Talk:Safarilink Aviation Flight 053

Wait a minute...

It says it was a Cessna 172, but the image shows a Cessa 206. PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@PlaneCrashKing1264 that's because that image is indeed not of the accident aircraft. It's just a random, entirely unrelated Cessna 206, as you have correctly identified. I removed that image once before already, but @Jfjfne seems to have reinstated it. If they could explain why, that would be helpful. – Recoil16 (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I have replaced the image with the correct aircraft so it should be fixed now. Epicgamercheeseman38 (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Epicgamercheeseman38 that would be good, but as far as I can tell c:File:Cessna 172 5Y-NNJ.jpg appears to be a copyright violation. – Recoil16 (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I will try and get that sorted out. It is the only image of 5Y-NNJ I could find, so we might just have to have a different Cessna 172 and put it as "similar to the accident aircraft". Epicgamercheeseman38 (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a really sensible idea. – Recoil16 (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I've found where I messed up. I will replace it with a different image already uploaded and adding the "similar to the accident aircraft". Epicgamercheeseman38 (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I was in a rush and was meeting a deadline Jfjfne (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Thx PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Aftermath

Why was the Cessna 172s aftermath photo taken down? CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

It was deleted for lacking licensing information: [1] – Recoil16 (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 18 July 2024

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Choosing the nom title as the best choice as per the existing redirect and argument that the zero should be included (WP:AVINAME), consistency, per WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE, if anybody feels the zero should be omitted, another discussion can be opened at any time. (closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE 15:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

---

2024 Nairobi mid-air collision → Safarilink Aviation Flight 053 – Per WP:AVTITLE, the name of an article about an accident involving a scheduled commercial airline flight should be "<airline> Flight <flight number>". Sample articles about mid-air collisions between airline flights and light general aviation aircraft include Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 182, American Airlines Flight 910, and TWA Flight 553. The "<year> <place> mid-air collision" name format is normally used when an airline flight is not involved or both aircraft are commercial airline flights. Carguychris (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. Standard naming convention as confirmed by the submitted main title headers and other ones, such as Aeroflot Flight 811, Aeroméxico Flight 498, All Nippon Airways Flight 58, Allegheny Airlines Flight 853, American Airlines Flight 28, American Airlines Flight 910, Atlantic Southeast Airlines Flight 2254, British European Airways Flight 142, Capital Airlines Flight 300 and Cubana de Aviación Flight 493, to name but ten. Would not oppose retention of the year "2024". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  Why include the year? To my knowledge, all airline accident articles on Wikipedia that include the year also use alternate naming conventions in place of the flight number. For instance, 1956 Grand Canyon mid-air collision is so named due to both WP:COMMONNAME and the fact that two scheduled flights were involved, so neither is implied to take precendence or to be at fault. Carguychris (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom (though I can't find justification for the leading zero, and suspect that plain "Flight 53" might be better). Rosbif73 (talk) 06:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  It's standard to retain the original flight number which is designated by the operator in the article title. In this case, as seen in the sources listed in the article, the IATA flight number was "F2053". Ignoring the first two characters per WP:AVINAME, the flight number should retain the leading zero and be "053" and not "53", even if they may not appear different. Examples include Korean Air Lines Flight 007, Singapore Airlines Flight 006, Mandala Airlines Flight 091, to name a few. GalacticOrbits (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  KE007 and SQ006 is because they only have single-digit flight numbers. As for Mandala 091, that case seems like a minority, considering other aviation accident articles with two-digit flight numbers such as British Airways Flight 38, American Airlines Flight 77 and All Nippon Airways Flight 58 don't have the 0 in front. S5A-0043^Talk 09:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Leading zeroes are not added to every accident with a single digit flight number. American Airlines Flight 1 (1962), TWA Flight 8, Pan Am Flight 7, UPS Flight 6 etcetera have no leading zeroes and have single digit flight numbers. On the other hand, we do have two digit flight numbers with a leading zero such as Air France Flight 072, Gulf Air Flight 072, ADC Airlines Flight 053, Avianca Flight 011 and so on. We even have cases with leading zeroes for 4 digit flight numbers such as Dana Air Flight 0992 and Dan-Air Flight 0034.

  Once again, we have formed a precedence of retaining the original flight number designated by the airline as seen in the final report or sources listed elsewhere and this is why Flight 053 is preferred over Flight 53. The examples you listed don't contain leading zeroes simply because the airline didn't designate them so. GalacticOrbits (talk) 10:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Now granted, a reader may not notice the difference between "Flight 053" and "Flight 53" but redirects (as seen earlier) are intended to fix that issue. GalacticOrbits (talk) 11:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  There is also Aeroflot Flight 068, Aeroflot Flight 065, Iberia Flight 062, and Overseas National Airways Flight 032, to name a few more. The practice of including leading zeroes is well established. Carguychris (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  In addition to what GalacticOrbits points out, this concern is easily addressed with a redirect from Safarilink Aviation Flight 53 to this article, along with redirects from Safarilink Flight 53 and Safarilink Flight 053, since people tend to drop the end of an airline's name. Carguychris (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support per reasons stated above Scs52 (talk) 01:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Support without zero (ie Safarilink Aviation Flight 53). See my reply above for reasonw I lean towards the no-zero flight number. S5A-0043^Talk 09:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Please note my reply above. GalacticOrbits (talk) 10:57, 24 July 2024 (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.

AAID preliminary report date?

Does anyone have a reference indicating when the AAID preliminary accident report was issued? The document itself doesn't seem to have an issue date clearly written anywhere, although it could be cleverly hidden. Carguychris (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

By checking the creation date of the document, it does show that the document was created on 3 April 2024, although I don't know if this is reliable enough as a method or not. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

That's the date on which the PDF was generated, which may or may not match the date of issue of the report, depending on the AAID's document management procedures. Then again, the total absence of a visible issue date doesn't bode well for their document management practices! Rosbif73 (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

5Y-NNJ 2021 incident

Apparently, 5Y-NNJ: the Cessna 172... had been involved in another incident on which, the nose gear collapsed. [2]https://transport.go.ke/sites/default/files/preliminary-reports/Final%20Report%20Cessna%20172%205Y-NNJ%203%20January%202021.pdf | Is it worth noting? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 07:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

There's no mention of this in the preliminary report for the collision, and I don't see any reason to add it to the article – except possibly if it is subsequently mentioned in the final investigation report, for example if the maintenance history were to be raised as a contributing factor. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with @Rosbif73, the preliminary report says nothing about it, so I think it should be considered irrelevant unless it comes up in further reporting. 5Y-NNJ is a flight school trainer with thousands of flight hours, so it's normal that the landing gear would have been damaged at some point. It's relatively common for a student pilot to "porpoise" a 172 in a hard landing because the spring steel main gear bounces vigorously, which tempts some students to force the nose down and damage the nose gear. Furthermore, about the only commonplace reason for a landing gear-related repair to contribute to an accident in flight (as opposed to on landing) is if a structural repair messed up weight and balance in some way, but it would take an unusually drastic nose gear repair to negatively affect the stability of a 172, and this sort of thing is more commonly a factor in a continued VFR into IMC accident (where aircraft stability is critical) than in a mid-air collision in the pattern. Carguychris (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinions. @Rosbif73 and @Carguychris. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 23:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Wilson Airport traffic pattern?

The preliminary report implies that runway 7 has right-hand traffic because it mentions that the downwind leg for runway 7 is upwind of runway 14, but it never directly clarifies the matter. I can't find navigation information for Wilson Airport at the usual sources; I found this link at the KCAA website, but there's a paywall (US$380, yikes!). Can anyone help? Carguychris (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)