Talk:Twilight Zone accident/Archive 1

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

Archive 1

Decapitation / Delamination

Not finding evidence of decapitation from the NTSB reports, they simply state that "The postmortem examination of the adult actor and male child actor [...] attributed to injuries to the head, neck, and shoulder of each actor" and "to the female child actress was attributed to multiple traumatic injuries and blunt force trauma." Chaosdruid (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Both books on the tragedy describe the injuries, including the decapitation, in great detail. I've read one and have the other, and will be adding details when I get a chance. Coretheapple (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Me too, and thanks for clarifying "claimed". -- Jodon | Talk 14:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Frankly I think it's best to take out the delamination stuff completely for now. It was definitely raised at the trial, but was highly contentious, not to mention dubious. We should mention it once we get into detail on the trial (there needs to be an entire section on that), so that we can discuss it and put it in context. No worries, I have the LaBrecque book. Coretheapple (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

By the way, do you have the Farber book? I think it's a better read. Coretheapple (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

(Originally posted to Jodon's TP) Looking at the way it is phrased ("It was also the first recorded instance of a stunt helicopter crashing as the result of delamination of a tail rotor") I am wondering if it was proven that delamination was the cause of the crash? I'm not absolutely disputing it, but looking at the sources, delamination as the cause of the crash was only claimed by the defense, claiming that it was "unforeseeable". However, the NTSB describe the probable cause as debris striking a blade causing sufficient imbalance to separate the gearbox and rotor assembly. They also concluded: "The Safety Board believes that the condition of the full tail rotor blade that remained attached to the rotor hub further illustrates the hazardous conditions to which the helicopter was exposed. The skin of part of this blade had separated from internal structures because the bonding had been exposed to high temperatures from the special effects explosions. However, the skin probably separated after the fracture of the other blade, and therefore, was not a significant factor in the loss of the tail rotor assembly." (my emphasis.) That the defendants were found not guilty didn't give proof to the defense's argument. Blackberry Sorbet 14:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree absolutely with "claimed" and "disputed", but I don't think it should be removed for that reason. Yes, I have both books, but have not finished reading them yet. I take a break from reading them every so often because sometimes I find the subject matter too disturbing, even though its compelling. I stopped watching the video footage a long time ago as it still shocks me every time. -- Jodon | Talk 14:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Blackberry. Jodon, given the limited length of the article at present, I think that it is a serious overweighting issue to put it in the article right now, especially in the lead paragraph. But it definitely needs to be discussed once we've fleshed this out. Yes the books are disturbing. Glad you have Farber's. I don't have that at present. Coretheapple (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Here's to fleshing things out - Cheers. -- Jodon | Talk 14:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I had been planning to create this very article for some months but Piotrus beat me to it. You snooze, you lose. Coretheapple (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. (non-admin closure) Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Twilight Zone tragedy → Twilight Zone: The Movie helicopter crash – An AfD was opened, however, it will obviously be closed as the nom withdrew it. What we did learn was that most people do not care for the current title. I propose this one, as it is concise and easily recognizable. Feel free to propose others. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Support – The new version is clearer. "Twilight Zone tragedy" is only helpful if you already have some idea of what happened. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Object - that's the common title. Perhaps Twilight Zone helicopter crash tragedy could be a compromise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - Piotrus is correct that the article currently uses the common title. I disagree that it "is only helpful if you already have some idea of what happened" - take Watergate scandal for example: what the hell does that impart unless you know that there was a scandal and that it took place in a building known as the Watergate complex? It is, however, still the commonly used name. Blackberry Sorbet 11:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - I also agree that the current name reflects the more widespread use of the subject. I don't understand how "most people do not care for the current title". In any event Wikipedia should reflect common usage. The alternative is to have it available as a redirect. -- Jodon | Talk 01:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Support. Seems a bit moot now that Bushranger moved the article, but I support this. There doesn't seem to be a uniform WP:COMMONNAME, but "Twilight Zone Helicopter Crash" and "Twilight Zone Tragedy" seem to be the most popular, outside of "Twilight Zone Trial", which isn't really descriptive enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. "Twilight Zone: The Movie helicopter crash" is a bit of a mouthful, and not the common name for this incident by any stretch. I'd be happy with the simpler and more intuitive "Twilight Zone helicopter crash", but I don't see anything wrong with the original title either. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Neither the current article title nor the proposed one is adequate. I suggest Twilight Zone movie helicopter crash. Coretheapple (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Change in Hollywood regulations

Can anyone provide a ref for [1] (the incident resulted in "new Hollywood regulations on children working on movie sets at night and during special effects-heavy scenes")? I removed it as I couldn't find a ref to verify it. Sounds important, if we could source it. Ping User:Coretheapple. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there weren't any such new regulations, as the old ones were violated by Landis so it wasn't a question of the old ones not being adequate. However, I'll have to check, and you're right to remove for the time being. Coretheapple (talk) 05:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

@User:Coretheapple: The claim comes from the TZM article. There is also another interesting claim there: "Hollywood also avoided helicopter-related stunts for many years, until the CGI revolution of the 1990s made it possible to use digital versions". Anything in sources to confirm this? Again, sounds important and interesting if we can confirm it. If you cannot confirm them, we should probably remove both claims from Twilight_Zone:_The_Movie#Helicopter_accident (I tagged them with cite needed a while back when I was writing this article and trying to verify the claims from that section). PS. That section also has a quote about delamination you were discussing above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

There is an article in Slate (Weintraub, Robert (July 26, 2012). "A New Dimension of Filmmaking". Slate.) which discusses the changes: "Terrible as the Twilight Zone accident was, some good did come of it. At Warner Bros., a behind-the-scenes revolution was set in motion, as a vice president named John Silvia was determined to tighten up the industry’s approach to safety. Silvia convened a committee that created standards for every aspect of filmmaking, from gunfire to fixed-wing aircraft to smoke and pyrotechnics. All the unions and guilds in the business were represented[...] The committee's codicils were collected into a group of standards called Safety Bulletins. The studios then issued a manual to their employees based on the bulletins, known as the Injury and Illness Prevention Program."

The Chicago Tribune (Thompson, Anne (September 8, 1988). "Unseemly Hush Greets 'Twilight Zone' Book". Chicago Tribune.) wrote: "One group willing to raise serious safety issues in the wake of the accident was the Director's Guild safety committee, which issued 26 rigorous safety guidelines that have been passed on to the other guilds[...] There is considerable evidence that industry discomfort with the Twilight Zone case, however, has translated into heightened safety consciousness. On the TV series China Beach, which routinely employs helicopters at Indian Dunes, the site of the Twilight Zone crash, production manager Fred Gerber has handed out a NTSB helicopter safety handbook to all cast and crew and reports routine red-flagging of any special effects or helicopter sequences." The latter section also appears to indicate that helicopter stunt work continued regardless, albeit with a new safety conscious attitude. Blackberry Sorbet 09:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

@User:Blackberry Sorbet: Excellent finds, this should certainly be in the article. Would you like to add the relevant para? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

CGI

Sorry the statement and had a negative impact on the use of helicopters for film stunt work in Hollywood for many years after that, until the advent of computer-generated imagery (CGI). doesnt make sense, I was going to be bold and change it but I thought I would ask what was actually meant. As present it says they stopped using helos for a while then started using them again when CGI was introduced. Why would they use real helicopters when they introduced CGI? MilborneOne (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You're right, there was a logical fallacy there. If you were to interpret it literally it would mean they started using helicopters again after that. My bad. I've re-phrased it now to match the sentence used in the Twilight Zone: The Movie. Thanks for pointing that out. -- Jodon | Talk 12:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that this is factually accurate. There doesn't appear to be a period after the crash in 1982 where helicopters disappeared from TV/movie "stunts" (for want of a better word.) Blue Thunder was released in 83, followed by its ABC TV spin-off in 84; Tour of Duty ran 87 through 90; Magnum, P.I. 80-88; Airwolf 84-87; The A-Team 83-87, Riptide 83-86; Rambo III 88; Fire Birds 90... I'm not sure where this "negative impact on the use of helicopters for film stunt work" assertion originates, but it simply runs contrary to the known facts. Blackberry Sorbet 13:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is saying helicopters "disappeared", but just that the industry was "affected". And not everybody learnt from it - Reid Rendell was killed in a helicopter crash on the set of Airwolf. But I agree probably scholarly sources should be researched for clarification. -- Jodon | Talk 15:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the sentence to remove the phrase and replaced it with the safety systems which followed the crash. It seems redundant to include an unverified assertion of unknown provenance, unknown origin, in the hope that a reference might exist somewhere. Noone here seems to know where it originates, and it can always be added again if sources turn up. Blackberry Sorbet 16:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it should also be removed from the movie article? -- Jodon | Talk 16:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Done Blackberry Sorbet 17:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Twilight Zone tragedy

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Twilight Zone tragedy's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Outrageous Conduct":

From Vic Morrow: Farber, Stephen and Green, Marc (1988). Outrageous Conduct: Art, Ego and the Twilight Zone Case. Arbor House (Morrow). {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
From Twilight Zone: The Movie: Stephen Farber; Marc Green (1988). "Outrageous Conduct: Art, Ego and the Twilight Zone Case". Arbor House (Morrow). {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help) ^{[page needed]}
From John Landis: Farber, Stephen and Green, Marc (1988). "Outrageous Conduct: Art, Ego and the Twilight Zone Case". Arbor House (Morrow). {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Adding Category:Film controversies

Is it necessary?--Sticky v. Speedwagon (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

It was a fatal accident, not a dispute about a movie's content. "Controversy" doesn't seem appropriate. Trivialist (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

No, per WP:CATV. We assign categories based on an article's verifiable content. If there isn't a discussion of controversy then an article shouldn't be classifed under such a category. DonIago (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Lee?

Who is the "Lee" referred to in the aftermath section? 204.112.198.217 (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Cause of death

"while Chen was crushed to death by the helicopter's right landing skid; all three died instantly" It's pretty clear from both the NTSB report and the video (it's on Youtube) that all three were struck and killed by the main rotor blades. I the video the helicopter skids don't impact the surface anywhere near the three deceased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.56.27.70 (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)