Talk:LANSA Flight 502

Good Article

I have passed this one even though it seems at first glance rather thin because, looking at what's out there, the article creators have used just about every source they could for an event 36 years in the past. It passes in the sense that it's almost as good as it's probably going to get and is regretfully too short to be a serious FA candidate.

I would improve it a bit by changing things like "Buffalo, NY" to "Buffalo, New York" per Wikipedia's style guidelines, and adding some other categories this might fall into (I found a couple that I'll do already). Daniel Case 13:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote and the advice. I'll try my best to keep improving it. This is my first GA ever - it is much appreciated! Crum375 15:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Photo links

There are a couple of issues in these external photo links.
First, there are 2 separate ones. The 'simplication' edit eliminated one, and I think both are important to get a good feel of the rising terrain (which is at the heart of this accident).
Second, this photo site has a peculiarity (probably intentional) that requires the user to click on the full image link (ads and all) to refresh the cache. Unless you first refresh your cache, you cannot see the clean image. My compromise solution for now is to alert the reader to this effect, which allows the reader to refresh the cache and have access to the clean image(s) for a few days (depending on the browser cache settings), after first clicking on the full image link. This may not be ideal, but it does allow the reader to enjoy the clean image. If someone can think of another way to achieve this goal, please advise.
Thanks, Crum375 15:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

All other Wikipedia articles that link to Airliners.net do it with the appropriate URL, that looks like http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1058793/M. Any other link that looks different than that, or that links directly to the JPG will not load properly, because Airliners.Net will think that you are trying to do remote linking. Most websites are now preventing remote linking, by replacing the image with their logo or something else if it detects it is being loaded from another website. I removed one of the images because without the airplane above the runway, the view of the field elevation is better. If you want to reinstate it, be my guest, but please use the appropriate Airliners.Net URL. -- AirOdyssey (Talk) 20:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I am copying here my response to you on your Talk page:

The instructions that you removed explain to the reader how to refresh his/her cache to enable the display of the single jpeg image which is much cleaner/nicer. All you need to do is follow the instructions: you preload the cache once by clicking on the provided right hand link, then you can view the associated jpeg image for several days from your cache by clicking on the left hand link. This is a technique I use throughout my articles. By removing the instructions you disabled that feature.

As far as the choice of having 2 separate images, I sifted for a long time through many images, trying to illusrate what a pilot would see taking off to the west. The ones I chose seemed to me to show it best, each one in its own way - the issue is the runway environment and the terrain ahead, not the airplane. By removing one of them you removed a nice view of the rising terrain. Please, before you remove an image like that in the future, or disable a feature, use the Discussion page. You can make a comment or suggestion there (here) , and I would be glad to respond. Thanks, Crum375 20:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Please keep in mind I was trying to make a constructive edit, while removing the clutter and keeping in line with the other Wikipedia articles. Did you look at other Wikipedia articles giving Airliners.Net links?

• Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907#External links
• JAT Flight 364#External links
• TWA Flight 553#External links
• United Airlines Flight 173#External links

One thing is "to look nice", another one is to give justice to the photographer by showing an image with the appropriate credits, while having a better viewer experience, by not having to make one extra click to view a photo. -- AirOdyssey (Talk) 20:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Again copying my response from your Talk page:

Thank you for trying to be constructive. In this case, however, there are many articles that I can cite that use my cache-refreshing technique. The advantage is that you get to see a clear picture without clutter, which helps you focus on the content and message of the picture. In addition, if you looked carefully you would have noticed that the URL that you mention is included, that is in fact the 'right hand URL', which you need to click on once to prime/refresh your cache, and where you can get the info about the photo, the photographer details etc. It is the left hand link that gives you the clear image, and this is the one you removed. Please discuss these types of changes prior to reversion/removal. Thanks, Crum375 20:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

After looking at the discussion, I find myself agreeing with Crum375. Having a greater number of pictures is looked upon favorably, and as there is currently only one picture, having two pictures improves the page. KazakhPol 21:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

What about the Airliners.Net way of linking? -- AirOdyssey (Talk) 21:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to link to external pictures (and whether we should link to those two is a whole different kettle of fish) it's only courtesy that we follow their convention for linking to the page. There's also an issue of ease of use - I personally haven't been able to get either of them to display the image on its own; I fear that they'll just confuse people who would otherwise miss out on the photo, even if it does have adverts etc. round it. As a kludge, there's always the risk that it'll be broken, and stop working. If we link using the correct technique, there's an implicit undertaking from Airliners.net that they'll keep it working. Once you're at the page itself, those who wish to open the image in a new window on its own can do so easily enough. Anyway, I'm sure if the photographer felt that having the photo embedded in a page destroyed it, they'd find some other way to display it. --Scott Wilson 21:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

In order to avoid confusion for viewers (including myself when I first read this page), I'm considering removing the "cache detour" links (pointing to the JPG file), only to keep the actual Airliners.Net links as described before (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1058793/M) However, I will retain both pictures. Does that sound fair for everyone? -- AirOdyssey (Talk) 21:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem in having both the 'embedded' link, where the image is embedded in the page and refreshes the cache as a side effect, as well as the 'standalone' link, where the image is viewed cleanly without clutter. The standalone image is available for several days (I believe it depends on the local cache setting) of quick retrieval and uncluttered viewing, whereas the embedded image, with detailed info about the image, is available as long as the host maintains it. Removing the standalone version would rob readers from being able to focus on a clean uncluttered image. When I look closely at image details, seeing the background clutter (which is often brightly colored and animated) is a major distraction. I see no reason to disable this option. Crum375 22:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I am a member of the Airliners.net Customer Support team, and a user has recently brought this issue to our attention. Our official policy on use of images can be viewed here. If I can be of any further help, please do not hesitate to email me at chachu201@airliners.net --Chachu207 ::: Talk to me 23:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

LANSA Flight 502

This article is named after the location of the crash rather than after the flight number. After doing some poking around, I found that this is probably LANSA Flight 502, service from Cuzco to Lima. Online, a scanned LANSA timetable from circa 1968 lists the Cuzco-Lima service as Flight 502 and a United States Senate press release from August 2006 refers to this crash as the crash of LANSA Flight 502.

Would it be prudent or necessary to rename this article? For the time being, I'll set up a redirect from LANSA Flight 502 to this article. plmoknijb 17:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The only way to add Flight 502 is if you can find a reliable source. We could even accept a reliable primary source, if it's non controversial. So please provide the source, if you have it. Otherwise, even the redirect would have to be removed if unsourced. Crum375 17:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yuh, the reliable source, I know. =) Well, these are the only easily accessible online sources I found: 1968 LANSA timetable and Senator Schumer's office press release. I would be hesitant to trust the senator's press release but the timetable is helpful. I checked the New York Times archives for articles related to the crash but none of them mention the flight number. (To be fair I think this is partly a function of the era of the crash.) I'll defer to your judgment on whether to put any mention of Flight 502 in the article, but I think it merits at least a redirect. I guess if one were really devoted a phone call to the senator's office might provide an answer. plmoknijb 16:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Since this is a non-contentious issue, I think we can rely on the combination of Shumer's press release and the timetable. I agree with a redirect for now, and perhaps move the name also. Thanks for the good detective work! Crum375 16:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:LANSA Flight 502/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I will be doing the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Links 1 and 5 in the references section are dead. I also put a template on the last section about the student who didn't go due to a lack of money. There should be a reference for that information. The website references also need more information. Per WP:CITE they should at least have the website publisher and accessdate. The author, date and work are nice to have if they are available.

Otherwise the article is fairly good, it covers the subject and the writing is sound. I made some minor copy edits. The images are good as well. I don't anticipate the article will require much work to address these concerns. I'll hold it for one week to make sure at least the last section is adequately referenced and the current references have good links and are formatted properly. H1nkles (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

All the issues have been addressed, I'll keep at GA thank you for your efforts! H1nkles (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Aftermath

Not sure the aftermath section is particulaly notable (or referenced) and the mention of one non-notable student is not really required. It could have beens are not really encyclopedic and I would recommend that the section is removed.MilborneOne (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the "non-notable student" was written up in a news article about the crash, as were the other 15 who didn't take the flight I think it does add information and perspective about the crash for a reader, so I'll try to find those sources (not sure how they disappeared, perhaps the article clippings were sub-pages on the accident website, now all broken links). Crum375 (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I decided to remove the Aftermath section per User:MilborneOne's suggestion. It seems to have been added by an anon-IP a couple of months ago, with no sources. Crum375 (talk) 02:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

______ Note - some sources say the sole survivor was a passenger and not the co-pilot ____

GA Reassessment

LANSA Flight 502

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

GA from 2006. Aside from the small amount of uncited material, this article is not broad enough. There is nothing in the investigation section and the article itself just looks smaller than it should be. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

You are right, the article seems to have deteriorated considerably since I left it years ago. I'll try to fix it up over the next few days, and hopefully return it to GA standards soon. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Crum375, how have you got on? Do you feel the article is sufficiently improved? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

It's better, but needs more work. If you have specific points you think are most critical, let me know. Crum375 (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I have to ask, is there anything you can use to expand the aftermath and investigation. Also, there is some uncited statements in the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Onegreatjoke, I have fixed some broken links using Wayback, and tightened the Lead and Investigation sections to rely strictly on the actual Final Report (which is in Spanish). Since I couldn't find an official English version, I included both the original and automated English translation of the "Causes" section on the Talk page, and included excerpt of the Spanish original plus English key points as a Note in the article. If you feel anything is still missing or needs improvement, or have any other comments, let me know. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• I discovered some more issues, will post here when resolved. Crum375 (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

After some more fixes, I think it's OK now, but any critique/comment would be appreciated. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Also pinging Onegreatjoke to see their thoughts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Excerpt from Final Report document

The online copy of the Final Report is now cited in the article, and is currently in Spanish. I have not been able to find an official English translation, which would be very helpful. In the meanwhile, I am quoting below the OCR'd version of the "Causes" section of PDF document (apologies for poor formatting, feel free to improve):

Causas del Accidente.

La Comisión Investigadora, luego de precisar los hechos y efectuado el análisis correspondiente, estima que las causas que han podido originar el accidente del avión Electra OB-R-939 de la Compañía LANSA son las siguientes:

1. Causas originadas por falla de material:

Detención del motor N° 3 del avión, después del decollaje, que restó el 25% de la potencia requerida para realizar el vuelo obligando al piloto a regresar al Aeropuerto del Cuzco. La falla de este motor se ha producido por un mantenimiento inadecuado de la Compañía LANSA, al no haber tomado la acción correctiva apropiada ante las continuas fallas que venía presentando.

2. Causas originadas por inadecuada operación:

a. Acción operativa indebida al retractar el flap de ala después del decollaje, procedimiento en que había sido instruido el piloto, lo que impidió que el avión en la configuración en que se encontraba: tres motores operativos, peso bruto cerca al máximo autorizado y temperatura ambiente alta, adoptara un régimen de ascenso suficiente en relación con la gradiente del suelo, para alcanzar una altura sobre el terreno que permitiera la maniobra con seguridad para regresar de inmediato al Aeropuerto.

b. Decisión inadecuada del Piloto al regresar de inmediato al Aeropuerto con el flap de ala retractado y con la configuración y condiciones de avión anteriormente indicadas que hacen presumir que el piloto no debió virar para regresar, sino continuar hacia Oropesa para recién iniciar el retorno al Aeropuerto.

— Final Report (Spanish)

I might add google translate version of the above, but would not want to quote it in article space. Crum375 (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• I have added an excerpt of the above OCR'd text from the Final Report inside a Note, with the 2 key points summarized from it (flap retraction and failure to maintain terrain clearance). I have also added another link to the Aviation Safety Network report on the accident in the Investigation section. Crum375 (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

English translation of the (Spanish) "Causes" section above

Causes of the Accident.

• Note: this translation was produced by a free online translator from Spanish to English

The Investigation Commission, after having clarified the facts and performed the corresponding analysis, considers that the causes that may have originated the accident of the Electra OB-R-939 aircraft of LANSA Company are the following:

1. Causes originated by material failure:

Stoppage of the aircraft's engine N° 3, after takeoff, which removed 25% of the power required to perform the flight, forcing the pilot to return to Cuzco Airport. The failure of this engine was caused by inadequate maintenance by the LANSA Company, as it did not take the appropriate corrective action in view of the continuous failures it had been presenting.

2. Causes originated by inadequate operation:

a. Improper operational action when retracting the wing flap after takeoff, a procedure in which the pilot had been instructed, which prevented the aircraft in the configuration it was in: three operative engines, gross weight close to the maximum authorized and high ambient temperature, from adopting a sufficient rate of climb in relation to the ground gradient, to reach a height above the ground that would allow the maneuver to safely return immediately to the Airport.

b. Inadequate decision of the Pilot to return immediately to the Airport with the wing flap retracted and with the aforementioned aircraft configuration and conditions, which lead to presume that the pilot should not have turned to return, but continue towards Oropesa to begin the return to the Airport.

— Final Report (Spanish original, translated to English via online translator)

• I have made a couple of minor fixes in the above translation. Anyone is welcome to improve it further. Crum375 (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Image showing accident area

This image was in the original article for several years, until removed without comment in 2013 by anon ip. I have now restored it, as I think it adds perspective, showing the general area and terrain where the accident sequence took place, from takeoff to crash. Crum375 (talk) 10:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

"overloading" removal from lead

The "Causes" section in the Final Report (in Spanish, see also an English Translation above) does not mention "overloading", so I have removed that term from the lead to conform to the Final Report. Crum375 (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)