Talk:List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Candidates for 1979

I believe the following are notable additions to 1979, they do not have articles so are parked here pending action (or deletion) (MilborneOne 21:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)):

• 13 March 1979 - An Alia Boeing 727 (JY-ADU), forced into the ground during a thunderstorm near Doha Airport, Qatar. Of the 64 on board, 41 passengers and 3 crew died.
• 17 March 1979 - An Aeroflot Tupolev Tu-104 crashed in freezing fog and rain near Moscow USSR. All 90 on board died.
• 23 April 1979 - A SAETA Vickers Viscount (HC-AVP) missing on a flight from Quito to Cuenca. Aircraft found five years later. All 57 on board died (52 passengers and 5 crew).
• 31 July 1979 - A Dan-Air HS 748 (G-BEKF) failed to become airborne at Sumburgh Airport, Scotland. Of the 47 on board, 15 passengers and two crew died.
• 4 August 1979 - An Indian Airlines HS 748 (VT-DXJ) crashed into the Kiroli Hills 11km east of Bombay. All 45 on board died (40 passengers and five crew).
• 14 September 1979 - An ATI Douglas DC-9 (I-ATJC) crashed into a mountain ridge near Cagliari, Italy. All 31 on board died (27 passengers and four crew).
• 31 October 1979 - A Western Airlines Douglas DC-10 (N903WA) crashed landing on a closed runway at Mexico City airport, Mexico. Of the 89 on board, 61 passengers and 11 crew died (and one person on the ground).
• 26 November 1979 - A PIA Boeing 707 (AP-AWZ) crashed after fire in the cabin. All 156 on board died (145 passengers and 11 crew). (moved to main page MilborneOne 23:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC))
• 23 December 1979 - A THY Fokker F-28 (TC-JAT) crashed into a hill near Ankara, Turkey on approach. All 45 on board died (38 passengers and 3 crew).

Moved the above into the holding area.MilborneOne 21:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Candidates for 1980

I believe the following are notable additions to 1980, they do not have articles so are parked here pending action (or deletion) (MilborneOne 21:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)):

• 21 January 1980 - An Iran National Airlines Boeing 727 (EP-IRD) crashed into a mountain near Tehran, Iran. All 128 on board died (120 passengers and eight crew).
• 12 April 1980 - A Trans-Brasil Boeing 727 (PT-TYS) crashed into a hill near Florianopolis, Brazil on approach. Of the 58 on board. 47 passengers and eight crew died.
• 25 April 1980 - A Dan-Air Boeing 727 (G-BDAN) crashed into mountain near Tenerife, Spain. All 146 on board died (138 passengers and eight crew).
• 27 April 1980 - A Thai Airways HS 748 (HS-THB) crashed during a thunderstorm near Bangkok, Thailand. All 53 on board died (40 passengers and four crew).
• 19 August 1980 - A Saudi Arabian Airlines Lockheed Tristar (HZ-AHK) destroyed on ground after airborne fire. All 301 on board died (287 passengers and 141 crew).
• 26 August 1980 - A Bouraq Indonesian Vickers Viscount (PK-IVS) crashed into a swamp. All 37 on board died (31 passengers and six crew).
• 12 September 1980 - A Florida Commuter Airlines Douglas DC-3 (N75KW) crashed into the Atlantic Ocean. All 34 on board died (30 passengers and four crew).
• 21 December 1980 - An Aerovias del Cesar Sud Caravelle (HK-1810) crashed after onboard explosion. All 70 on board died (63 passengers and seven crew).

Moved the above into the holding area. MilborneOne 21:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

1954

I'm pulling this one off the list and parking it here for 2 reasons: 1, it is arguably the result of military action, so may not fully qualify, and 2, does not have its own wikipedia article.

• July 23, Cathay Pacific Douglas DC-4 VR-HEU flying from Hong Kong to Bangkok was shot at by a fighter from the People's Republic of China south of Hainan Island above the South China Sea. The aircraft ditched on the sea and ten of the 18 passengers died. The survivors were rescued by a US Navy ship.

I'm fully willing to be reversed on this, though. Akradecki 05:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think it might be best if you did reverse this and place it back on the list. This flight definitely could have a page of its own and this list includes "incidents" on commercial aircraft. This incident sounds quite similar to BOAC Flight 777 and several others involving military shoot downs of civilians planes. Maybe if you changed the article to:

• July 23, Cathay Pacific Flight VR-HEU, a Douglas DC-4 aircraft, was flying from Hong Kong to Bangkok was shot at by a fighter from the People's Republic of China south of Hainan Island above the South China Sea. The aircraft ditched on the sea and ten of the 18 passengers died. The survivors were rescued by a US Navy ship.

Someone else could write the article for the story. There is a page at Aviation Saftey about the crash, and I haven't checked but I'm willing to bet there's some NY Times articles about this flight available through the nytimes proquest database.--David Straub 13:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Merger into sortable table

Would it make sense to merge the by date, by location, by airline, and by death toll lists into a single dynamically sortable table? (See List of United States disasters by death toll for an example and Help:Sorting for documentaion.) That would seem to make this info easier to maintain and improve. -- Beland 03:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Although table format has its advantages in principle, I am not sure it's ideally suited for this particular list, for the following reasons:

1. The theme and focus of this specific list is to show chronological progression of accidents/incidents over time, hence other sort modes would disrupt this focus
2. Due to the 'notability' criteria, the inclusion threshold is somewhat fuzzy, hence sorting by parameters such as death toll would not be valid, as that is not a clear inclusion requirement; other parameters could be even fuzzier
3. Our coverage for the early years is drastically reduced compared to recent ones, also Western coverage is much better than Eastern or Third World, hence any conclusions based on raw numbers could be way off
4. A table would make sense for a true exhaustive database, like ASN [1] or NTSB [2] (which of course are limited in scope in their own ways); a query there is fairly reliable and includes most/all accidents within their specified scope, while our list is very (subjectively) selective in nature (at this point we insist on a corresponding WP article for each item here)
5. A table format would make some larger entries, e.g. for the 9/11 crashes and other special events, including collisions, more difficult to squeeze into standardized spaces

Having said all that, there is no reason you couldn't try a separate table-ized version experimentally, either in your Sandbox or in even article space. There are already lots of variants of this list elsewhere, and probably a better variant to try it on would be "accidents with more than 20 fatalities" etc. Crum375 14:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Concerning "Noteability"

This list, while comprehensive, is rather lacking in certain respects. It is supposed to represent "notable accidents" yet most of the accidents here are unremarkable. I propose that there be a definition of "notable" specific to this article. A good rule of thumb should be "The accident or incident significantly changed or affected company policy, safety regulations private or public, and/or the general population" Thank you,

Dropal 02:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind commenting on the proposed guideline for this list? It is linked from the top of this Talk page. Thanks, Crum375 03:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I've commented on Wikipedia talk:List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format re notability of Runway incursions and Loss of separation incidents. While serious, they are so common I believe we need a much more selective criteria.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Adam Air crash

Gee - I guess I can't trust the Associated Press article in today's Washington Post, huh?

Mark Sublette 19:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 19:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Mark, it's not a matter of trust. First, the original sources of this info have retracted their statements, saying the wreckage sighting reports were based on tribal chiefs who were (apparently) over-eager to report the find. Second, even if it were solid info, the proper sequence is to update the main wikilinked article first, where all sources have to be vetted out, and only then include it here. This list is a summary only, that reflects the leads of the wikilinked articles; we don't vet or include sources here except the wikilinked articles. Crum375 19:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Okey - doke. I follow you.

Mark Sublette 20:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 20:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Move to subpage

I moved all 'holding data' to a sub-page of this Talk page, here: Talk:List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Holding zone. I suggest we continue to move all temporary items (missing an article) there. Thanks, Crum375 23:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I also revised the draft guideline language to encourage use of the temporary holding area, and added a note in its Talk page. Comments are very welcome. Crum375 23:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

1947 Star Dust crash

I moved the 1947 Star Dust accident from the holding area, and rewrote the summary to make it more conforming with the listings here. The Star Dust article is entirely about the disappearance of the plane, the surrounding mystery, and the recent (2000) discovery of the wreckage; I'm not sure why it was in the holding area. --MCB 00:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right - I am not sure how/why it got there. Maybe someone thought Star Dust was a type and not a flight, hence it was moved. In any case, I removed the entry from the holding area. In general, we only put items there that appear eligible except for a missing WP article. Crum375 01:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Typo in edit title

My February 16 edit is listed as a rewrite of 1948 through 1950. This is a typo. It should be 1951 through 1956. Whoops. Carguychris 00:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Formalizing the proposed dedicated guideline

We've had the dedicated list guideline being actively used as a 'proposed' guideline for the last 4 months (since October 15, 2006). Since it has been very stable for quite a while, and there appears to be a de facto consensus for its use, I propose that we rename it as an 'official' guideline (i.e. just a 'guideline') in 1 week from now, on February 23, 2006, unless there is some significant objection. Please record any dissents, suggestions or other comments below. Thanks, Crum375 00:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree, let's make it formal. Akradecki 01:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree MilborneOne 20:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• I see the above votes plus lack of dissent as indicating agreement. Thanks, Crum375 04:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Bolding links

I'm bolding the links to the articles about specific incidents. The page made it difficult to dermine which link in each entry was the one that linked to the article (of if there even was an article for that incident). This could make it easier to see. ++ Arx Fortis 02:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the standard Wikipedia wikilink format is sufficient, without the bold letters. It would help to suggest and discuss such changes here first in the future. Thanks, Crum375 04:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Crum375. Double emphasis is overemphasis. Clipper471 04:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Then how about italicizing them? It is still often difficult to determine which link goes to the article about that specific incident (or if one even exists for that incident).....and Clipper471....with all the blue on this page, it all blends together. A wikilink on this page is not emphasis. ++Arx Fortis 16:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with Crum375, nothing wrong with the page, it is normally clear from the text which blue text links to the article. My suggestion is leave alone. MilborneOne 18:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I see...sorry to have invaded your "turf." Arx Fortis 18:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologise Arx Fortis, nobody owns anything on wikipedia. Everything is done by consensus so anybody is welcome to suggest changes or improvements. MilborneOne 19:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with how Wikipedia works (both "officialy" and in reality) as I have been editing for some time. Many articles or types of articles are watched/managed by a small circle of editors that get rather protective of their work/content - to the detriment of improvement.

"Be bold, but check with the regulars first." By now, I'm used to it.

The fact is, not every incident listed has an article, and it's not always easy to determine that. Sometimes, a link that appears to be to an article about that incident, is actually an article about that type of aircraft. Sometimes the link is the flight number, such as Flight 1; sometimes its the word "crashes", sometimes it's a phrase like "crashes on approach"; Sometimes it's the airline and the flight number combined (like Northwest Airlines Flight 706). Sometimes it's the first link in the item; sometimes it's not. There is no consistency. I was trying to add some consistency by bolding the links to those items with articles. Regardless, I withdraw the idea. ++Arx Fortis 14:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

note on main page

Is it possible to make it somehow obvious on the main page of the article that it's subject to some editing guidelines? Barring that, could those who remove incidents from the page take it upon themselves to move them to the 'holding zone' if it seems appropriate? I'm not questioning the guidelines, but since it's not immediately obvious that the main article is in fact subject to such guidelines, I hate to see information lost rather than set aside.

I imagine that it will be difficult to write full separate articles for some noteworthy crashes. The two I added were Aeroflot crashes from the 1970s, one of them the most deadly civil aircraft crash of the time, for example, and many specifics are lacking due to notorious Soviet secrecy on airliner incidents (whether rational or not). plmoknijb 17:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If something is notable and verifiably sourced, then it should be possible to create at least a short article for it. Conversely, if it's missing those ingredients, then it shouldn't be here, as this is a list of notable events. As far as adding inclusion instructions in the article itself, it is very tempting to do so, but I don't see a good solution. I can see 3 ideas with drawbacks:

1. We can include a pointer to the guideline, but that goes counter to WP's concept of not pointing from articles into policies or guidelines.
2. We can include an invisible 'edit comment' at the top of the page, visible only to editors, but I am almost sure that most 'drive-by' editors would miss it.
3. We can state at the top that this article only includes events that have their own WP article, but that would be incorrect, as we still have a lot of non-linked entries that have yet to be moved to the holding area.

If anyone has some idea as to how to improve on this situation, your comments are most welcome. Crum375 18:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Bold links

I think it would be nice if entries with their own articles had bold links. Take the newest entries for example:

• March 23 – A TransAVIAexport Airlines Ilyushin Il-76 crashes in Mogadishu, Somalia killing all 11 on board; the plane, which crashed during the 2007 Battle of Mogadishu is thought to have been shot down.
• May 5 – Kenya Airways Flight 507, a Boeing 737 with 115 people on board, crashes near Niete, Cameroon; there are no survivors.

This is especially useful for articles without a flight number. Would anyone have any objections if I implemented this style change and added this to the format guide lines? – Zntrip 02:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, and will make it clearer where the real goods are. Of course, someone would have to go through the article and change every single item... Crum375 02:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I had my doubts at first, but it actually looks good...has my support. Akradecki 04:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, mine too... Would make the list so much clearer. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I'll start as soon as I can. – Zntrip 21:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. See the discussion two or three sections above. This looks untidy. The only reason I see to do it would be incidents where the link is on the word "crash." Then again, in all of these instances, we should be trying very hard to find flight numbers. Bolding every single flight is a bad solution, and not consistent with other Wikipedia pages. Sacxpert 16:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

When this was first brought up, I, too, disagreed. But, as I said above, I feel like it actually enhances the readability. I was cleaning up and moving some stuff to the holding pattern yesterday, and so tried the bolding in years 1976 and 1977 (and a few others). Take a look, though at these two years...I think the look is acceptable, and does call attention to the link to the actual crash article. If the point is to make this easier to use for our "customers", then I think we've accomplished this. While I do agree it would be nice to have flight numbers whereever possible, the truth is that in the real world, not every flight operates under a flight number, especially chartered flights, and even when a Part 135 flight does have a flight number, it isn't always used in ATC communications, and so wouldn't be published anywhere. Akradecki 16:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I also disagreed originally, but I now think that this does make sense. Even without the 'crash' articles, there is so much blue that it's hard to tell where the real goods are located if you want to find out more about the accident. Once you add in the 'crash' cases (no flight number), it becomes even more justified. Crum375 16:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

A-hem. Thanks for seeing the light. :) ++Arx Fortis 04:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Help with finding a plane incident

I am trying to find some information on a flight I was on as a teenager that caused me to have a extreme fear of flying. I have told my husband about it and he thinks that it was just a over reaction on the part of a scared child. It would have been between 1979 and 1981. It was on World Airways flying from LAX to Hawaii. I just remember looking out the window and seeing flames coming out of the engine and then a loud pop and the plane fell. We had to make an emergency landing back at LAX and wait until a another plane became available. I believe that it was in July. If anyone knows how I can research this or knows any information will you get back to me at b.sartini5@verizon.net —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.30.187 (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Are you sure it wasn't in August 1982, and happened in Hawaii? There's this incident that sounds just like what you describe, but rather than landing back at LAX, it landed back at HNL. Looks like a compressor blade failed, and the rest of the description looks very much like what you remember. Too bad it caused you such fear, as that type of an engine failure, while a serious event, really wasn't that big of a deal. Akradecki 03:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

El Al Flight 1862

Nothing to do with this list proper but I thought I'd find a bunch of air crash enthusiasts (what a morbid term) checking this page. I just added a large amount of translated text from nl.wikipedia article on the Bijlmerramp to the en.wikipedia article for El Al Flight 1862. I also added some information on the mechanics of the fuse pin failures. The translated text is pretty unpolished and I also know nothing about aircraft so I would appreciate any experts on "encyclopediese", or English grammar, or Dutch, or Wikipedia style guidelines, or aircraft, taking a look at the expanded page and editing boldly as necessary.

I have not finished with it, there is still some content I will add from the Dutch article as time allows me, or if you are interested please feel free to do it yourself.

Also unfortunately the Dutch version of the article is citation-poor although a number of Dutch-language references are provided and I think the bulk of the information comes from these books, so separate verifications are welcome.

If nothing else the text does need to be wikified too. I did not put in as many brackets as I ought before saving. =)

Thanks for humoring me. plmoknijb 03:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

TOC

The current table of contents (TOC) listing all the years in a standard {{TOCright}} format is kind of unwieldy and long. Is there a better way to do this? plmoknijb 08:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The 2005 Logan Incident

Is the runway incursion at Boston really a notable accident or incident? I don't mean to quibble, but nobody died, no airframes were written off, and while it's a somewhat well-known example of a runway incursion, they happen frequently (several dozen a year, if I recall). I was on an NWA flight from Minneapolis to Anchorage in mid-1996 that had to shear off onto a runway exit during takeoff to avoid being hit by a landing plane. You can't even find articles about that, and if I hadn't been aboard, I never would have heard of it. My point is that a runway incursion that kills no-one, damages nothing, and demonstrates nothing hitherto unknown about the perils of civil aviation is not necessarily good material for a page about notable accidents and incidents. I'm perfectly happy to be over-ruled on this, but thought I'd ask for consensus. P.S.: I objected earlier, but the bolding of flight numbers looks good and helps. Definitely a keeper. Sacxpert 09:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to biasedly object as the article's creator - the article survived an AfD on grounds of notability with enough aviation-type people declaring it to be notable, therefore the article stays, which in turn leads to it being on this list. But I can understand why it's notability could be controversial. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the NTSB, "An incident is an occurrence other than an accident that affects or could affect the safety of operations." (see our dedicated guideline)

Since this list includes incidents (see title), this incident would qualify if it were notable enough. We measure notability, per our dedicated guideline, by the existence of a wiki-linked dedicated article. If that article survives AfD, our entry here survives as well. Crum375 00:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I note that the NTSB Most Wanted List still shows improvements re runway incursions in red as of 2007-12-01. They rightly think that positive controls should be in place to prevent incursionsLeadSongDog (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

New shortcut

I added the shortcut WP:ADL for the dedicated list guideline, so we should be able to use it in edit summaries and Talk page comments. Crum375 00:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability

I restored the original title since notability in our case must conform to the dedicated guideline, that requires each event to have its own article and the aircraft involved must meet minimum criteria. In any case, a general list on WP can in principle include items that are not individually notable enough for an article, yet are collectively notable as a list. In our case, we insist per WP:ADL on individual notability. Crum375 00:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand this, but since notability is de facto implied (or should be implied) in all content in wikipedia, I think that putting "notability" in the title is redundant and over-specific: It is ugly.--Cerejota 00:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that there is no absolute requirement on WP to have each individual item in a list article notable on its own merit. You could have, in principle, a list where some of its items are marginally known or barely known (they all must be sourced, but not all sourcing automatically confers notability). In our own case, because we have the dedicated guideline which mandates an article per item, plus minimum aircraft size, we are demanding per-item notability, and this is reflected in the title. You say 'all content on WP must be notable', and I would say it is the bottom line article that is notable, not every single word or fact in it, in general, although they must all be sourced or sourceable. Crum375 01:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

1922 candidate: first mid-air collision between airliners

This was removed because it violated the notability guidelines; specifically, there is no separate article for it. It does seem notable enough for inclusion once such an article is written; the event is already listed in 1922 in aviation. Parking it here so it isn't lost.--Colin Douglas Howell 08:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved it to the holding pattern. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Lucy in the sky

Not exactly on "notability", but perhaps worth considering, is something I bet most people don't think of (I didn't, & I've been an aviation buff for longer than I care to mention :p): we mention the airframe, but not the engines in accidents, even when it's engine failure ( TWA Flight 903) or prop failure (Pan Am Flight 202), to name just 2, causing the wreck. (Thanks to Michael Crichton for pointing this out, in Airframe.) Worth mention? Trekphiler 21:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a list of accidents/incidents, not a compilation of full reports. As such, we strive to be as brief and succinct as possible, as we are already well over budget in total size, with no end in sight. The best rule is to use a short summary based on the lead section of each dedicated linked article. So in your specific case, if a turbine blade played a major role in an accident, say, and it's mentioned in the lead of the article, then we can use it here. A common mistake here is for people to think that they can just elaborate and build an entire article for each accident/incident, which contradicts our dedicated guideline. Crum375 22:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Images

Noticed that we now have images being added to the list. I think that this should stay as a list and the images belong in the appropriate linked article. Any comments please? MilborneOne 18:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Three incidents

There have been three incidents this month,but they haven`t been listed here. The first one happened on September 9,When an SAS flight (Dash Q400) failed with the landing in Aalborg,Denmark.The landing gear collapsed and the plane fell out from the runaway.There was no fatalities but five people sustained injures. The second happened in Estonia,September 12th,just three days after the first.This was also an Dash Q400 operated by SAS,the landing gear collapsed but there was no fatalities either. The third and worst of them happened September 16th,just four days after the second incident.An MacDonnel Douglas MD-82 operated by an flight company named ONE-TWO-GO crashed on the airport in Phuket,Thailand.An claim says that bad weather made the pilots lose control of the airplane.At least 88 people died.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverpark (talk • contribs) 07:03, September 17, 2007

The Phuket one is listed, and the other two incidents also have articles that are likely to be merged. I'll look into it and add. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 07:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Gone missing?

Anybody able to add something on the 20 Jan 1943 Pan Am clipper wreck that killed COMSUBPAC Robert English? Trekphiler 21:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a list article, summarizing other Wikipedia articles. Any information must be added in the dedicated article first. Crum375 22:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternate format

An example of an alternate format is at User:Sardanaphalus/List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft (example layout). The idea is to try to combine using the list in a reference-like way (i.e. looking up/down columns for particular dates/flights) with the current more prose-like format. What do people think? Sardanaphalus 05:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned to Sardanaphalus on his talk page, I do appreciate the effort he put into this. However, my own personal opinion is that the current prose-like format is nicer. It seems cleaner, more aesthetic, and easier to read; more like a story, less like a catalog or index. I think many of the readers view this article as a kind of history lesson, and as such, we prefer to see history more as a story than a mechanical index of events. Of course other opinions are welcome. Crum375 12:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with Crum375. If this were a list of sports statistics or highway interchanges, a grid format would seem appropriate. However, given the magnitude of these incidents, most of which result in the deaths of multiple people, a grid format seems a bit obtuse - even for an encyclopedia. ++Arx Fortis 14:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Many little proof errors

I have fixed a number of these anonymously. Hopefully I have not overlapped any Grand Schemes. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.240.87 (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability?

The list at the moment can be described as chaotic at best. The word 'notable' relies on editors' POV and thus there should be at least some criteria, which accidents and incidents make it on the list.--Svetovid (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

We have a specific definition of notability, i.e. inclusion criteria for this list article, in the dedicated guideline. Crum375 (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia talk:List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format#Definition of Incident presently includes LOS and Runway incursion I've raised the issue of notability of Runway incursions and Loss of separation (Air Traffic Control) incidents, but so far I've gotten no response.LeadSongDog (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

See my response there. Crum375 (talk) 05:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)