Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1955 MacArthur Airport United Airlines crash/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain 02:56, 24 January 2011 [1].

1955 MacArthur Airport United Airlines crash

edit

1955 MacArthur Airport United Airlines crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): wackywace 21:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article tells the story of an aviation accident that made me think a lot about humans and flight. This was an aviation accident that involved several technical "features" of the Douglas DC-6 which seemed to "gang up" on the flight crew. Ultimately, while I have tried to detail all the technical details of this accident, this is one that has interested and surprised me a good deal. It is short, yes, and has a small number of sources—but I am satisfied this describes one of the most interesting and strangely upsetting events in the history of aviation. I hope you find it interesting, and would like to thank all those who take the opportunity to review it in advance. wackywace 21:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • Ref. 2: format needs attention; the words "at the" are unnecesssary, and the retrieval date needs to be added
    • Formatted correctly.
  • Who carried out the investigation into this accident? Was their report published? If so, should it not have been used as a source for this article?
    • The National Transportation Safety Board almost certainly investigated the accident, but as far as I am aware they only started releasing reports to the general public well after this accident.
  • Ref. 2: The article states that the quotation in the source, headed "Probable cause", is from the "final report", though there is nothing in the source to support this; it could be a quotation from anywhere.
    • My mistake: since the Aviation Safety Network lists only one source, the ICAO Accident Digest Circular 50-AN/45 (not available as a source), I have listed this as the document from where the quote is listed.
  • General comment: the range of sources used looks rather narrow, with pehaps an over-reliance on a single book.
    • While I agree, I am happy that the sources use allow the accident to be explained in enough detail. Other than Job's book, there is literally nothing on this accident. On Google News there are only two articles: two New York Times articles which I do not have access to since they require payment. I have made tens if not hundreds of Google Books searches using different search terms which have turned up nothing. Books that describe aviation accidents—let alone this one in particular—are not common. I know reliance on a single source is frowned upon, but for an event resulting in three fatalities that is difficult to explain to the public in a short newspaper article, I think this article may have to be an exception. Believe me, I have tried as hard as I can to find sources for this article: there are hardly any, and all are cited in this article. wackywace 19:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources concerns adequately addressed Brianboulton (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment – "one of the flight crew applied full power to No.4 engine". The other similar No. 4s in the article have a space before the number. Why doesn't this one? This is all I noticed during a quick skim. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Purely an error on my part. Fixed. wackywace 10:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's with the stray |group=N}} at the end of the Background section? Is it part of a missing ref? Mjroots (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 21:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - concerns adequately addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Comments[reply]

  • What is a "line pilot" - one who works for the airline? If so, phrasing there is redundant, if not, explain
  • It is, I believe, a pilot who works for the airline. Although Job refers to the two pilots as "line pilots" in the book, a search for line pilot shows almost nothing. I've removed the word line, since it is indeed redundant. I would image the lead pilot was more senior and "line pilot" is used in the book to imply they have a lesser rank. wackywace 16:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Between 00:04—00:10" - grammar
  • Changed "between" to "from"; I would be happy to change the dash to a "to" if you think it necessary. wackywace 16:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Investigators carried out flight tests using a DC-6, and found that, should the propellers of an engine be reversed before take-off, and not restored to the normal position before the aircraft lifted off, then they would not be restored to the normal position if full power was applied and the flag was not lifted" - phrasing is a bit awkward
  • Rephrased
  • Should specify who the investigators worked for - Douglas? The ICAO? The airport?
  • Unfortunately, I don't know. I said earlier that the investigators must have been from the NTSB, but I recently learned they were formed after the crash. wackywace 16:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few instances of excessive comma use
  • I've rephrased one sentence which excessively used commas, but if there are any specific instances you have seen I will be happy to rectify them. wackywace 16:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A spotcheck of available sources found no plagiarism or close paraphrasing.
  • Thanks!

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you for your support and helpful comments. wackywace 17:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Readability Comments - I did a read-through to determine ease of readability for the average non-technical user, seeing as how I am not a pilot myself, and would like to note a few points that (I believe) are confusing.

  • Section Accident: "Between 1500 and 1800 feet... , the aircraft performed its rotation". Are you referring to the engine rotation mentioned in the lede?
    • No, the "rotation" referred to is actually the point where the aicraft lifts off the runway. I've reworded it to avoid the use of this word, as I agree it could cause confusion. wackywace 17:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section Accident: "Though emergency services at Long Island MacArthur responded swiftly to the crash...." How swiftly is swiftly? Within minutes? hours? that day?
    • The book uses the word "quickly", but does not specify what this means. I don't think "swiftly" really adds anything to the article—it was clear the crew were killed upon impact—so I've removed the word.
  • Section Investigation: You neglect to mention who investigated the crash. These mysterious individuals are only referred to as "the investigators" and "they." Who are they? NTSB? CAB? FAA? Airport officials? Also, when did the investigation start? The section launches directly into the investigation itself, without first providing a reference of time and place.
    • As I stated above, I am not aware who conducted the investigation. It wouldn't have been the NTSB, since they were formed after the crash, or the FAA, since they do not actually have the responsibility for investigating accidents. At a guess, I'd say it would probably be CAB, but I have no evidence to back this up. wackywace 17:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it was the CAB who investigated. You may want to read over the accident investigation report to see if there's anything else you want to add from it. I skimmed it briefly and it looks like it has some information about the history of the aircraft and pilots that may be useful. It also includes information about the Martin bar installation, and that the investigation resulted in the order that all DC-6 and DC-6B be equipped with it (which should definitely) be mentioned. You can find the CAB report here online; navigate "Historical Aircraft Accident Reports (1934-1965)" → 1955 → UNITED AIR LINES. (It's the second link for United.) --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 22:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm, I only seem to get a small table, not an accident report? wackywace 07:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Managed to get the web page to work; should be able to work the report into the article today. wackywace 13:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you so much for finding the report! I have slightly expanded the article with the information in the report, and completed all the issues you raised apart from the order to fit all DC-6 and DC-6B aircraft with the Martin bar—did you mean all of UA's DC-6 and DC-6B with the bar (if so, I have added this). wackywace 17:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • No problem. The CAB reports do live in a completely unintuitive location; if I hadn't stumbled upon them by accident one day I'd have never found them myself. (Also, in regards to only seeing a table instead of the report; I find this happens if I use any browser other than Firefox to view the website; perhaps there should be a note in the citation? Just a thought.)
              • Hmm, the report didn't show for me in Chrome; but I tried it in IE at school and it worked. I had presumed it was subscription only (hence the template I added to the reference), but perhaps not. wackywace 19:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • With regards to the changes -- when I mentioned the order to install the Martin bar on DC-6/6B aircraft, I was actually refering to page 7 of the accident report which read: "Recognizing these desirable features, and on the basis of service experience, the CAA on August 29, 1955, issued Airworthiness Directive 55-18-2 which required that DC-6 and DC-6B aircraft (among others) be equipped with the sequence gate latch or equivalent by January 1, 1957." (Where "sequence gate latch" is the technical name for the Martin bar.) This AD means that all airlines flying DC-6 and DC-6B aircraft had to install the Martin bar.
              • Added, thanks for clarifying. wackywace 19:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • In section "Accident" there is the sentence: "The right wing impacted with the ground, causing the fuselage to cartwheel over, before the aircraft was engulfed in flames." The CAB report, however, says: "The nose dropped sharply and the aircraft dived into the ground, striking on the right wing and nose. It then cartwheeled and came to rest right side up. An intense fire started and consumed a large portion of the wreckage...." (page 2). Also the article neglects to mention that most of the aircraft was destroyed by fire despite the actions and swift response of the fire crews. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 19:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section Flight tests: The acronym METO is introduced, but never used again. It's also not linked, somewhat ambiguous, and not really explained.
    • There's not really much available with regards to a description of what METO is. As far as I am aware, it is the maximum thrust that can be produced by an engine while not taking off. wackywace 17:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section Aftermath: This section talks about the Martin bar, also not linked, which was being installed before the crash. This obviously makes it ineligible to be labeled as aftermath. Unless, of course, the point is that the device would have prevented this accident and the incident provided additional impetus for its installation. (Frankly the whole purpose of the device was lost on me.)
    • The paragraph is in an aftermath section because UA announced the installation after the crash. I presume this was to reassure UA passengers the issue was being tackled; otherwise, I imagine, it would not be a notable upgrade to the UA DC-6 fleet. I don't know if the bar was installed more quickly after the accident occurred, but Job states in the book the device could have prevented the accident; indeed this very fact was the hook when the article appeared on DYK last year. wackywace 17:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might also be worth mentioning that there was little to no media coverage of this incident. I got curious and did a search and could only find a tiny two-sentence blurb in an Australian newspaper.
    • I will, but I'm curious about how to cite this—surely we would need a citation to a source that specifically states "there was little to no media coverage of this incident," rather than just not citing it because there is nothing to cite it with? wackywace 17:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also a general comment -- there are a number of instances that, I believe, violate MOS:OPED. Examples: "an alarming rate", "fall violently", "dramatically increased". Please feel free to disagree with me on this point; it's just that the Accident section seems particularly rife with them.

    • Job specifically does say "alarming" and "violently", but not "dramatically". I believe these descriptions are based on those of witnesses and investigators, though I have removed "violently" and "dramatically", along with "strong" with regards to the wind, and I have rephrased the sentence which includes "alarmingly" to clarify. wackywace 17:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 14:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional Comments -- It was the CAA, not the CAB that issued the Airworthiness directive. Otherwise I think it's ready for a A-class review. Personally I don't think the article itself is extensive enough for FA yet but it's well on its way. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 22:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments.

  • You give several abbreviations which you don't then use in the remainder of the article; I think you can dispense with them. I noticed EST, IFR and CofG.
  • I presume this article should use American English per WP:ENGVAR; if so "manoeuvre" could be changed.
    • Changed to "manoeuver".
      I've made it "maneuver", which I believe is the standard American spelling. Mike Christie (talk – library) 19:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When there was an amount of weight on the landing gear": I was going to cut "an amount of", but then realized that perhaps there was a minimum amount of weight needed to trigger the mechanism. Still, "an amount of" is an odd phrase; if something is needed, how about "When there was enough weight"?
  • "United Airlines said they had been installing the device on its fleet of DC-6 and DC-6B aircraft, having seen it being successful on their fleet of Douglas DC-7 aircraft": when we they installing the device? Does this mean they were installing it prior to the crash, but hadn't yet installed it on the Idaho Mainliner? It would be nice to be clear on the sequence here. Also, you say "they" had been installing the device, but on "its" fleet: US usage would be "it" and "its"; UK usage would be "they" and "their".
    • Clarified; changed to "it" and "its". wackywace 18:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although it was determined that, due to the short accident sequence, the pilot would have little time to react if he recognised the problem, reverse thrust indicator lights, which warned pilots when the propellers were reversed, United Airlines also said a program to install the warnings on all their DC-6 and DC-6B aircraft had begun": this is a bit clumsily rewritten, and seems to overlap with the previous sentence -- can you clarify?
    • Clarified. wackywace 18:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually I think I misread it, but your rewrite is an improvement regardless.

Overall a good, technical article which I'll be glad to support when the minor issues above are addressed. -- Mike Christie (talk – library) 18:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! wackywace 18:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've switched to support above. Mike Christie (talk – library) 19:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! wackywace 19:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no major issues, and would support the article being granted FA status. Mjroots (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! wackywace 19:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might ask Mjroots to bold that support; the delegates look for bolded supports, preferably on the left. It's not that they don't read the whole discussion, it's just when they're quickly assessing the level of support to determine if it's time to consider closing. Mike Christie (talk – library) 12:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Mjroots (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, wackywace 19:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments - Very nice work! There's a few quibbles I have with the article, which I'll address here:

Lede:
  • "was performing an instrument ratings check flight" - should "ratings" be plural here? And perhaps instrument rating should be linked here in the lede where it first occurs?
    • Removed the 's'; and I've linked it in the lede. wackywace 19:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a quibble, but the reversing propeller was connected to the throttle and not the prop control? Geez, that's not asking for trouble, not at all...
    • Agreed, it wasn't the most sensible of ideas. wackywace 19:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "performing dramatically incorrectly" - This sounds slightly...I dunno. Is there a different way to say this that's less awkward? Especially since "dramatically" is used later in the same sentence, and is appropriate there.
  • "The investigators also concluded that the suddenness of the accident meant the flight crew could likely not have recovered the aircraft before impact." Maybe instead of "accident", a different word could be used? It was an accident that the prop was reversed, but since it led to a bigger accident... also suggest something like "the flight crew had little chance to recover the aircraft"; "could likely not have", while correct, sounds vaguely, er, vague (and redundant, since it's obvious from the fact the plane crashed that they didn't).
  • Changed "accident" to "bank and dive". wackywace 19:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "released an Airworthiness Directive" - maybe "issued" instead of "released"?
History:
Investigation:
  • Note: The inclusion of the video is awesome. (And interesting that the aircraft in the final scene of the clip is a military version!)
    • Thanks! I found it and watched it, and was excited to find it included a shot of the propellers reversing. wackywace 19:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They were further satisfied" - maybe "They were also able to determine"?
  • "they also confirmed that there were no faults" - too many "they"s, I think, perhaps. Maybe "It was also confirmed"?
  • "The flaps, they said" - another "they". And slightly odd wording to my eye. Perhaps "The flaps, it was found, were..."?
  • "Reverse warning lamps, which would have warned..." Maybe "Reverse thrust warning lamps" would be clearer?
  • In 'Flight tests', we have Job saying that "Control is lost so quickly that there is little the crew can do at low altitude." In 'Conclusions', we have the CAB saying "Control will be lost so quickly that there is little, if anything, that the pilot can do if it occurs at low altitude". Was Job quoting the CAB? And having these similar quotes so close together in the article is slightly jarring.
    • After another user located the accident report, I discovered Job's book is essentially the accident report paraphrased. I think Job's version is worded slightly better. I've removed the quote box at the side. wackywace 19:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath:
  • The Martin bar is mentioned in the past tense - "was a metal bar". Maybe it should be "is"? Since I assume the DC-6s and DC-7s still flying have it. (Also, as an aside, maybe there should be a Martin bar page...hm.)
    • Done; I'll have a go at writing a stub this week (there's nothing else anywhere online about the device). wackywace 19:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "United Airlines said..." Maybe this should be "United Airlines issued a statement saying"? Also, "having seen it be successful" looks a little awkward; maybe "having used it successfully in service on", or something like that?
  • Not neccessarily a quibble, but the section/article seems to end just a little abruptly. Is there anything more that can be said, perhaps something about there being, or not being, any further accidents of this sort afterwards?
    • Added two new paragraphs. wackywace 19:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall though, this is excellent work, and as you said a good example of how the gremlins can gang up on a flight crew in a hurry. As Ernest K. Gann said, fate is indeed the hunter... - The Bushranger One ping only 18:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice and fast work! I'm happy to Support this article for FA. My only remaining niggle would be the "operated by a Boeing 767" in the second-to-last paragraph; technically accurate but looks awkward, but that's just nitpicking. Excellent work! - The Bushranger One ping only 21:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1955_MacArthur_Airport_United_Airlines_crash/archive1&oldid=1144461290"