widely reported, which may establish some semblance of notability. ESPN even ran a story about Hooker and his wife.

I've moved the crew info into the retitled "Aircraft and crew" section, as it makes more sense up there.--chris.lawson 00:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comair released the manifest 08/29. The page is at:

http://www.comair.com/news/index.html?id=319

Somewhere a page was set up as a memorial. Usually there are multiple pages by different persons. If I see one or more I will put them on the talk page.

If someone was notable on or before 08/27 then they should be mentioned and linked to, or if they were notable but no Wiki editor ever created a web page for them then it should be done so and linked accordingly. Obviously some of the people have become notable as a result of the terrible accident. Mfields1 00:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

By "official" I meant just what Mfields mentioned, a memorial established by a friend or family member of one or more of the victims. They would have a personal interest in maintaining it, so it might be there 10 years from now. As far as the Hookers being "notable", you have to remember that it's usually a crap shoot as to which journalist gets to a detailed personal story first. Perhaps the only person made notable by the accident was the survivor, the first officer, although a case could be made for the pilot as well. Askari Mark | Talk

I think notability or obscurity at this moment is not the issue. Far from becoming less important with the passage of time, the passenger list will acquire greater significance to any current or future historian. Think of the value to researchers of a complete list of the passengers and crew of the Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria. The Comair link to the passenger list might not survive for any guaranteed length of time, so a sensible place for the list would be in the body of the article. Certainly that would be the first place for a researcher or interested party to look. Paul venter 19:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a complete manifest of passengers:

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/special_packages/crash/15429900.htm

It includes the names in alphabetical order, their age, and a short biography. It is well done and offers a complete list of the 49 fatally injured passengers and crew members, and at the end lists the injured surviving crew member.

I like the suggestion that has been made, that the passenger list might be included within Wikipedia in some manner. In death there is some democracy about it; no one person's life is really more notable than another, IMHO. A suggestion I make is a link to separate Wiki page with the passenger list. In that way the page might be edited with regard to the life of the persons and the Comair 5191 page would pertain the the accident itself.

This airline disaster marks the 12th time (worldwide) there has been an aviation disaster and in the aftermath there was only one survivor. These were all airliners with significant numbers of people, the smallest disaster had 24 fatally injured passengers/crew and one survivor, and the largest airliner had 154 passenger/crew persons fatally injured and one survivor. Only three were in the U.S.; the one I recalled from memory the day of Comair 5191 was {{Northwest Airlines Flight 255]]. I did not remember the date and flight number but I did remember that only a little girl survived, and the accident was due to flap settings. In the Wiki article she is the only person to be named, and a link was made to a separate article under her name. Mfields1 23:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletions and revisions

Here is a list of some of the recent deletions and revisions. The links show the diff pages, so people can see what has been lost form the page. Some are petty and some removed whole blocks of new text. But all insure that only one or two editors contributions continue to see the light of day. Mytwocents 02:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

1. 19:51, September 6, 2006 Clawson (Talk | contribs) m (practice -> occurrence (pilots don't specifically ask for it, it usually "just happens"); "take off" reads better as two words in intro, despite being a specific term) [10]
2. 11:38, September 6, 2006 Clawson (update crash sequence to AJC ref, which seems to have the most detail about it at this point)[11]
3. 02:13, September 6, 2006 Clawson (→Crash - practice -> occurrence, remove {{content}} tag as we seem to have reached a resolution of this dispute) [12]
4. 15:40, September 5, 2006 Clawson (integrate "Rescue attempt" into Victims section, where it belongs (this was mostly a poorly-written rehash of the Herald-Leader article)) [13]
5. 15:37, September 5, 2006 Clawson (→Crash - clean up wordin, remove redundancy about passengers (this is already in the article twice and doesn't need to be here), rolling takeoff is routine practise and doesn't need to be mentioned) [14]
6. 00:25, September 5, 2006 Clawson m (I don't care who reported it; consensus for inclusion has not been established. Stop reverting to "your" version until it has.) [15]
7. 14:21, September 5, 2006 LrdChaos (→Aftermath - remove non-Aftermath material still under debate on Talk page) [16]
8. 00:25, September 5, 2006 Clawson m (I don't care who reported it; consensus for inclusion has not been established. Stop reverting to "your" version until it has.) [17]
9. 23:04, September 4, 2006 Dual Freq (Lets revert lighting until someone adds a ref. No NOTAM for edge lighting on 22.22 liBold textkely lighted on edges, and 26 likely not lighted at all, but need refs.) [18]
10. 01:20, September 4, 2006 Dual Freq (Revert, already has content tag, how many more do we need here?, to revision 73687007 dated 2006-09-04 03:14:15 by Ravedave using popups) [19]

---

Gee whiz, I hope I didn't offend you with my two heinous, yet seemingly justifiable, edits. I expect to be blocked by a responsible admin at any moment. If I don't respond here it's because I was blocked for my egregious violations of wikipedia policy. Dual Freq 02:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, since I haven't been blocked yet, I'll attempt to explain why you add my two edits to you little "enemies list". You added it because I voted against you in the straw poll conducted earlier on this page. Your edit added a second disputed section tag to a section, that already had a content tag. There was clearly no reason for a second tag, and I stand by that edit. The other reversion, number 9, had nothing to do with you. The person who added that information agreed with its removal, the wording of it was very misleading and was not referenced. I stand behind that edit as well. The ONLY reason you added those two edits to your list must have been to just to blame others who disagreed with you in the vote. I guess I need to reread Wikipedia:Voting is evil before I vote next time, since that vote has apparently biased you against me. Dual Freq 00:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes, less is more, Mytwocents. I actually took the time to review the above 10 deltas: (1) Just rewording. No actual information removed. (2) Does the description of the crash sequence really need to be this detailed? I don't think there is vital information missing. (3) Content tag and "practice" vs. "occurence". No information vital to the article removed. (4, 5) Description was too sensational ("Rescuers arrived [...] to the smoke and stench of burning jet fuel, rubber and underbrush in the rough field", "Polehinke [...] coughed and spit up blood as the officers worked to get him out", "crashed in intense flames"). I consider the edits quite reasonable. I do not see that information vital to the article was removed. (6, 7, 8) Reason for removal sufficiently discussed on talk page. (9) Runway lighting information could be added as soon as refs are available. (10) POV-section tag. No information removed. Summing up, i consider the edits reasonable. I cannot understand why you are making such a big deal about contributions not "see[ing] the light of day". Gerd Badur 08:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Gerd: In the case of point #2, yes. --Neurophyre^(talk) 06:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Neurophyre, i'm not quite sure what you mean, but it seems the crash section will soon be revised anyway. Gerd Badur 21:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I mean yes, the description of the crash sequence does need to be that detailed. --Neurophyre^(talk) 19:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The point I am trying to make is that the removal is swift, total, and repetitive. Nothing has been allowed to remain, unless written by one editor. This effectively locks the page. One of my edits was deleted 4 minutes after I wrote it! And the 'Rescue' section was deleted 3 minutes after I wrote it. I think for no honest reason except that I am the author. My work has been stricken from this article. Now I have been told to get off the talk page. Wikipages are meant to be works in progress. If you, or anyone else finds something that is not perfect, in your eyes, then try to make it better. But deleting other peoples work, other than for clear vandalism, defeats the purpose of wiki. Askari Mark came to the talk page and offered a solution of a "Possible causes and contributing factors" section so that that info could be included. But he seems to have backtracked, and from my reading, no such section will be tried, under any circumstances. So; one or two editors have had the satisfaction of contributing to this important article, but they have deleted everybody else's work.

The article, as it stands today;

• Carefully worded to avoid the words death or fire in the intro.
• The 'Crash' section does not mention the passengers at all until the last sentence, in passing, as victims.
• The rescue of the first officer is a story in itself. It had it's own section for 4 minutes, before being deleted.

These three points were removed in total from the 'aftermath' section. Perhaps they could be allowed to return, so that they can be worked on by everyone.

• It has been widely reported that initially, the flight crew had started the morning by mistakenly getting onto another plane.
• According to NTSB, the controller told investigators that he had worked in the Blue Grass Airport tower from 6:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Saturday before reporting to work again at 11:30 p.m. Saturday. He was scheduled to work until 8 a.m. Sunday. He advised investigators that he got approximately two hours of sleep. Air-traffic controllers are required to have eight hours off between shifts; the Lexington controller had a nine hour break.
• It has been widely reported that Clay and Polehinke hadn't flown into the airport since the runway approach had been changed during a repaving project. It was dark, and the centerline lights on the longer runway were out because of the construction, eliminationg a potential clue that Flight 5191 was on the wrong runway.

I hope that everyone can work together to include this important information into the article. Mytwocents 15:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Nope, I haven't "backtracked" and my original recommendation stands. My response to Gerd constituted my opinions as to what I thought was germane to an encyclopedia article. If I was writing a book or a non-encyclopedic article, I'd include all three. There's a difference in the standards for what should get included and I think that's what lies at the root of the debate here. Of the three bulleted items you have posted above, I think only the third is germane to this particular article — unless and until further evidence arises that there may be a potentially causal link. The other two points might be fully relevant in a Wikipedia article on airline safety, discussion of stresses on the ATC system, etc. Askari Mark | Talk 17:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Mytwocents, although i honestly try to view this issue from your perspective i cannot agree with you. Some of your edits have been reverted because you repeatedly inserted material in the crash section while there was a dispute whether these facts were justified to be included there. I'm slowly becoming angry about the repeated and, in my eyes, completely unjustified censorship accusation. As several editors have said multiple times, the facts themselves are not disputed and they could be included as soon as knowledgeable and verifiable sources are found that explicitly state a causal or contributing relationship with the crash. Instead of trying to find such sources i can only observe attempts to restore to versions for which no consensus has been found. LrdChaos made a very good remark in the Missing Info Tag section on the talk page. Citing from it: As I (and others) have said before, we are not trying to exclude or censor acknowledged facts from this article; we are trying to prevent those facts from being presented in a misleading fashion, which is exactly what happens when facts without any demonstrated link to the crash are placed under the "Crash" section. The content of the Rescue section wasn't simply deleted but the essential information was worked into the Victims section while avoiding sensationalism (which, i hope you agree, has no place in a Wikipedia article). I support a "Possible causes and contributing factors" section as soon as there is information that fits there, which means that there must be some knowledgeable source explicitly stating the fact as causal or contributing to the crash. This seems not to be the case at the moment for the facts you would like to see there. Why can't you wait for some official statement from NTSB or FAA before you add such information? Why does the intro have to contain the words "death" or "fire"? What's wrong with mentioning the passengers only in the last sentence of the Crash section? I have the impression that you would like to see a sensationalism loaded news article instead of a Wikipedia article and i also have the impression that you simply refuse to accept the argumentation (already repeated multiple times) that Wikipedia isn't Wikinews. Please, when judging my opinion, consider that i haven't made a single edit (nor revert) to the article. I came here because of the Content tag and the RfC, and i did not have any preconceptions when i came here. I do not want to be seen as simply being part of the "censorship" faction. I'm just an outside observer trying to make some contributions in resolving the dispute. Gerd Badur 18:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Gerd, what a pity that you feel you are being deliberately baited by Mytwocents, as this can only lead to a loss of objectivity. I fail to understand why only facts that have been found by knowledgeable and verifiable sources to have a causal or contributory relationship with the crash, are permitted inclusion. It leads one to wonder how the article has any content at all at this moment in time. Is it only for aircraft crashes that this rule exists or does it apply throughout Wikipedia? Waiting for official reports from 'approved' sources seems to ensure a sort of editorial paralysis. This would mean that only true-blue facts would enter the article, but only to be read at some unknown future date by our grandchildren when the matter is no longer topical. The constantly repeated mantra that Wikipedia is not Wikinews is wearing a bit thin. The fact is that the crash of Comair 5191 is most definitely news and was covered by Wikinews and perhaps that should have been the end of it. However, someone chose to turn an essentially newsy event into an article for Wikipedia, so that this event is now wearing two hats. So you cannot have it both ways - if the event was covered in Wikinews and you are covering the same event in Wikipedia, then you must be seeing some magical dividing line that is invisible to a lot of other editors. For your statistical interest you should do a tally on the article's history page of the number of reverts and deletes under each editor's name - the results might come as an eye-opener. Paul venter 19:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The dividing line is not magical, it is clear-cut in black and white. Wikinews expressly permits original research and reporting, while Wikipedia expressly forbids it. Nothing can be included in Wikipedia unless it is meticulously, verifiably and reliably sourced. FCYTravis 19:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well now, that is interesting. In an account which was part of the article until yesterday it stated "The aircraft clipped the airport boundary fence, cleared a barbed wire fence, and became momentarily airborne after hitting a berm." Today it reads "The aircraft became momentarily airborne after hitting a grass berm. The aircraft went through the airport boundary fence 400 feet past the runway edge, a second fence 300 feet more distant". Please explain how this meticulously, verifiably and reliably sourced bit of misinformation escaped the eagle eyes of the quality controllers from August 27 to September 6? Or did I miss some 'reliable source'? Paul venter 20:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It's "constantly repeated […] that Wikipedia is not Wikinews" because it's true. Just because Wikipedia has an article about a current event (that's in the news) does not mean that it ceases to be an encyclopedia. The job of Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors is not to decide what is and is not relevant to causing the crash. Not only do we not have all the information we would need to make informed choices about that, it would still be original research. The fact that this is a current event does not make it exempt from Wikipedia's policies or guidelines.

You say that, by not speculating about the causes of the crash, "This would mean that only true-blue facts would enter the article, but only to be read at some unknown future date by our grandchildren when the matter is no longer topical." The first part of that is exactly Wikipedia's mission: only those facts which can and have been proven. The second part is simply the nature of an encyclopedia, and results from the fact-based nature of Wikipedia. We can only use facts drawn from verifiable, reliable sources; in this case, the only source reliable enough to cite regarding definite causes of the crash will be the final NTSB report, whenever it is released. It is not our place as Wikipedia editors to make inferences from these facts and/or present them in anything other than a neutral manner.

You also express confusion about "why only facts that have been found by knowledgeable and verifiable sources to have a causal or contributory relationship with the crash, are permitted inclusion." This is, again, because of the nature of Wikipedia, and is connected with what I said in the previous paragraph. The article at hand discusses the crash of Comair Flight 5191; the "Crash" section, in particular, describes the events of the crash, including those factors which contributed to or caused it. As such, any information added to that section is implied to be related to the crash in a contributory or causal nature. To include facts that have not been proven as either in that section would be a misrepresentation of those facts. —LrdChaos 20:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear LrdChaos, this is the first paragraph of the article Comair Flight 5191 was a domestic U.S. flight from Lexington, Kentucky, to Atlanta, Georgia, operated on behalf of Delta Connection by Comair. On August 27, 2006, at approximately 6:07 a.m. local time, a Bombardier Canadair Regional Jet flying the route crashed after attempting to take off from the wrong runway at Blue Grass Airport, Lexington. The first officer was the only survivor among the 47 passengers and three crew on board. The flight was scheduled to land at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport at 7:18 a.m.. Please underline the facts which are contributory or causal to the crash. Paul venter 20:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Paul, what the fuck does that have to do with anything? You're just arguing now; you're not even trying to make a point any more. No one has ever said that the opening paragraph was only supposed to consist of facts that were causal in the crash, and if that's how you interpreted LrdChaos's statement above, I'm not the least bit surprised that you don't have even a basic grasp of Wikipedia policies and procedures. We're talking about the Crash section here. Don't change the subject.--chris.lawson 23:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Lawson, with your lies, profanity and distressing lack of logic, you're not the person to deliver sermons about Wikipedia policy. I've dismissed you some time back as someone who's simply on his own ego trip. You're not a very nice person and I would appreciate it if in future you did not direct your diatribes or invective at me. You're obviously young and callow, and one can only hope that time will teach you something about getting on with your fellow man. Paul venter 11:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Paul, i'm not feeling deliberately baited by Mytwocents. I'm not (yet) emotionally involved in this article. I think i can still manage to keep my objectivity. Regarding the number of reverts and deletes: Both are zero in my case and, in the other cases, i would like to cite VxSote from elsewhere on this page (based on a remark by LrdChaos): It would be a mistake to assume that nobody else would have removed (or added) the same disputed information in the absence of those editors who work more swiftly than others. Regarding your most recent remark here: Honestly, i have difficulties finding adequate words. Gerd Badur 21:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Gerd, by the same logic it would be a mistake to assume that somebody else would have removed (or added) the same disputed information in the absence of those editors who work more swiftly than others. Paul venter 22:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Paul, maybe i would have. Gerd Badur 21:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that reliance solely on information that is meticulously, verifiably and reliably sourced would set such a high standard that very little could ever be written. It is certainly a goal to work for, but rather a difficult one to hit on a current event which is still unfolding. Moreover, it's not uncommon for the NTSB report to come out a couple of years after the event (although I don't think that will be the case here). In the interim, there is nothing wrong with working the best information available at the current time. While Wikipedians shouldn't play the "guess the outcome" game, it isn't at all illegitimate to identify what knowledgeable analysts are saying might have been the cause or contributed to it. That's why I suggested a "Possible causes and contributing factors" section. The key, though, is to cite knowledgeable sources and not just regurgitate press speculation ... after all, we could probably go to the "Weekly World News" for "evidence" that aliens or maybe the Bat Boy caused it. Maybe it would be best if everybody took a few days break from the revert wars and spent the time saved searching for a source quoting a knowledgeable expert about the very thing they want to add to the article - or to contradict/criticize such claims. Askari Mark | Talk

Regarding missed runways

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. [20]. 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)

Let's call for an admin

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)

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)

It's clearly gotten personal with both of you. Time for some more eyeballs. --Neurophyre^(talk) 06:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Crash section

The "Crash" section of the article is full of run-on sentences, doesn't define "rotation" (which a lot of people will need defined) and is written in a very confusing matter.

The first paragraph should provide a short chronological account of the events of the crash.

The next paragraph can provide further details, such as whether the ATC needed to be watching the plane takeoff, what the pilot/co-pilot actually did, etc.

I don't have the time/patience to fix this right now, but it should be done. Peyna 16:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we've made a mess out of this. I was going to take another crack at it later on when I have a bit more time to work. Also, this whole business about the berm. We've been through a few edits that seem to be going in circles, so we need to discuss how exactly this should read. Several of the sources indicate that it was an earthen berm, where the AJC article says grass. From the berm article here, it seems to me that the type of berm here would have to be some sort of earthwork. Even if it was made of sod, rather than just dirt, I think 'earthen' would be a better word to use than 'grass'. In any case, I'm fine with just leaving the adjective out and saying the aircraft hit a berm.

The next issue I have with the berm is whether 'impacted' or 'running up' is the more appropriate term. To me, running up the berm would mean tire marks in the grass, where impacting would mean something more significant. All of the sources I've seen imply some sort of collision rather than simply ramping up a bit. There might be a difference, or maybe there isn't, but I think I'd rather use a word such as 'struck', 'collided with', or 'impacted' in order to be more consistent with the sources. VxSote 16:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've looked over the photo in the Wiki article and compared it with photos released by AP. It looks as though as the runway pavement ends, there is a short flat section of grass (about 300 feet), then a gradually sloped area up to the airport boundary (another 100 feet). Then the runway fence about 400 feet from runway edge and exactly perpendicular to the runway centerline. Look the the photo again, the barbed wire fence is on the farm, and it is not quite parallel to the runway centerline. It is hidden by a row of trees. It is common practice for fences in rural Kentucky to fasten the barbed wire diretly to the trees where the farmer wants the fence line to run. Then poles are inserted wherever trees are not conveniently located. The interstection of the barbed wire fence is 1-1/2 times the distance from runway edge to airport boundary fence (i.e. 600 feet). We'll have to wait for the NTSB report to know the exact sequence, but it seems to me when rotation was called for they were just at or beyond the runway edge and partially in the grass. They became airborne, but the climb was not enough to completely miss the top of the berm where the boundary fence was. The lower part of the plane (gear, etc.) probably hit this fence and because they were already going at least 137 miles per hour they likely tore up the fence as they went right through it or a portion of it, then continued on, somewhat airborne (just a matter of inches to feet) but then hit the trees/barbed wire fence and "bought the farm" (to use the old euphemism) in the grove of trees. The berm existed because the farm is a little higher elevation than the runway, which was probably leveled long ago. Also, on approach for runway 8 (opposite direction) , the airnav says "25 ft. tree, 400 ft. from runway, 150 ft. right of centerline, 8:1 slope to clear". That's a pretty steep slope which is consistent with the farm being at a higher elevation. That's approximately where the farmer's fenceline starts in the Wiki picture. In other words if you walked the centerline of runway 26 and at the pavement end walked 400 feet to the boundary fence, turned left, walked another 150 feet you will be at the tree and the start of the barbed wire fence, which angles back towards the runway centerline. The red arrow is drawn down the centerline. The NTSB will be detailed in their report, and spell it out as precisely as they can once they gather the information. Likely they will even have a chart which shows the exact timing of everything down to the 1/10 of a second on where the aircraft was from start to finish. Zoom up on the Wiki photo and you can see the details. Mfields1 21:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at this slideshow on the Lexington-Herald Leader website. Go to the sixth slide: http://www.heraldleaderphoto.com/multimedia/unfinished/journeys.html The berm was earthen covered with grass. The wheels of the plane may have been only inches above the ground as it left the runway. The wheels, landing gear or lower section of the A/C crashed through the airport boundary fence, then the aircraft flew into the tree line with the barbed wire barbed wire fence that runs along the tree line. Further into the slide show, at 5:52 there is a photo that shows the runway layout and the recent paving, etc. Runway 26 was also freshly paved for a fair distance leading into the intersection with 22. When they turned onto 26 at that time in the morning, with no lights except the lights of their own aircraft shining down the runway, they may have seen the fresh paving and striping on 26. At the place after where the plane struck the tree line / barbed wire fence line, then the terrain dips down. IF they were at all airborne they were probably spilling fuel already since the fuselage and wings were separating. the fire track showns they spilled a lot of fuel as the fuselage skidded into the rise of the following hill. The reat section of the aircraft was separated from the front. At 5:07 they show the cockpit by itself. There's a hole in the top where Jared probably pulled out Polehinke. The last half of the slide show shows all the victims. Mfields1 13:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Fact

As a general note to users with a tendency to simply delete or revert information due to lack of a proper site, please see the documentation for {{Template:Fact}}, which I include here.

---

This template documentation is transcluded from Talk:Comair Flight 5191/Archive 3/doc [edit]

Enter this tag in the body of an article as a request for other editors to find citations:

1. to label a passage which is incomplete without a cited source of information
2. to label a quotation which lacks a citation, as per Wikipedia:Citing sources.

Do not use this tag in order to label text which appears doubtful or false, especially in the case of biographies of living people (see this section of WP:3RR as well).

For dealing with dubious information, please use {{verify source}}. See also Wikipedia:Citing sources#Text that is, or is likely to be, disputed.

Regarding the unsourced or poorly sourced information:

1. if it is likely true, but needs specificity, you may use {{specify}}
2. if it is not doubtful, you may use {{fact}} or {{citequote}} tag to ask for better citation in order to make the article complete.
3. if it is doubtful but not too harmful to the whole article, you may use {{verify source}} tag to ask for source verification.
   
4. If it is doubtful and (quite) highly harmful, you may move it to the talk page and ask for a source.
   
5. If it is very doubtful and very harmful, you may remove it directly without the need of moving it to the talk page first.

To find all pages that use this template, see Category:Articles with unsourced statements. For articles which lack sources, please visit Category:Articles lacking sources.

This template is a self-reference and so is part of the Wikipedia project rather than the encyclopedic content.

Useful redirects

• {{cn}}
• {{Cite needed}}
• {{Cite-needed}}
• {{Citeneeded}}

See also

• Wikipedia:Citing sources

• {{Cite}} (deprecated)

• {{Citequote}}, tagging a request for citation, used for quotaions that needs citations to make it complete, but not for seemingly doubtful or false texts
• {{Request quote}}, tagging a request for quoting inaccessible source, used for requesting a direct quote from the cited source for verification
• {{Verify source}}, tagging a request for source verification, used for information that is doubtful or appears false.
• {{Verify credibility}}, tagging a request for source verification, used for information that is doubtful or appears false.

• {{Citecheck}}, popping up a box saying an article or section may have inappropriate or misinterpreted citations
• {{Not verified}}, popping up a box saying an article or section has not been verified and may not be reliable
• {{Unreferenced}}, 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)

Don't call someone a vandal when it's obviously a good faith edit

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)

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)

Regardless of whether it was sockpuppet or a bad faith edit, it was hardly vandalism. Peyna 03:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Might I suggest that users Mfields1 and Clawson both take a minimum 48 hour break from editing this article in any way whatsoever. I admire your passion for improving this article, but it is getting to the point where we are approaching ownership-type issues, and even minor grammatical changes are being reverted within minutes. Give the rest of Wikipedia a chance, and come back when you've taken a breather. There is an entire encyclopedia out there that needs your help. Peyna 19:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Aftermath section

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)

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)

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)