Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::Like all accidents there is very seldom one single cause; rather there are a number of factors which are normally termed ''contributory''. I cannot imagine that the NTSB would dismiss the presence of the air traffic controller and what he was doing at the time of the plane entering the incorrect runway, as irrelevant. Certainly no one should say or imply that he was negligent and therefore responsible for the crash, but at the same time there are certain factors which might very well have influenced the course of events. Facetiously putting the pilot's shower in the same category as the ATC's actions before and during the crash, displays a remarkable lack of judgement, certainly not appropriate in a flight instructor. ] 22:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Like all accidents there is very seldom one single cause; rather there are a number of factors which are normally termed ''contributory''. I cannot imagine that the NTSB would dismiss the presence of the air traffic controller and what he was doing at the time of the plane entering the incorrect runway, as irrelevant. Certainly no one should say or imply that he was negligent and therefore responsible for the crash, but at the same time there are certain factors which might very well have influenced the course of events. Facetiously putting the pilot's shower in the same category as the ATC's actions before and during the crash, displays a remarkable lack of judgement, certainly not appropriate in a flight instructor. ] 22:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::''Certainly no one should say or imply that he was negligent and therefore responsible for the crash''
::::Which is exactly what everyone has been doing. When someone can find a way to include this information in the article in a manner that both demonstrates its relevance to the crash and accommodates neutral point of view, I shall be happy to let it be. Until then, please desist from pushing original research and points of view in this article, and consider this to be a reminder that Misplaced Pages has as its official policy to ], which your impugning of my professional judgement violates.--''']]''' 23:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
==Missing Info Tag==
==Missing Info Tag==
Revision as of 23:04, 31 August 2006
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Comair Flight 5191 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Please use the archive parameter to specify the number of the next free peer review page, or replace {{Peer review}} on this page with {{subst:PR}} to find the next free page automatically.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
As has been discussed below, the proper Comair designation for this flight was Comair Flight 191. It also used the designation Delta Flight 5191. There is no Comair Flight 5191. The media has misidentified the flight. The name of the article was changed to reflect the flight's correct designation. Please do not bring it up again without a good reason. - DiegoTehMexican22:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
So you are saying all the government agencies, the NTSB, the FAA are wrong and you are correct? It does need to be brought up as if you google it you see not only the vast majority of news sites but also most official US government sites are using Comair flight 5191.72.75.17.19014:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
As was discussed below, both the control tower and ticketing services referred to the flight as Comair Flight 191, and it is likely that that is the designation the NTSB will use. - DiegoTehMexican23:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The comair website refers to it as Comair 5191 simply to save confusion between the difference in the Delta and Comair numbers, as most people (families, etc), will have known is as Delta 5191. The official flight number IS Comair 191.84.71.130.9502:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Assuming that Comair is generously avoiding confusion is a nice thing to think of them, but it is original research unless you have a statement from them to the effect that they are doing so. Original research is not permitted on Misplaced Pages. --Dhartung | Talk02:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Working in local news media in Atlanta (I work for the NBC station here), we were provided a flight number of 5191 by officials with Comair, contrary to the admonishments of others here, we did not "incorrectly" use the 5191 number.--Mhking02:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course you are not using it incorrectly. the NTSB also uses Comair 5191 in all its press official releases.14:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The Comair website is operated by Delta, so it uses Delta flight numbers. The 5191 designation is a combination of the original flight number used internally within Comair, which is 191, combined with the Delta practice of affixing a number designated it as a Delta connection flight. All Delta flights that have 4 digits and begin with 5 (and some with 4-) are operated by Comair. Delta owns ComAir, so ComAir usually uses Delta Flight numbers when dealing with anyone outside of ComAir. The exception is with ATC, where ComAir, like most subsidiary carriers use their original flight numbers. If you visit the ComAir website, any link you click on for flight information will link you the main Delta page for checking flights, so that's why they use 4-digit Delta Flight Numbers. 208.61.5.116
I propose a move back to the name used in every single media and official source. Any claim that Misplaced Pages is right any everyone else is wrong is blatant violation of WP:ORGeoffrey Spear15:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it's time for a vote on this. I was the original poster for the section 'Rename' below. At the time it was correct to move to Comair 191 because it was being used by many news agencies at the time and is technically more accurate that Comair 5191. However, most people do now incorrectly call it Comair 5191, so in accordance with the Wiki policy of using the most common name, I now support a move to Comair Flight 5191. However there needs to be something in the first section that explains that the commercial designation was Delta 5191, the 'behind the scenes' designation was Comair 191, and that Comair 5191 developed as a compromise between the two to indicate it was operated by Comair, but was the Delta 5191 flight. 81.79.186.1615:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it was correct to move the page to Comair 191 based on the flight plan and other media reports using that designation. I still feel that this should be the name of the flight, but it is now clear that the all media reports as well as the NTSB preliminary report now report the flight as Comair 5191. We should not speculate as to the reason, or put POV into the article as to the appropriateness of this renaming, but I do now support moving the article back to Comair 5191. We should, however, mention that the flight was originally Comair 191. I'll leave the details of that to the lead-in paragraph discussion below. 165.236.112.24516:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
If we are voting (as I presume we are) on the name, I support a move back to Comair Flight 5191, based on the information provided by Delta, Comair and the NTSB. The media are working based upon that information, as is everyone else. There is no logical reason that WP should be any different. --Mhking18:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think there's general agreement to move the article (back) to Comair Flight 5191, unless there's real disagreement in the next 30mins or so I'll make the move. Thanks/wangi18:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
If it will stop the revert wars then go for it. After the dust has settled it can be moved back to 191 if that is indeed the correct term. -Ravedave18:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
General agreement? I think not. Comair doesn't sell its seats, Delta does. Really this is Comair 191, Delta 5191. I fly as a passenger on Comair as Delta regularly from Bangor (BGR, a nice solitary 11,000+ ft runway: very safe) to Huntsville (HSV, another solitary long runway) by way of CVG (Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky). The Comair flight designations are what the crew uses, and I can't imagine that the tower was calling it anything but Comair one niner one. I've seen it referenced elsewhere that Comair's planes were only used on the weekend out of LEX, that during the week Pinnacle (aka Republic) operates this same flight. In that case, it really re-emphasizes that Pinnacle nnn would be called Delta 5191 also. I'd say leave this at Comair 191 *until someone sees a FINAL instead of a preliminary* report from NTSB. --Sturmde19:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I continue to object the move back to Comair 5191 as this is not the technically correct name of the flight. It is either Comair 191 or Delta 5191, not this is random mix/match that the media and Delta have put together. -newkait-c19:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Should the title of the sidebar (Crashinfobox template) be updated to reflect the article name change, or should that remain the "technical" name? Also, do the Comair 191 and Delta 5191 names need to be sourced? --Sykes8319:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I've updated the infobox title.
I don't think this is a big issue to get worked up about - it's pretty clear what term is being used to refer to this accident, and it makes sense for that to be our article name (per WP:NAME). Rember we use the common name, not always the correct/official name (e.g. United States, United Kingdom for starters). Thanks/wangi19:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Well to be fair that isn't a good example wangi as both those terms are recognised by the UN as the 'short form' names of those countries. 81.79.93.18421:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I also object to the move back to Comair 5191, per the arguments made above by Sturmde and newkai. Just because others refer to something incorrectly does not mean that it should always be referred to incorrectly. (The more commonly used term, "Canadian goose" redirects to the proper term, Canada goose, for example.) Our listing this under the improper name will only perpetuate that incorrect use. Cmadler21:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that the name should remain Comair Flight 5191at the very least until a reliable source indicates that Comair 5191 is actually incorrect. Although we know that Comair 191 and Delta 5191 are both correct, every reliable source that I've seen so far suggests that Comair 5191 is also a proper designation for the flight, even if it is not the preferred technical designation. Every claim to the contrary (specifically that Comair 5191 is incorrect) that I've seen so far is original research. If a reliable source is identified which suggests that the current name is incorrect, then I might be inclined to change my mind (although that is unlikely because I think WP:NAME is pretty clear on the issue), but as I see it now, the point is moot to start with because reliable sources suggest that "Comair Flight 5191" is both correct, and the preferred naming convention for this flight by media, the airlines, and the NTSB. --Sykes8322:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Original research!? Find me one timetable or flight status log that uses the combination of Comair and 5191! It's either Comair 191 (see flight status sniplet below) or Delta 5191 (see any ticket or timetable). The combination of the two is original research by Delta and/or the media. -newkait-c23:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
That proves that Comair 191 and Delta 5191 are both appropriate designations; however, how does that give any indication whatsoever that Comair 5191 is incorrect? As it has already been proven, there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of reliable sources that suggest that Comair 5191 also a proper designation. What has been presented that directly refutes that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sykes83 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Although I agree that Comair 191 is the most correct designation, I also agree with Sykes83 above. Our beef is with the media, et al, who have chosen to use the Comair 5191 designation, not with the editors of this article. VxSote03:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Consider why the media is using Comair 5191: (1) to avoid confusion among the general public, and (2) because the airline and the NTSB are providing that info to the media. The fact that official sources are using the "incorrect" name and that nearly EVERYONE calls it by the "incorrect" name makes it de facto correct. The media has therefore made no mistake -- only a few Wikipedians who are avoiding reality in the name of "correct" are mistaken. It may not fit the custom, but it is what it is -- and that's apparently Comair 5191. To call it otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is to introduce POV. The way the article is named right now looks great, especially with the explanatory note in the intro. Goeverywhere04:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It has been noted that the aircraft was in fact a 100ER, not a 200ER. See elsewhere on this talk page. VxSote20:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Comair CRJ Image
The copyright tag says "This is a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit." I don't exactly think putting this photo on a page about an aircraft crash promotes Bombardier's work in the media. Although it does illustrate the work in question. Any opinions? Perhaps Image:Lufthansa.crj-100.d-aclp.arp.jpg or Image:SkyWest-United Express Canadair CRJ-700ER.jpg although they are not ideal. Todd66108:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Definitely not either of those. Lufthansa is the wrong airline. The SkyWest/United Express image is not only the wrong airline, but not even the right aircraft type (at least a CRJ-200 is nearly identical to a -100, the -700 is notably bigger). Obviously, the best option would be a photo of N431CA, but I don't have any of those. I do have a photo of a different Comair CRJ-100ER, N941CA I could upload. Will do that tonight if nothing better is proposed by then. Oh, and new topics are supposed to go at the bottom. ;) -- Hawaiian71721:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Image of Crash Location
The bullseye on the image showing the crash site may be incorrect; looking at the New York Times images it would appear that the crash site is much closer to the airport (right next to the buildings off the approach end of the runway).
The bullseye image is almost certainly incorrect; see below for more discussion of this. That's why I removed it from the article.--chris.lawson06:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes --- the crash site is beyond the first cluster of trees, located three to four plane lengths adjacent(ish) to the building. The bulls-eye was a valiant attempt, and should perhaps be pulled closer to the runway a bit. Thanks -- Colby Scudder (Lexington, KY)
DL5191 refers to a Flight Number. )Whenever you are on a commercial flight they say "Welcome abour Delta Airlines flight 5191 with service to ...)
The tail number which is the identity of the aircraft is N431CA. You can find the registry information for N431CA at the following website FAA Aircraft Registry
Comair and Delta operate under separate air carrier certificates. Air traffic control identifies this flight as "Comair 5191," whereas "Delta 5191" is a marketing reference. The flight is dispatched and operated by Comair for a Delta schedule. Contrary to the author's statement, "Comair 5191" is the more correct reference.
In any case, there's no point in changing and/or moving the intro sentence regarding the flight code every five minutes. Ma.rkus.nl16:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
ATC refers to ComAir flights with 3-digit ComAir flight numbers. If you fly ComAir, you will notice that the pilots, probably out of habit from ATC communications, will says, for example "ComAir Flight 123". Some of them also append "Delta Flight 5123." Very rarely will you hear a pilot say "ComAir 5123." As the above anonymous poster points out, ComAir operates under a separate air carrier certificate. ComAir flights are referred to in ATC as "Comair", not as "Delta." Therefore, ComAir flight numbers are more correct for the ATC and maybe NTSB, where as Delta flight numbers are more correct for the purposes of marketing and company press releases. I think the current title is acceptable, but I'm going to move the section on ComAir flight numbers into the first sentence. 68.211.185.69
Comair history & investigaion
There appears to be articles in the media about this being the second crash involving a Comair plane within the last twelve months, that the parent company has also gone bankrupt in this period of time and there has been massive reductions in spending and staffing. This information would be relevant to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.99.188 (talk • contribs)
Do you have a reference for the other crash? Do you have reliable sources that explain the connection between the parent company bankruptcy and this accident? We don't want to invent such a connection ourselves. Weregerbil15:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The information about the last twelve months is mentioned in the history section of the Comair article. Mention of previous plane crash, bankruptcy, cost cutting and job reductions. Maybe that article isn't authoritive enough either. Eregli Bob. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.99.188 (talk • contribs)
You mentioned a second crash within the last twelve months. I still can't spot it. There was a crash in 1997 which is older than twelve months, did you mean that one? What would be needed is a reliable source explaining the connection between parent company bankruptcy and this crash. We can't go around suggesting there is a connection if we don't have reliable sources saying there is a connection. Weregerbil15:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean to say there is a connection to a previous crash, management & financial situations related to this latest crash. Despite this these are obvious areas that an investigation would consider. (My mistake about previous crash, not in last 12 months but in 1997). Eregli Bob. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.99.188 (talk • contribs)
What Weregerbil said. Unless someone can provide documentation that there is a verifiable link between the bankruptcy of Delta and/or Comair and this crash, this section has absolutely no business in the article. (It doesn't really have any business in the news stories about it, either, but we can't control what the media reports.)--chris.lawson19:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
yeah, but i think theres a pretty firm case that when an airline gets in money trouble one of the first things that suffers is maintnence. all that you need for proof is a generalised article about it to quote.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.165.8 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Make the case for that in the face of everything so far saying that this was not even remotely maintenance-related, and a fairly straightforward case of pilot error. Go ahead. I'll wait.--chris.lawson19:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I am a CRJ200 Captain with almost 4 years in the CRJ and have flown in to KLEX many times. While as was pointed out maintenance was probably not a factor it appears human factors were. Most air carriers in bankruptcy have seen huge changes to the working agreements (contracts) with the pilot groups. Contrary to public views contract changes are not only about money. They are also about increasing maximum duty days, more days at work and more flight hours per day. This has the potential of aircrews flying more weird schedules on the back side of the clock. Yes, there are FAA limits - but even the NTSB has recommended changes with these current outdated rest requirements. I have seen the effects on myself and other crewmembers after starting at 4:30am and flying with over 14 hours of duty time. Many of us in the industry have said for a while that the airline industry was on thin ice with the ravaging of work rules and trying to do less with more. Of course all of this will come out in the investigation. I do not work for Comair and do not have their current agreement or know what the rest issue of this crew was but I can say that from what I have heard so far, and based on the gross nature of the alleged pilot error; rest and fatigue might have been issues. Cheaper tickets are not always that cheaper. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.44.129.186 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm a lexington local (living in Georgetown, KY, 11 miles from Lexington), and I used to work at the Bluegrass airport (once as a security guard, and again as a cabbie), and I'm trying to add to the page as I can. I'm watching the news on this and adding what I can. Can someone please help, and clean up my edits, as i'm not very good at editing the wiki. thanks.
---Thanks to the people cleaning up behind me! :)
I'd like to add the location of the crash to the image I just added - do you know the location, and a source to back that up? Thanks/wangi16:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
They just had the name of the police officer on wlex18, I didnt catch it. Someone add it to the lone survivor part.
OH! the crash location!
It was 1/2-1 miles straight out from the short runway, on the airports side of Versailles road. Check WLEX18 website, and other news sources. Extend the line from point 26 to 08 about a half mile, and thats it. That picture's not big enough to show the crash site.
Would it be appropriate to list as fatalities the two known crewmembers who succombed in the crash? /Swank
that looks like about what wlex18 is saying.
yeah, list them. - Lexington Local.
Done. I'm not sure if it's best to list their positions on the plane (to differentiate them from passengers), but I did as follows:
Jeffrey Clay (pilot)
Kelly Heyer (flight attendant)
Less Morris
/Swank
(victims listed)
No! not at all! how will we find out comprehensively if there are similarity's in coincedences. I think this kind of list would be a just contribution to wiki.
And since they are available now, it's best to list them now so we note when there are iregularity's, like the 2 japanese civilians, and other possible edits...
Victims need our consideration sometimes to be regognised.
80.57.242.8722:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I live in Huntsville, AL, and they said on the news that one of the victoms/fatalities of the crash was a woman who worked as a project manager for the Intergraph company, although I did not have a pen and paper to write down the name or the details. But I did find some details here on the tv station's website. Just passing along information. --Travlr2313:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The Lexington Herald Leader has a list of victims in todays final Metro edition. If anyone would like, I can type it up here.
--melloss
yeah, i added another section about that on the page. :P -Lexingtonian
dang, gone already. well, this is what i added.
It looks a law firm that has as one of their specialities airplane accidents, and they have a list of other airplane accidents on there as well. It's not surprising that they would include the latest news regarding airplane accidents. Almost all states, afaik, prohibit direct solicitation from anyone known to need legal services in a particular matter. Peyna02:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The article doesn't currently state that (there was some bad math earlier, briefly) and every source I've viewed has 47 pax and 2 (of 3) crew dead. I'm not sure what you are referring to... is there something I've missed? VxSote05:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Lawyers
It was quickly learned by a wikipedian through a google search that lawyers had waited less then eight hours on a Sunday to begin searching for the victims familes. website turned up by google search
Public Reaction to Lawyers
At least one local resident of the Lexington area was quoted as saying "All lawyers should be drug out and shot square in the face with a very painfull non-leathal weapon untill dead!"."
I'm watching the NTSB briefing live on CNN that started at about 3:20pm PDT and the NTSB board member confirmed that the aircraft is a CRJ-100. -- Hawaiian71722:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Various sources indicate the plane was delivered in 2001. By 2001 the CRJ-100 was no longer being produced, and therefore the plane was a CRJ-200, and airfleets.net is incorrect. According to the Airliners.net description of the CRJ-100 and 200, "The original CRJ-100 series - the 100, 100ER and 100LR - was augmented by the 200 series (with more efficient engines) in 1995." This particular aircraft was manufactured six years after the switchover. The confusion is because this flight was usually operated by a CRJ-100, but since seating is the same they can often be substituted for one another.
So you've now got the NY times, Delta itself, the fact that it was made 6 years after production switched to the 200, the most reputable aviation website (airliners.net) and a bunch of photos all listing it as a 200. What more do you people want?? accept it was a 200 and move on. It's far simpler than saying "strangely" the airline got it wrong, and still claiming you are right
The New York Times is reporting that Bombardier and the FAA are alternately called the plane a CRJ-100 and a CRJ-200. It'll probably take a few days for this to be resolved. - DiegoTehMexican19:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The latest word I have (not from a verifiable source though) is that it was built as a -100 and upgraded to a -200. -- Hawaiian71701:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
In addition to the information i provided above, which shows Delta calling it a 200 and the constant reference to it as a 200 (before the crash) i now can put information that will hopefully end this argument.
Perhaps you missed this part in the NTSB report: "This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors." Why would you doubt Comair's own information? 65.127.231.608:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Because Comairs information probably comes straight off the schedule and was probably written by a worker with no direct involvement in the issue typing a statement. Delta has said it was a 200. Now the initial report of an NTSB team on the ground in Lexington says it was a 200. Thats enough for me
144.133.88.710:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
So you assume that Comair got it their own plane type wrong, but Delta got it right? That's convenient. The NTSB report says that it is preliminary and may contain errors. The prelim is not a reliable source of information. The most reliable source we have at the moment is Comair. In addition, your changes cause the statements to not agree with their stated (footnotes) sources.
There is no way for anyone to positively identify a 200-series CRJ based on a photograph alone, as the only difference from the 100-series CRJs is the engine internals. Airliners.net is fairly notorious for having incorrectly identified photographs (right general aircraft, but wrong model or series), as stated above.--chris.lawson20:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's a question no one has asked yet...when a CRJ-100ER is upgraded with engines from the 200ER, does it remain a CRJ-100ER, or is it redesignated a 200ER? My experience suggests it would remain a 100ER regardless, but does anyone know for certain?--chris.lawson20:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and for the record, the engines in the 200 aren't any more powerful than the engines in the 100, just a tad more efficient (to the tune of 45 km extra range on the 200ER as compared to the 100ER). So for the purposes of this discussion, I'd say it matters not at all whether the aircraft was a 100ER (which it was) or a 200 (which it wasn't). Either one would have crashed under the circumstances.--chris.lawson04:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Causation v. Result
I made an edit in the section on the crash, changing "intense fire resulting in the crash" to "intense fire following the crash." The previous wording seemed confusing to me, in that it suggested fire broke out aboard the plane before impact which, according to the rest of the section and the news, is not the case. From what I've read it was crash, then fire. So I made the change. "Resulting from" would work, too, I guess. Plumbob78 18:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
There were initial reports that the aircraft was on fire before it crashed, this is from early area TV(WHAS11 Louisville) I'm not sure if stating either way would mean anything, until NTSB issues final report, this seems to be pretty blatant pilot error, or unfamiliarity with airfieldUnseemlyWeasel01:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Fire when aircraft impacted ground (www.lex18.com)
HEY! (lone survivor)
who took off the lone survivor section?! i think that should stay up there. for crying out loud, how many times does a plane crash and only 1 person come out alive? that also had information about the guys that pulled the co-pilot out of the plane. i think it should stay up. and dont say that putting it in the victims part is just as good. i think he should get his own section in the article because eventually the whole investigation will center on him for a while, and he's the freaking co-pilot! if anyone knows what happened then he's the best bet considering he was sitting in the cock-pit.
put it back! put it back! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.217.165.8 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
new motion
i'd like to introduce a motion to clear this talk page because it's getting pretty cluttered. if anyone needs to read past edits then they can look in the history, but right now this is pretty nuts. anyone 2nd the motion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.165.8 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-27T20:18:24 (UTC)
Sorry, but no. You can halp matters by signing posts and posting in the normal fashion (new comments at the bottom, proper heading levels), see: WP:TPG & WP:TALK. Thanks/wangi19:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
That's basically beside the point, the WP:NAME policy says "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize"... And in the press & news this is is being refered to as Comair Flight 5191.
As I understand it tickets are only sold via Delta, not Comair - so the Comair flightcode isn't too relevant. Thanks/wangi20:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
you might be right, cnn.com is calling it delta flight 5191. i'd check some other sources too
That is flat out wrong, the accident report will refer to it as OH or Comair 191, air traffic control called it Comair 191, the article should be 191-Reid A.21:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
According to the flight status:
Airline Comair Inc.
Flight Number 191
Departure City (Airport) Lexington, KY (LEX)
Departure Time 08/27/2006 06:14 AM
Arrival City (Airport) Atlanta, GA (ATL)
Arrival Time 08/27/2006 07:25 AM
Remaining Flight Time 01:11 (scheduled)
Aircraft Type Bombardier CRJ 100
Current Altitude 0 feet
Current Groundspeed 0 mph
Media reports seem to pretty universally referring it to as flight 5191, so that's what most people will recognize. Comair Flight 191 currently redirects to this article; perhaps after the excitement calms down we can switch things around, assuming that the NTSB report refers to it as flight 191. -- Hawaiian71705:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I support a move to Comair flight 191. Yes, we should follow the most recognizable naming, but not if that name is completely wrong. 191 is the Comair number, 5191 is the Delta number. Sjakkalle(Check!)06:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I know the media is calling it various names, but we can correctly title the article Comair Flight 191 and have both "Delta Flight 5191" and "Comair Flight 5191" redirect to it. Obviously "Delta Flight 191" shouldn't redirect, however, since it was a famous plane crash in Dallas during the 1970s or 1980s (I can't exactly remember which but that's not important). Alex 70.58.112.7707:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree as well. It is Comair Flight 191 (as identified operationally on the flight plan), and commercially as Delta Flight 5191. Comair doesn't have a 5191; identifying it as DL191 would also be incorrect. cailloux13:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The media either is/was misinformed or used 5191 because that's what people had on their Delta tickets, helping relatives identify what flight crashed. We are of course not here for that reason and thus should use the correct flight number. -newkait-c11:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
This is an interesting debate. I suppose flight numbers are reused all the time, but Delta Air Lines Flight 191 outlines a completely different disaster with a very similar flight number. In that article they even emphasize that "Delta discontinued use of the flight number "191," as is the norm when a carrier suffers an air disaster." Apparently they didn't get very much distance from the number. DeweyQ17:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
DeweyQ, the point is that this was not Delta 191, this was Comair 191, with a 'commercial' and 'unofficial' flight number of Delta 5191. This number of the flight, as far as the FAA and NTSB are concerned, was Comair 191 and the article should be named as such. I see this is the status quo, let's hope it remains so. 84.65.155.16520:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Where is your evidence that "as far as the FAA and NTSB are concerned", the number is 191? In this NTSB release they call it "Comair Flight 5191", just like the media. From what I can see, you're claiming the NTSB as an authority without evidence. --Dhartung | Talk05:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Being reliable does not make them correct; widespread perpetuation of an error also does not make it less of an error. The article is now named correctly, and should stay that way. VxSote00:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe the person who is arguing that it is ComAir 191, is doing so quite logically, considering that ComAir flights are referred to in ATC communications with their original 3-digit internal ComAir flight numbers. The four-digit number is just Delta's way of indicating that it is not an original Delta flight and that it is instead one of their partners/subsidiaries. 208.61.5.116
I didn't see in WP:NAME where it says that technical terms used internally by organizations are the preferred convention. Could you point me to the policy where this is supported? --Dhartung | Talk05:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I would have thought that the sites of Comair itself, Delta, and the NTSB - all of which designate it Comair Flight 5191 - would be the most reliable sources on the matter, since they ARE the parent companies of the flight concerned and the official US Federal Agency responsible for investigating "every civil aviation accident in the United States" (their words) 82.153.129.22305:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Whatever the flight should be called depends on what criteria are used. If one goes by what the tickets read and what the gate agents and flight attendants announced, the flight is Delta Flight 5191 (or if you want to be real technical, something very similar to "Delta Flight 5191 operated by Comair for Delta Connection." However, if one goes by how the pilots and air traffic controllers referred to the flight, then it is Comair Flight 191 (their actual words would have been "Comair 191." Thus far the news media has called it Comair Flight 5191, probably for two reasons: One, the flight was called 5191 everywhere that wasn't "behind the scenes", and two, Delta wants to make it clear that the flight wasn't operated by Delta, but was instead operated by Comair. Therefore one winds up with Comair Flight 5191, which works, but isn't really quite accurate. Alex 70.58.112.7707:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
got more info on that. it was a bit past that white building with the black roof.
oh, and heres my signiture for the anal-retentive types that keep ruining the fun of this for everyone else 68.217.165.820:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
About runways
Do we really need this section? This page is a report of a crash incident, not a study on airport design. I would suggest the first 2 paras of this section be removed and the rest combined with the heading "The crash". Maybe add a link to the wikipage on Runways if felt really necessary... HTUK20:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
yeah we need it. it's a major contributing factor to the crash. the runway the plane took off from is 1500 feet too short for that type of plane to take off from. 68.217.165.820:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
On what do you base the above claim? Personal knowledge of the CRJ-100ER flight manual? Because as a professional pilot myself, I can assure you that saying "X runway is Y feet too short for that plane to take off from" is a meaningless statement. There are a number of factors that influence takeoff distance, including (roughly in decreasing order of importance) weight of the aircraft, field elevation (altitude), temperature, wind, humidity, technique used, etc. To say that a CRJ can't possibly take off in less than 5,000 feet means something entirely different from saying that a fully loaded CRJ on that specific day, at that specific airport, couldn't have taken off in less than 5,000 feet. I suspect the former is untrue, and the latter is precisely why the crash occurred. (BTW, if your source for the above is "talking heads on TV", I'm not the least bit surprised, and I don't hold it against you. Most people have no idea that the so-called "aviation experts" the cable news channels drag out for these sorts of things are just about useless, CNN's Miles O'Brien being the major counterexample.)--chris.lawson20:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
then I would think that should be said as part of the factors for the crash, pretty much as you'd said it in that sentence - nice and short and without the need for too much direct comment on runway design in the article itself? Helps keep the article to the point and a manageable length. Just a thought. HTUK20:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
i'm not too much worried about length. i think at this point we should gather all avalible info, and then let it get sorted out later. i think we might need to get a new section about the causes of the crash, but we need to deffinatly state the diffrences in the runway lenghts, minimum runway distance for take off, and we need to put something up there about why this happened. so far i'm hearing a lot about mis-communication between ground controll and the pilots, and pilot error. 68.217.165.820:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S. OH! and i want to know what the plane bounced over on the runway! was it just the runway itself, or something on the runway, or what?
The plane could have bounced over the recently paved main runway, or some broken concrete or asphalt on the general aviation runway. The FAA rated this runway as poor. Mfields102:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
It's highly unlikely a 50,000-lb+ aircraft could have bounced over anything a mere 900 feet into its takeoff roll (the intersecting runway). Furthermore, you can see the runway condition in several of the photos, and it's not nearly as bad as the AirNav information (which, IIRC, comes from the FAA's Airport/Facility Directory and may not even be in sync with current A/FD information) would lead you to believe. Runway condition was not a factor in this accident. I'm certain of that.--chris.lawson02:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I have yet to see any report confirm this initial "bounce" idea. (Note that it's not in the main article any more.)--chris.lawson02:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm somewhat familiar with Blue grass Airport because - when I was still active with the New York Army National Guard - we used to fly into and out from that airport when we did our annual training at Lexington-Blue Grass Army Depot near Lexington. Looking at the photo, I can see a problem with the article. Look closely at the photo, and you will see that - since the photo was taken almost directly above Runway 04/22 from out in Space - that 04/22 is NOT the too-short runway, 08/26 is. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired)22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
A note on runway capitalization -- as major news outlets report it, as well as other aviation outlets (AOPA, EAA) -- when referring to a specific runway, then it is a proper noun and the "r" should be capitalized (i.e. Runway 22). When referring to a specific strip of pavement, you would refer to it as Runway 08/22 (including the leading zero, as painted on the runway). cailloux20:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Want to start with Google Earth... Heathrow... 09R? (that's bottom left / south east on the sat image), 09L will be the same too. For another, try 06 at Edinburgh Airport... Those two are off the top of my head. Common practise on WP:AIRPORTS is to preceed with 0 too. Thanks/wangi21:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not common practise anywhere in the United States. As this is a US subject and a US airport, the zero should stay off. (Have a gander at the Google Earth images of KLEX if you wish. No zeroes.)--chris.lawson21:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Should the division between the ends of a runway be a "/" (slash) or a "-" (dash)? I have usually seen this in print as a slash, but want to make sure that it's consistantly right so there isn't a versioning between the two. cailloux21:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Look guys, different sources use different conventions, different countries different markup. However comon use on Misplaced Pages is to seperate with "/" and include the leading zero (check the airport infoboxes), It makes sense to stick to this in thsi article. Thanks/wangi22:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
As I stated above, this is a US article, referring to US subjects. It is common practise in the US to number runways without the leading zero. Misplaced Pages should not contravene common practise for the sake of artificial internal consistency. The zero stays out on US airports.--chris.lawson22:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Data point: I have never heard the leading zero referenced on US radio communications. Example: "SkyWest 4892, caution wake turbulence, Runway Nine Right clear to land." FCYTravis22:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll second that. I've heard it a couple times from pilots, but I've never once heard it from ATC, and it's not recommended phraseology in the AIM either.--chris.lawson22:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh please Clawson... Please don't go making a point and stripping the zeros on all the airport articles... Jeez Louise! Thanks/wangi22:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not making a point. I'm doing the right thing. Find me an FAA publication that shows zeros on runways. Go ahead. I'll wait while you do.--chris.lawson22:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Various national civil aviation authorities differ on their terminology. However that is not a valid reason to simply ignore something that has, until now, largely been a standard on Misplaced Pages airport articles. WP:AIRPORTS exists to try and standardise airport articles on Misplaced Pages - you're welcome to joinm and welcome to discuss there too. Thanks/wangi22:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the "/" or "-" separators, I'm not sure which is most appropriate. FAA publications seem to use both, sometimes even on the same page... see http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0608/00084I28.PDF as an example. Also, I concur with Clawson on the removal of the leading 0 for US airports. VxSote01:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused. Where on the approach plate is there a leading 0? In this article the only two runways of interest would be 22 or 26. In the other direction, they might have a leading zero since runways are compass headings with the final digit removed (22 has a corresponding runway 4 or 04 as it would appear on the runway). THere is no reason to mention runway 4 or runway 8. --Tbeatty05:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
ONe other thing that I haven't seen is the effect of the illusion but it will be a contributing factor so I added runway width. 26 is 75 feet wide, 22 is 150 feet wide. The illusion is that the narrow runway will look longer than it is. It has fooled pilots before (mostly on approaches with respect to altitude). I suspect this is a reason why it didn't look bad from the pilots point of view since the perspective was the same. --Tbeatty05:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Both runways are paved 150 feet wide. 22 is usable the full width but 26 has white striped lines at 75 feet width, leaving 37 feet (or so) per side of runway which cannot be used. This comment does ignore the lighting factor. The fact is they taxied onto what they thought was 26. Did either the co-pilot or pilot look around and ask all these questions? -- 1) Why is my compass heading 260 (approx) and not 220 (approx). 2) Why does the runway look narrower? 3) Hmm, this runway does not look freshly paved like it was last week, 4) Hmm, there's no lighting on this runway, etc, etc. We can speculate all we want but we have to wait until the voice recorder information is released, and any other information that might come from the data recorder that might indicate. Also, we may be fortunate to understand what happened when / if the co-pilot is able to reconstruct the series of events and his thoughts prior to starting the takeoff roll. My personal opinion is I have a lot of respect for pilots; nearly all of them know the responsibility they have in their hands when they carry out their daily work. Even the answer to number 1 could be equipment related - do we know their compass was working? We have to let the investigators look at everything and even then we could never recreate conditions and sequences exactly as what happend last Sunday morning. The best we can hope for, is that NTSB will discover a chain of events or individual items, that taken togehter led to this and perhaps be able to eliminate some of the individual circumstances.
What page did you find the info on in the first ref? I can't find it, and I don't feel like reading the entirety of a 100+-page PDF file right now ;) --chris.lawson21:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Takeoff distance probably relies not just on weight but on wind and density altitude. I'm pretty sure that Runway 26 was too short no matter what, but let's wait for the NTSB to tell us what the takeoff distance should have been. David00:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Engines have special power settings for emergency. If you push the throttle very hard, it will dislodge a limiter and then the engines will go over 100%, usually 104-105% for 1 minute maximum, and then you can do the takeoff or climb with the extra power.
Otherwise the crash also shows the validity of my constant grievance, if the plane had a drag chute, like the russian airliners and the Space Shuttle do, the pilots could choose to abort take-off safely at any high speed, as soon as they saw the end of strip coming. Just because braking parachute canisters are bulky and cost a lot to reload, do not mean jetliner manufacturers are free to omit it to increase their profit. 195.70.32.13607:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
As it stands now, the article reads: "Based upon a takeoff weight of over 49,000 pounds (22,000 kg), the manufacturer estimated a minimum of 3,539 ft (1079 m) would have been needed for takeoff.". The reference for this quote comes from an LA Times report (reference link #7). The runway Flight 5191 took off on was 3500 ft long. I seriously doubt that another 39 ft is what would have caused this plane to crash. I think the LA Times made an erroneous statement, and in place needs the 1605m (5265 ft) figure from from the gov.gg website (assuming that it is a credible reference as well). Most reports I have seen, including the papers here in Lexington, where I live, have said that the CRJ plane needed at least 5000 ft to take off. If someone could please find the correct minimum take-off length and replace the LA Times reported length, that would be great.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.191.179.114 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The 3539-foot figure comes from the NTSB's conversations with Bombardier, using actual loading and weather data from the time of the crash. While you're welcome to "seriously doubt" these reliable, cited sources all you wish, those of us more grounded in reality will continue to use the calculations by the manufacturer. (The 5000-foot figure widely cited in early reports was a "expert" "estimate" based on "typical conditions". Defining those three terms is left as an exercise for the reader.)--chris.lawson05:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems like to me, if the plane needed an extra 39 feet or so to take off, it could've done so on the grass at the end of the runway. Assuming the plane needed only 39 more feet to take off, The plane was already very close to take-off speed, and the nose was already probably beginning to rise. At that speed, it would've taken just another fraction of a second with the wheels on the ground at the end of the runway to get off the ground. That is why it is hard for me to believe that the plane only needed another 39 or so feet to get off the ground. I don't fly planes, so maybe I have no clue what I'm talking about, but that is the thought going through my mind when I see the little difference between the 3500-foot runway and the 3539 feet required to get off the ground.
Images on news websites
Anyone know what the copyright statis on the major news websites is? i'm wondering if we might be able to use those in our article.
i'm also wanting to get a more humanitarian strain in this article. what about all the other people that are not involved in this?
here's my sig for the ppl that ruin wiki 68.217.165.820:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Their status is "copyrighted" which means they are NOT, with very limited exceptions, fair game for use in this article.--chris.lawson20:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
yeah, i know. thats why i'm saying lets find out what exactly that copyright issue is. there might be some images that are useable, or in public domain. also it might be that we just need to ask them if we can use their images on the wiki. could even be that we just need to link to the image and give them credit or something. 68.217.165.820:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
If you can find any images that are unquestionably public domain, or if you can get written permission, please feel free. I think you'd be wasting your time, though.--chris.lawson20:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I won't put a tag at top since it's a current event, but the punctuation should be standardised to appear before the citations, not after. Anchoress20:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
"Terrorism has been ruled out as a possible cause."?
First of all, even the 1 source which addresses terrorism does not say that at all. The FAA use the weasel words of "FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the agency had no indication at all that terrorism was involved."
Second of all. let's think about it; what kind of evidence would already be known so fast that would be an "indication of terrorism"...a handwritten note that survived the fire?
Thirdly, do you really think the Bush admin wants to crush domestic air travel and the US economy by ever admitting this was caused by terrorism if it were to be the case? Remember "National Security" trumps truthtelling every time.
Fourthly, the airplane was "largely intact"...it's hard for me to believe noone got out unless it was an onboard terrorist started fire exactly like the ones that the London guys were allegedly planning.
Fifthly; I simply can not believe this article was published saying "Terrorism has been ruled out as a possible cause." when there is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the sources to justify that rank falsehood. 216.164.203.12200:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. Thanks.
And as someone thats lived in lexington for 9 years, and now in georgetown for the past couple of weeks, i can state from personal experence that lexington is by no means a target for terrorism. why the hell would they want to hit anything here? the whole point of terrorism is to cause terror, and lexington just isnt the kind of city to grab national attention. now yeah, there are a lot of good targets here, but hitting any one of them would only cause agrivation to the locals. no widespread horror to shock the nation and scare us all silly. Lexingtonian 68.217.165.819:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Problems confirming the crash site with Google Earth
1; Live TV is showing the plane carcus nestled next to a forest. The only forest I see is at the end of the longer runway
2; Why are there no crash scene photos online that actually show the plane carcus? They just show cars (NOT EMERGENCY VEHICLES) parked around some buildings.
3; The one CNN crash photo(click on gallery is terrible and but it does show a forest which google earth does NOT show at the end of the shorter runway.
4; This photo showing an emergency vehicle going up a road toward the crash site; Google Earth shows a road like this near the long runway but not the short one.
duh, son absolute faith in what? That you flow off the shorter runway with corsair??
and 'many times' would indicate commercial flights? 80.57.242.8722:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Ya don't put absoulute trust in Google Earth I live close to there...I have flown from that airport several times pretty scary... Caleb0902:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
also, google earth hasnt had time to update the photos. its not an instintanious process that lets you see everything up to the minute. its simply a large multi image sattelite collage of the earth. in order to get an update the satalitte needs to pass over the area and snap a new photo before you'll see it.
The current image was uploaded as a replacement for that one. I presume the uploader created it himself, but he needs to confirm that (it appears he's new to Misplaced Pages and hasn't realised that we need source information yet).--chris.lawson01:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
If someone would like to re-create that diagram and upload it with proper sourcing, here's a Terraserver link that should be a good starting point: http://www.terraserver-usa.com/image.aspx?T=4&S=11&Z=16&X=1774&Y=10531&W=3 The crash site is about 400 meters off the end of the runway and about 75 meters to the left (south) of the extended centerline, at the southwest end of that narrow field. (The thick forest between the runway and the crash site isn't quite as thick now as it was in that photo.)--chris.lawson02:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Moved from "Lexington Local" section above...
Cross posting this here since its quite late where Wangi is located and I don't have the tools to edit the image. Image:Blue Grass Airport, USGS Urban Ortho, approx crash site.jpg looks very nice except that several sources say it never made it off the ground crashing into trees just beyond the end of the runway. CBS News Photo 1 shows crash scene with runway in foreground. WSBTV shows a series of pictures that look like the cluster of buildings just off the runway end, maybe 1200 feet. It might be better to place the crash location near that cluster of buildings. See also news.yahoo.com image slide show.Dual Freq00:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Yep, I pretty much agree with that. I would have put it about 20-30 meters further east (right), but that's the general ballpark. Clearly, the crash image we have now needs to be revised.--chris.lawson04:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I based my image on several sources at the time... at that point it was still 1/2 to 1 mile from the runway and various news shows were running sat images with the area matching mine. I'll updated. Thanks/wangi08:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Comparing the cited photos with the current diagram, I concur that the approximate location is marked correctly, however it does appear that in the time since the satellite photo was taken, the two long buildings have been replaced, a number of trees have been removed, and some roads have been resurfaced and/or reconfigured. These differences initially led me to question the accuracy of the diagram. 165.236.112.24517:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
"Government reaction" section
That the NTSB has launched an investigation into this crash is not remotely noteworthy; their standard practise is to investigate *all* crashes involving loss of life. However, I didn't want to remove the line entirely because the NTSB investigation is arguably part of the government's response. It seems really silly to point it out, however, which is why I inserted "routine" in there in an attempt to emphasise the fact that this was a "standard" investigation just like any other. If someone has a better way of saying that, please do so, or remove the sentence entirely if you think that's appropriate. (Removal would be my favoured course of action.)--chris.lawson01:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem with your use of the word "routine" is that it raises the question: Are there non-routine investigations? Are there various levels of investigations, with routine being one of them? Now that I undersand what you are saying, it would probably read better if you said something like, "As in all air crashes, the NTSB has launched an investigation." The fact is, it is not an investigation like all others. All investigations are different. They follow standard routine practices, but the investigation is different and the outcome is, of course, different. Crunch11:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I solved the problem by removing the section entirely. The reaction has not been notable (read: unusual) in any way, so why mention it?--chris.lawson19:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, IMO now is not the time for a victim list, eventually a victim list is going to be needed here (We are talking about 50 people, after all). WhisperToMe03:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
50 people who, largely, apart from their status as victims of this disaster, are otherwise entirely non-notable. Number is irrelevant here; the criterion of notability is what must be applied. My heart goes out to the victims and their families, but the line must be drawn somewhere.--chris.lawson03:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Spellings?
Can anyone confirm the spellings of the first responders' names? The New York Times article differs from what we have here, and from what I saw in one or two other articles earlier.--chris.lawson03:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Peer review
I've nominated this article for peer review, as I think the core group of people working on this article throughout the day have done a bang-up job with it. Good work, all!--chris.lawson05:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps its creator can? I think it's sort of dubious too, although it's awfully odd that that flight number seems to be so "jinxed" in the US.--chris.lawson06:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it should go under a "trivia" section or at least a statement of coincidence should be added at the beginning of that list. I do think it's noteworthy but could be worked on a little bit. 70.58.112.7707:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed this section as useless coincidental trivia. Feel free to do the same yourself in future articles as this problem is unfortunately widespread and recurring. — GT08:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
It's much more than useless coincidence. Flight number curses are quite a big thing. When a flight crashes, an airline (particularly in the US) will not use that flight number again for many years, if ever again. I do agree though that this article doesn't need a whole section on it. 81.77.202.21013:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think curses on flught numbers exist, but i am convinced the suggestion of curses on numbers exists. Its actually a challenging comparison to look up the 191 flights, in the first one half a whole redaction perished, female playboy redactives,
but still..80.57.242.8722:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The Tower
Has anybody read anything on what the airport's tower was doing/saying at the time? One would hope an alert tower would radio the cockpit well before any real buildup of speed. Perhaps it's a very small affair and they were preoccupied by a simultaneous flight? Might even be a story of staff cutbacks leading, at least indirectly, to these deaths, JDG07:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The media has blamed the pilots for the crash. Anyone with any knowledge of the aviation industry will know that the media do not know of what they talk and that blame attributed in the immediate aftermath of the accident is generally eroneous. My attempts to remove references to sensationalist media reports are therefore the right thing to do. The ONLY valid explanation as to what happened will be the NTSB report when it is published. While this will take time, and therefore not appeal to the media and to those on the public who would prefer a scapegoat to the facts, the fact remains that any talk of what happened is, until the report is published, mere speculation and probably wrong.
Ministry of Information10:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
It's virtually a certainty that the media has it right in terms of blame. (Even a broken clock...) Lining up on the wrong runway is always pilot error, as the pilots have the final responsibility to ensure they have adequate runway length. Even if the tower gave them the wrong assignment (which doesn't appear to be the case) then the NTSB would likely find fault with both the pilots and the controller. (This is based on my observations from other crash reports.) Birge09:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Time of the crash
The time is given as 06:01am local time, which is translated as 02:01UT. That is wrong - UT is ahead of local time in Kentucky. However, I don't know which time is incorrect.
It would be 10:01 UTC (see ), however I do not think it's useful having this information. Thanks/wangi11:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
This may be illrevelent, but should we also put the Local time (EST) in as well as the UTC, since it is in Eastern Time? User:N@vi 22:49 (UTC) 30, Auguest 2006
It's not really the accurate flight number... The flight is operated by Comair, but sold by Delta - the flight number on tickets will be DL5191. Also see section above dealing this this issue too. The current article name reflects the name most people would expect to find the article at - it's the title a lot of news outlets are using. Thanks/wangi13:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
THIS IS ALREADY DISCUSSED ABOVE IN THE SECTION 'RENAME'. Please continue further discussion there.
Injuries 1
If only 1 person got injured then how did 49 die? This is the wrong term to use. There were 50 injured, 49 dies as a result of their INJURIES. Secondly it is very likely that passengers suffered multiple injuries each so to say there was only 1 injury is ball bags. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.73.57.105 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
How useless is it to write "severely injured and also dead?" I'm pretty sure death is commonly accepted to include "injured until dead." --Vees15:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I think most people reading this would accept that injuries mean non-fatal injuries. For example when you hear a news report that says 10 people were injured, you know they aren't dead.81.77.202.21015:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty standard to simply say "dead" if someone is dead, and "injured" if they were hurt but didn't die. --Kitch15:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
NTSB says "Injuries: 49 fatal, 1 serious", but I don't have a problem with the wording in the article remaining how it is. At the very least, the suggestion above that "injuries" should include each of the multiple injuries sustained by each passenger seems a bit silly. Geoffrey Spear12:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Explanation of my cleanup changes
I've pared down the "X reported" stuff considerably, as we now (mostly) have hard facts to deal with rather than simply what the media may have heard.
I've removed reference to terrorism and maintenance. They're red herrings and they're cluttering up the article. The NTSB doesn't think rabidbadgers in the cockpit brought the plane down either, but we don't feel the need to mention that. There are an infinite number of things that did not cause the crash. This article should focus on what did cause it.
I removed the airport satellite photo. It's largely redundant with the crash site location. (One thing I liked a lot about the unsourced image that we had to remove was that it labeled the runways and it used a very thin circle around the crash site. Wangi, can you make one fitting that description?)
I'm putting the "ER" back in the plane designation. I know Comair's press release doesn't mention whether it's an ER or LR, but there's no such thing as a plain old CRJ100 according to our CRJ page, and there's never been any claim that it was an LR model.
I've removed the 5,000-foot claim for takeoff. Absent a thorough explanation (which IMO is unnecessary), a number for takeoff distance is meaningless. See above where I questioned the talking heads on this one. Suffice it to say that runway 26 was too short (which it clearly was for a fully loaded CRJ, even with the most skilled test pilots in the front).
I suggest that certain confirmed/confirmable details about the aircraft's maintenance history be preserved in the article. If you read the full narrative NTSB reports on other accidents, you will see that these facts are usually documented, even in cases where they essentially reduce to no evidence of mechanical malfunction at all. While is seems obvious what happened here, only the NTSB's investigation will eventually be able to rule out something like maintenance as a contributing factor. 165.236.112.24518:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
It's true that the NTSB usually leaves the phrase "no evidence of mechanical malfunction was found" in their final reports. It is also true that the NTSB does not mention non-causes in the Probable Cause section of the report. As this article is about the crash and its causes/effects, I fail to see the relevance of non-causal routine maintenance. Other air disaster articles don't mention maintenance as an issue (except where it was related to the crash; see American Airlines Flight 191 as an example), and there's no reason this article should. To do so distracts from the lessons that can be learned.--chris.lawson19:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
10oct2000 C-FTBZ CL-604 Bombardier Aerospace during take-off from Wichita-Mid-Continent Airport, KS USA the airplane stall at an altitude too low for recovery. 2 fatalities / 3 on board.
04jan2002 N90AG CL-604 Agco Corporation crashed during take-off from Birmingham IAP, United Kingdom. 5 fatalities / 5 on board.
28nov2004 N873G CL-600 Air Castle crashed out of control in take-off from Montrose County Airport, CO USA. 3 fatalities / 6 on board.
02feb2005 N370V CL-600 DDH Aviation the pilot aborted the takeoff at Teterboro Airport, NJ USA, but the plane skidded off the runway. It went through the perimeter fence, crossed a highway and crashed into a building. About 15 people were injured, one critically, but nobody was killed. 0 fatalities / 11 on board.
09mar2005 N660RM CL-600 Romeo Mike Aviation during take-off at Tupelo Regional Airport, MS USA. 0 fatalities / 7 on board.
You're right, I really don't think there is any connection. Firstly that's a different aircraft, secondly this accident was caused by the pilot using too short a runway. The crashes you mention were caused by other reasons that could not have possibly caused this accident (for example N90AG was caused by icing on the wings, see Birmingham International Airport (UK)). 84.65.155.16520:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
There's not really a connection, since this was an airliner, and those are bizjets operated under different operating rules. 132.205.44.13422:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Trivia
I strongly disagree with the inclusion of the following text:
"Comair 191 joins American Airlines Flight 191, Delta Air Lines Flight 191, Prinair Flight 191, and the only X-15 crash, also flight 191, on the list of flights numbered 191 that have crashed."
This was originally under the title "notable facts", and now "trivia". Frankly this is nonsense and superstition. Can anyone find a reliable source that also puts 2 and 2 together, comes out with 5... and connects these "flight 191's" (remember too this is really DL5191)? Thanks/wangi20:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I was once told that a long time ago, a Contor Jumbo jet was attempting to land in KLEX and was forced to land on Versailes Road near by. Ill have to look it up but I was interested in knowing others input on whether or not this would be relevent to this artical. User:N@vi 20:03 UTC 30, August 2006
I don't know any details never hearing about the event, but from your description (a standard road being able to withstand the weight of a jumbo jet?) it almost sounds apocryphal, not to mention irrelevant to this article, the only commonality being location. -- Hawaiian71722:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Taxi route change
This section keeps being added and removed from the article:
The airport's director stated that the taxi route for commercial flights had been changed one week before the crash.
Is there some reason that it should not be in there? As far as we know, it's a possible contributor to the accident, and there's not much else to explain what happened other than a colossal screw-up by the pilots. - DiegoTehMexican22:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
It's irrelevant at this time, until we know more about whether it was related to the mix-up or not. Yes, it's possible that it was. It's also entirely possible that it wasn't. There's not much point in speculating. Let the media speculate all they want.--chris.lawson22:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Stating that it's irrelevant is original research, unless you're speaking for the National Transportation Safety Board. Misplaced Pages does not have to state whether it's relevant; we only have to report that it is a fact surrounding the incident, which comes from a reliable source. --Dhartung | Talk02:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
At what point does original research become fact? I thought it being reported by multiple news agencies made it fact? Surely it should be included, although documenting it as the sole reason for the crash is of course conjecture at this stage, until the NTSB has investigated. --Oscarthecat06:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Stating that the taxi route change is irrelevant is no different from stating that the airplane's spotless maintenance history is irrelevant or stating that the NTSB does not believe that terrorism was involved is irrelevant. Until there is some reason to think any of these factors is involved in the crash, there is no need to mention them in the article, because to do so implies that they were involved, which is just as much original research as Dhartung claims my position is. (If you believe that mentioning such facts in the article is not an endorsement of a link between the two, that's all well and good in an ideal world but that's not how the general public perceives it.)--chris.lawson18:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
So should we expunge all the facts about the crash then? I'm just wondering what facts ought to be in there, and what shouldn't, so that I can avoid getting it wrong in future. I thought it was relevant because it was unclear whether pilots had used the new layout before, possibly contributing to the navigational error. Thanks.
According to the NTSB, the pilots saw that the runway lights were out, but had been advised of this condition due to construction. The sole air traffic controller on duty that morning was responsible for clearing flights and issuing weather forecasts, and was not responsible for assuring that flights were on their appropriate runways. The FAA said that an additional controller would be restored to the overnight weekend shift beginning immediately.
The reason runway lights being out is noteworthy is that the lights were one factor that could potentially have differentiated (and, in fact, did differentiate) the proper runway from the wrong runway. I'm not sure I really like that paragraph in general, though, because it seems like a regurgitation of the latest updates from CNN. Even the bit about the FAA adding a second controller isn't necessarily related (the FAA refused comment, but it certainly seems like they're doing this in reaction to the crash). I'll remove that paragraph.
Incidentally, whether or not the pilots had used the new layout, the taxi still required them to cross Runway 26 before turning onto Runway 22. Too much is being made of this change, and as far as I can tell at this time, it did not affect the taxi route between the ramp and Runway 26.--chris.lawson19:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
No worries. For a graphical depiction of what I just described, please see the image that Dual Freq just posted at the bottom of the talk page.--chris.lawson20:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
2) As decided above in the "Rename?" section, there is no "Comair Flight 5191". It was jointly listed as Delta Flight 5191 and Comair Flight 191. The media has massively and collectively misidentified the flight. - DiegoTehMexican22:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Which is what people expect the article to be called however (see WP:NAME)). No tickets were ever sold under the code OH191. Thanks/wangi22:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Google the terms comair transcript site:ntsb.gov 2nd hit is and refers to Comair Flight 3272. In the transcripts, ATC calls the flight "comair thirty-two seventy-two" repeatedly. ATC probabply called this one Comair 5192, but we won't know until the transcript is released. Dual Freq01:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Naming policy on Misplaced Pages insists that articles be called by their most common name unless there's a good reason, such as a conflict. With every major media and government source using "Comair Flight 5191", you'd think this simple fact would be discernible, but some people are insisting on injecting original research (their own assumptions) and speculation about the future content of an as-yet-unreleased crash report. This is really unacceptable. --Dhartung | Talk02:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreeing with Dhartung here: I would have thought that the sites of Comair itself, Delta, and the NTSB - all of which designate it Comair Flight 5191 - would be the most reliable sources on the matter, since they ARE the parent companies of the flight concerned and the official US Federal Agency responsible for investigating "every civil aviation accident in the United States" (their words) 82.153.129.22305:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Image including taxiway
I liked the other image that was removed because it showed the taxiways and helped explain the confusion that could result with that intersection. Maybe the existing image could be expanded to include that taxiway failing that I think the other image covering the whole airport needs to be re-added to show this important intersection. Comments? Dual Freq22:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Problem is that they just re-paved that area and (may have) rerouted taxiways. Any satellite images you can find online are going to be too old to reflect this.--chris.lawson22:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Good point, FAA - NACO diagram is current for the month of August shows only the taxiway going to the full length of the runway but that shorter one isn't on the chart. Maybe with annotation that could be clearer. Still looks like it could be confusing in twilight. Maybe the NACO drawing could be converted to PNG and used. It's PD-USGov-FAA or DOT. Dual Freq22:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, and speaking from personal experience with NACO, changes to runways can sometimes take two full revision cycles (56 days each) to propagate through the charting system. We may not see an updated airport diagram until January 2007 if that's the case. Our company Jepp subscription covers Kentucky, though, so I'll keep an eye out there too.--chris.lawson22:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
One more thing -- do we have any idea how old the imagery on which the above image by Wangi is based? It looks to me like the perpendicular taxiway (what you referred to as "that shorter one", probably what used to be A7, with A8 having been renamed to A7) is no longer there (which, to my mind, would actually *simplify* that intersection).--chris.lawson22:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree that the additional image (the original one I produced) does add context, and that both make sense in the article. I'd be a bit wary of altering the image to reflect the updated layout - given I/we have no real source. (edit conflict) - you can try and work out the date based on the source - the USGS 1m / 3ft ortho - don't know off the top of my head. Thanks/wangi22:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't suggesting that the image be altered to reflect the current layout, only that what we really need is a current image. :) Ultimately, if this taxiway re-routing theory turns out to have some merit, we should probably have a second diagram in the article detailing the terminal area and the taxiway routing used.--chris.lawson22:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
If that's data we can eventually get (it'll be a while I'm sure) then I can knock that up no problem. Generally the data shown in NASA World Wind is public domain (both images i've produced are from USGS aerial photography, Landsat 7 sat imagery is also available), and an excellent source for such projects. Thanks/wangi22:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and for the record, I know a few pilots down Lexington way and I might be able to get one of them to take an aerial photo or two sometime soon-ish. (Or next time I'm down that way...might be next weekend, we'll see.)--chris.lawson22:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's a couple images of the existing taxiways. Copyrighted so can't post them in the article.
These might clarify things. The runway numbers are painted in a different spot than the worldwind image shows. Looks like they are not using the full length of the runway anymore. The taxiway farthest from the ramp must be closed. Hard to tel signage, but with construction maybe the signs showing what runway is what were not lighted or not present. Hard to tell if the signs are there from the low res of these images though. Dual Freq22:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The X / + is way too far off the runway end, it should be near the cluster of buildings just off the runway edge. The Blue line is using the taxiway that was closed, the other shorter one was the one used as shown by the photos on yahoo in the above posts. Also, the true color ones from Urban areas USGS look better than the landsat false color. jdmcox.com (I have no affiliation with it) USA photomaps is my personal preference for accessing terraserver images and has the ability to export jpegs of the imagery. Dual Freq01:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Auto review
Since this article is up for peer review I ran the auto review script. The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.
Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
On August 27, 2006, around 6:07 a.m. local time, a BombardierCanadair CRJ-100ER flying the route crashed after attempting to take off from the wrong runway at Lexington. The first officer was the only survivor among the 47 passengers and three crew on board. The flight was scheduled to land in Atlanta at 7:18 a.m. local time.
I've made the change. The problem with having the alt names higher up in the lead is that it masks the important details. Thanks/wangi14:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I changed it back before reading this but it seems that anons tend to not read far enough in before they decide to revert the flight back to Comair 5191, I propose perhaps moving that sentence up. Maybe making the first line separate and then continuing onto a new paragraph containing the different flight numbers?? I'll revert myself for now. -- SmthManly / / 15:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand the concern, but I feel this places far to much importance on the flight numbers etc. The important detail here is a flight from A to B crashed - the various additional flight codes are not critical information for the first paragraph. In the 2nd paragraph (which is still in the lead, before the TOC) we can expand on this curiousity without overwhelming the 1st paragraph with what is essentially technical trivia. Thanks/wangi15:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, are regarding anons adding this info back into the first para... If we get agreement ont eh layout of the lead here then it's easy enough to revert those edits and point them to this discussion. Thanks/wangi15:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Daily cleanup pass
Several sentences in the description of the crash need references. The NTSB preliminary report is wildly short on details, and these new details (since yesterday) didn't come from nowhere. Where did they come from? I've added 'fact' tags where citations should be inserted. In particular, the assertion that
Fog was present and a light rain was falling. These factors, along with the pre-dawn darkness, would have required the pilots to use their instruments for takeoff.
needs a citation. If conditions were such that an instrument takeoff was required, it's very clear that such a takeoff would have been illegal under 14 CFR Part 121. As I've heard no mention of this (and indeed, ATC would not have given them a clearance were this the case), I find it hard to believe the person who wrote this knew what he/she was talking about. Without digressing into a discussion of takeoff procedures in less-than-ideal weather conditions, suffice it to say that there are precious few situations in which you would make a takeoff solely by reference to instruments. (Similarly, there are precious few situations, even with perfect weather, in which you would not check your instruments on the takeoff roll. If this is the point that the author was trying to get across, there are better ways to say it.)
pending an explanation of what bearing his alma mater has on this article. (The larger point here is "Where does this stop?" We can't put complete personal histories of every victim in this article; if they're notable, they should have their own articles.) I would even go so far as to say that we don't need to list the flight crew's hiring dates, either -- again, it's not really relevant; the airline president's assertion that the crew was "very familiar" with the aircraft is sufficient (but I'm leaving that part alone for now).
Polehinke was "at the controls", true, but this makes it sound like Clay wasn't. Both of them were seated at their crew stations in the cockpit, and therefore both of them were "at" the controls. I've changed it to "flying the plane".--chris.lawson16:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Several local news stations showed radar maps from the time of the crash, which seemed to indicate that while there was scattered light rain in Lexington, it was not falling at the airport. I was not far from the airport at the time, and did not see fog anywhere. Absent any support for that statement, I have removed it. Cmadler17:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism
After you post an edit make sure that somone didn't insert vandalism prior to it in a different section. An example . -Ravedave17:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Runway lights
I suspect the confusion over the runway lighting being operative/inoperative is going to play a part in the probable cause report. I'm not sure how best to mention it at this point in time without implying a connection (which would be original research), so I've removed it for the moment. If someone can come up with a better way, please feel free.--chris.lawson19:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The reference says it is pilot controlled lighting on that runway. Was the PCL operative? If it was, their mike keying may have activated it. --Tbeatty04:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
If I may offer some templates, this is an example of original research/speculation: "The runway lighting conditions are expected to play a part in the probable cause report." This is an example of proper citation: "The airport manager said that the lighting may have been inoperative. According to the New York Times, investigators are taking a close look at lighting conditions." Hope this helps.--Dhartung | Talk05:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll follow up here with a link to Fatal error: Mistake on runways has experts puzzled which is a Cincy Post article collating speculation from various aviation-experienced people. The overall arc of the article is wrong for Misplaced Pages writing, but the citation approach is valid, e.g.: Jim Ott, a contributing editor of Aviation Week, a well-respected industry magazine, said from what he has heard of the situation, it seemed that the pilots "must have been distracted pretty seriously." The article even cites an anonymous source; we couldn't do that ourselves, but in a pinch (if it's the only way to cite something) we could even say "The Cincy Post intervieed a pilot who ..." The rule is intended to eliminate editors making their own inferences, not to prevent discussion of potential lines of investigation. Parallel example, in the Karr/Ramsey case, it would not have been speculative to cite sources that said investigators were going to obtain a DNA sample from Karr or to look at his financial records to determine his whereabouts, even though we had no idea what the outcome of those approaches would be. --Dhartung | Talk05:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Additional image
Approximate paths: desired path via Rwy 22 Actual path via Rwy 26.X marks the taxiway that was closed. See also larger Source image: Image:KLEX Blue Grass Airport.jpg
Here's another image. X marks the closed taxiway based on photo links I posted above, and Yahoo news gallery photos. End of red line is approx area of crash. Dual Freq20:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Any thoughts on including this image in the article? I guess it could be argued that it is OR, but the images linked above on this page back it up. Construction doesn't seem to have removed the taxiways, just shortened the runway. The numbers for Rwy 22 are now closer to the taxiway they were supposed to use and the taxiway with the X has not been removed, just small barriers placed in front of it as seen in the yahoo image gallery. Lines are a bit thin, but I didn't have a tool for transparent lines, and I didn't want to obscure the runway markings. Of course those markings are quite a bit different now than they were in April 2002 when this image was taken. I guess it could be cropped differently, but I wanted to include the crash site, the taxiways and the control tower (I didn't mark it but it is in the image). Dual Freq21:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a pretty good image. It would be good to show the entire length of 4-22, for contrast to 8-26. In 2001 Bliegrass airport made a study and considered expanding the length of 8-26. The cost was going to be $80 million. Instead they opted for an upgrade to 4-22 to bring it up to FAA minimums. This included lengthening the runway approaches by 300 feet on both ends. The repaving on August 19-20 was Phase IV of the upgrade to the airport. IT would be interesting to see before and after pictures or at least the stages of the upgrades. I'll go on a limb and say this is probably pilot error, but I have enough respect for pilots to know that whatever happened there had to be something that caused a confusion or give them an idea that they were going down a 7,000 foot runway. The other contrast is 4-22 is 150 feet wide and 8-26 is 75 feet wide but this does not show like that in the photo. It makes me wonder, with the aprons and so forth, maybe the width is confusing because of the convergence at this area of the field. Mfields122:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
USA Photomaps measuring tool shows both are 150 feet wide, but 26 has lines painted on it that are 75 feet apart. The edge of 26 must not be included in the official width, only the area between the lines: see also You can also see the runway markings off 22 have changed since the 2002 aerial photo. Dual Freq22:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, that explains it better now I see what you are saying about the actual paved width vs. usable width. It's interesting that 26 is 150 feet wide as paved but only lined at 75 feet. I'd sure like to know some history on Bluegrass field, like was 22 built first and 26 added later? At a news conference yesterday evening on a local TV station, the governor said he was asking the airport manager to close 26 with some significant barrier. Mfields123:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The runway 300 foot over run length increase explains why the numbers are in a different place for 22. They couldn't go any closer to the road north of the field, so they shortened it on the 22 end and that's why they closed the taxiway going the full length (denoted by an X). On the opposite end (where there is more room) they made up for the lost length on the 22 end. I guess I could make a new image to include the full length of 22, but with the project the opposite end will not be remotely accurate on the 2002 image. Also, the 1997 b/w aerial photo doesn't show the 75 ft lines on rwy 26, so somebody must have decided the pavement edges were not safe, or the runway safety area was not clear with the full 150 feet. I'm not sure if General aviation would want 26 closed, there are plenty of airports with short runways, and complex taxiway intersections can't close them all. As far as Airport history, it looks like that other taxiway used to be a runway, aligned about 150 / 330 true. It looks like it was only about 2000 feet long though. Dual Freq23:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this image looks great. The "X" really helps a lot too. It's amazing to zoom up the photo and see all the details that are there. Anyway, I think it would be a good addition to the article. Someone will probably disagree with it but 1) it shows the path that is normally taken to use 22 (for commercial larger aircraft), 2) the actual path taken by Comair 5191, and 3) the recently closed taxiway (without stating giving an opinion on the effect of the taxiway). Maybe the whole runway thing or airport changes at Bluegrass Field belong in a separate article? Mfields100:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I was going to circle the control tower, but I'm not sure that it matters. I know of at least 1 airport that doesn't open until 6 am local time, but commuter jets depart prior to the tower's opening. They call for clearance and the center (over 100 miles away) clears them without seeing the aircraft via a remote radio site. The pilot is on his/her own as to avoiding other traffic and finding the correct runway. I think it could be added to the article but I was afraid someone might object on grounds of WP:OR, so I'll let someone else add it if they feel like it. I do think the taxiway should be depicted in an image, but my markups to it could be considered OR since the location is based on AP photos not actual text. This image with the markup doesn't pertain to the airport article itself. Dual Freq01:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Takeoff Weight
I noticed that sources have had conflicting information regarding the takeoff weight of the aircraft. The since-rewritten CNN article listed the weight as 40,987 lbs, but the LA Times article lists it as "just over 49,000". The weight of the aircraft has a direct impact on the takeoff distance, and is likely to be significant to the investigation. Can we look for some additional sources that might clarify what appears to be a significant discrepancy? VxSote03:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
One of the weights is wrong, because both articles agree on the takeoff distance number. As the CNN article was originally published at 49,000, then revised downward to 40,987 (before the weight and takeoff distance figures disappeared entirely), I suspect the latter is correct.--chris.lawson03:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
This source that was recently added to the crash section http://www.ajc.com/services/content/business/stories/0829comwhy_.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=6 lists the weight as 49,087 lb. The Bombardier site lists max takeoff weight as 51,000 lb, max payload 13,100 lb, max fuel 14,305 lb, and empty weight 30,900 lb. Looking at that info, and knowing that the flight was nearly full, I'm leaning towards the 49,087 number being correcy, and 40,987 being a simple typo. I'm satisfied with the current sources for now. VxSote04:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure it is irrelavent. Even if it would not be his responsibility, a second controller might have prevented the accident and the lack of same is probably going to be cited as a contributing factor. Dan D. Ric14:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
This is pure speculation. Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball, and what you think is "probably" going to be cited as a contributing factor is irrelevant. Geoffrey Spear14:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of whether my comments are relevant or not I still think the fact that only a single controller was on duty IS relevant. Even so, I merely suggested that that fact should be considered for return to the article, just for discussion. Dan D. Ric14:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I had a feeling someone was going to argue this. And I quote :
After clearing the airliner for takeoff, the controller -- a 17-year employee at the Lexington tower -- then turned around to perform a traffic count, and turned his eyes away from the plane, Hersman said, which was lining up on runway 26 for takeoff.
The controller was performing a routine duty not associated with radar services (which is the second duty that, according to FAA policy, he should have handed off to Indianapolis Center when alone in the tower). A second controller, had one been present, would have been tasked with handling radar services, and would (from my experience with controllers) probably not have been paying close attention to traffic on the airfield. As Geoff said, whether or not that second controller would have made any difference is pure speculation, and regardless, it wasn't the responsibility of any controller(s) to ensure the aircraft took the proper runway for takeoff. It's irrelevant. Do not let the media draw conclusions for you.
On a side note, this is what, the fifth or sixth "theory" that's been put forth by the mainstream media as to the cause of the crash? The NTSB will have the final say on cause, and as I've said before, let them have it. The media is not the NTSB, and just because a news story implies an association between a fact and the crash does not mean that we should.--chris.lawson14:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to make one final comment. Just as it isn't our (or WikipediA's) job to decide what caused the accident, it is also not our job to decide what DID NOT cause the accident, and I think the fact that only one controller was on duty where FAA policy required two is significant information. The accident investigators will most certainly consider it and withholding the information from readers of the article deprives them of facts. Note that in no way do I wish to imply that the controllers are at fault. It is always the pilot's responsibility in the end. Dan D. Ric15:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Darn it! I said one more and here I am again. If put back in the article this should be worded so as not to imply any direct resposibilty by the controller. Dan D. Ric15:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
"The acknowledgment came after CNN obtained a November 2005 FAA memorandum spelling out staffing levels at the airport. The memo says two controllers are needed to perform two jobs -- monitoring air traffic on radar and performing other tower functions, such as communicating with taxiing aircraft."
The FAA should have scheduled a second controller for the overnight shift or should have shifted radar responsibilities to Indianapolis Center, FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said
There are some conflicts in the story. Some people at the FAA are quibling and saying two staffers in the tower wouldn't have made a difference, but to me that's a red herring. A specific letter to the very airport tower in question said, they had to have two controllers, they only had one, and a plane carrying 50 souls took off from a too short runway..... Mytwocents15:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The NTSB may indeed find, or not find (for that matter), that the tower staffing was a contributing factor. However, it has been clearly stated that the controller was not responsible, and therefore it really has no place in the crash section, which describes the basic sequence of events leading to and including the crash. At best, tower staffing should be mentioned in a seperate section regarding unrelated fallout (the FAA got caught violating its own rule -- that in itself could become notable, but still not have anything to do with the crash) or something similar. For now, I still think it's best to leave it out entirely. VxSote15:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
How about putting this in the crash sequence?;
The lone air traffic controller had an unobstructed view of the runways at the time he cleared the aircraft for takeoff from the longer runway. He then turned his back to perform a traffic count.
It just states the facts baldly without implying blame. I personaly wish someone had been looking straight at the plane, as it started its roll on the wrong runway... they would have had radio contact, and could have told them to hit the brakes.... but that didn't happen. I think the FAA memo that said two controllers were needed in the tower should be mentioned somewhere in the article, perhaps a different secton. Mytwocents16:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
This is not a final government report, so it is unreasonable to exclude verifiable facts which appear to have relevance to the accident. It is a current event, so a reader can expect to find information of interest, and if it comes from newspapers or FAA statements why exclude it? Seems very POV on the part of the censors. Edison18:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
On one hand, we have media reports that imply that two controllers would have prevented this accident (speculation about a fact, not fact itself). On the other hand, we have reliable sources stating that it was not the controller's responsibility. We even have a statement from the FAA that "Had there been a second controller present on Sunday, that controller would have been responsible for separating airborne traffic with radar, not aircraft on the airport's runways." http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/30/plane.crash/index.html If the implication that two controllers would have prevented the accident is removed from the equation, then we are left simply with an unrelated fact. Omitting that unrelated fact from the article is about proper editing, not about censorship. VxSote20:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
While we can debate all day on whether the no. of controllers on duty was relevant to the accident, I am 99% certain that one fact regarding this in the article is incorrect: It says that the similar incident in 1993 was spotted by an air traffic controller. It is my understanding that, in the 1993 incident, it was in fact the pilot, who realized during the standard pre-flight check procedure ("Visually confirm runway heading") that his compass reading did not correspond with the listed heading of the runway. Here is my source --Jaysweet21:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, I am wrong... the report does say it was the ATC who noticed the problem and cancelled takeoff clearance. However, the crew claims they noticed it as well, which they indeed they should have if properly following the pre-flight checklist... --Jaysweet21:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I just saw that paragraph was removed, so I thought I'd weigh in on that: I think it should be mentioned, because if FAA regulations were being broken during an air disaster, that is relevant even if the regulations in question had nothing to do with the accident. But, the way the deleted paragraph was written, it seemed pretty POV, pushing the idea that two controllers would have prevented the disaster (personally I think that is unlikely, since the 2nd controller would most likely have been staring at an air radar and not out the window). So yeah, maybe just a mention, but not some POV-loaded phrase about how the '93 incident was prevented by the ATC. --Jaysweet21:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
If anything, the staffing was changed because of the crash, in that suddenly the violation became highly visible and the FAA decided to fix it. But that statement is loaded with speculation and original research, and woudln't be something appropriate for the article. I'm not sure that the correction of one staffing violation is notable anyhow. If the staffing patterns at all towers were to be impacted, then it might be worth writing about, but still we would need to be very careful about how the information is presented. VxSote22:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
It's my understanding that having a single controller in the tower was not a violation of FAA policy. The violation came from the controller's failure to hand off radar services to Indianapolis Center (ZID) when the second controller went off duty. Policy dictated that when only one controller was in the tower, that controller should not be working both tower/ground/clearance (essentially, all local services) and TRACON. Even if the controller had picked up the phone and handed off TRACON to ZID -- in full compliance with the FAA staffing policy, mind you -- he still could easily have missed the aircraft's attempt to take off from the wrong runway.
Jay makes a very good point -- had there been a second controller on duty, it's extremely likely that he would have been working TRACON (since that's the whole point of having a second controller!) and would not have been looking outside. The local controller still would have had responsibility for traffic counts. So that changes the situation, well, not at all. (I'll also second his objection that the paragraph, as removed, was clearly not NPOV.)--chris.lawson23:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Confluence of Factors, Liability and Censorship
The contributing factors enumerated are not derrivative of "original rearch", but have been reported independently by numerous media outlets. Should there not be a section summarizing the state of the on-going NTSB investigation? A reading of the discussion above yields:
Envirnonmental Factors
Night Operating Conditions
Light rain falling
Fully loaded aircraft
Recently re-aligned taxiway
Absence of lighting (on 26) corresponding with bulletin (expired) about this condition on 22
Human Error Factors
Understaffed control tower
Multi(over?)-tasked controller
Inattention to heading during Captain/First Officer changeover
Attribution by flight crew of atypical commercial runway conditions during take-off to recent maintenance
IMHO the solvency of Delta may hinge on a jury determination of their exposure of liability for this tragedy. One can be sure the corporate counsel of all interested parties are monitoring, and possibly editing, this page. OmarFirestone17:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Anything the NTSB, or anyone else, says at this point is still speculative, as the investigation hasn't been concluded. There are likely to be a large number of potential factors, but in the end it'll probably turn out that many of them didn't play a role in causing the crash (the lack of a second controller in the tower, for example; that didn't do anything to cause the crash, though the presence of a second controller may have been able to prevent it (if the first controller watched the plane)). It's true that these things are facts, but the point of Misplaced Pages (or any encyclopedia) is not to present all the facts and to let the reader draw their own conclusions. We should wait until the final NTSB report before we start making statements about what factored into the crash. —LrdChaos17:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I think using the bulleted list of factors that may have contributed to the crash would make a good section for the article. They can be cited from news articles. It gives a clear picture of the different theories of the crash, as they stand today. Mytwocents18:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone else fear the potential for Misplaced Pages to be used to spin stories likely to result in a lawsuit? What a pity Ernest K Gann (author of "Fate is the Hunter") did not live to see the internet! OmarFirestone18:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Mytwocents. Giving a list of factors which have been identified by "reputable" source as possibly contributing to the crash will help to illustrate the media reaction, which is a key element of any disaster. Cmadler14:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I, as someone knowledgeable about aeronautics, don't especially care what the media reaction is like, and I can't really disagree more about the media reaction being a key element. When it comes to issues of a technical nature, the mainstream media typically does a poor job, imo, of presenting information appropriately. There's a reason that the NTSB preliminary report is very short, and as far as "reputable" sources go, the NTSB is probably the one that matters most. I'm not entirely opposed to a section regarding factors that have been identified, but I just don't see a way we can do that, at this point, without introducing inappropriate material. For all the other reasons that have been discussed elsewhere on this page, those facts that are not clearly factors simply need to stay out of the article, for now. VxSote16:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I was a shareholder of American Airlines at the time of the DC-10 crash in Chicago, in 1979. It was explained in the next annual report that insurance would cover the airline's liability. So, I doubt this accident will affect Delta. MWS18:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Wrong plane, then wrong runway
CNN reports that the pilots got into the wrong plane and started it up , then were told their mistake, prior to their trying to takeoff on a runway on a heading which differed from the compas bearing it should have been. This belings in the article as does the fact that the FAA required 2 controllers in the tower. In a previous near miss, a controller had spotted the fact that a plane was about to take off on the same wrong runway and informed the crew, so it is reasonable that an extra pair of eyes might have helped this time. There is no regulation forbidding the controller from watching the plane until it is on the runway. Some editors seem to be censoring this article to make it POV so as to exonerate the airport and or airline. Facts are facts. see http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/30/plane.crash/index.htmlEdison18:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I've just read the CNN article mentioned above; NTSB: Wrong runway wasn't Comair crew's only preflight error. It's chilling. We need to incorporate it into this wikiarticle. Mytwocents18:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
There isn't any regulation prohibiting the controller from watching the plane until it's at the runway, but there isn't any that requires it either. While it's probably true that the accident could have been avoided had the controller been watching the plane all the way to the runway, it's wrong to put any of the blame on him, because he didn't do anything wrong. Facts are facts, true, and it is a fact that the tower was understaffed, but it is not a fact that having two controllers would have prevented this. —LrdChaos19:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed,LrdChaos. As you point out above, we must wait for the NTSB to determine which of the contributing environmental and human error factors is/are the probable cause. Its findings in turn will be used by a jury to decide any civil and criminal liability. Even at this early stage, an absence of evidence suggesting mechanical failure/metal fatigue etc. is emerging. While this argues for a speedy resolution (these problems can take months, even years to analyze and diagnose), it does leave the airline, the airport, and the FAA without any "wiggle room" as putative lawsuit defendants. Sadly there will most likely be a round of embarrassing and shameful finger-pointing in the media. OmarFirestone20:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Pilot error has always been the default FAA explanation for most air tragedies. Taking off from a runway you are not cleared for, and which is too short for liftoff, is clearly pilot error per se. The prior incident of getting in the wrong plane and starting it up has been mentioned in all the recent news stories as an error much like taking off from the wrong runway. But what section of the article does that info fit in? Ultimately, there should be a section on "Fitness for Duty" looking into whether the pilots were properly rested, and othrwise fit for their duties. and the wrong plane error could go there. Similarly there could be a section on other possible contributory factors such as lighting, communications from the tower, runway markings, familiarity with the airport layout, weather and time of day, and plane systems. Edison23:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The reason that pilot error is found to be the probable cause behind most air tragedies is because pilots are really really good at killing themselves in airplanes. Some 75 percent of all aviation accidents, and nearly 80 percent of fatal accidents, in 2004 were a result of pilot error. I hope never to be a statistic, but I'm very much aware that pilot error is a tremendous problem in aviation, and it is not, historically, getting any smaller.
Whether or not the pilots were fit for duty is not something that has been determined as of yet. If they were not, such a section can be added at an appropriate time. You miss the larger point: Adding sections full of speculation, original research, and POV is not appropriate. Misplaced Pages is not in the speculation business. The goal of Misplaced Pages is to make an encyclopedia.--chris.lawson23:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Can we at least note in the article that preliminary findings reported widely in the media indicate that there was only one controller who had had two hours of sleep, and that the pilots started in the wrong plane, and leave the readers to make their own conclusions? Geoffreynham13:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
No. The point of an encyclopedia is not to present readers with loads of irrelevant facts and then lead them to draw their own conclusions. Just because something is a fact doesn't mean that it's relevant, or that it should be included here. In the case of the wrong plane issue, I think it would irresponsible to consider that a factor in the crash at this point, because noone (as far as I'm aware) has been able to say, with authority, why the pilots got on the wrong plane. It's easy to conclude that they were predisposed to not paying attention, but it's possible that, prior to getting on the plane, they'd been given wrong information (gate number, tail number, etc.). Until the final NTSB report, it's premature to present things like that as probable causes (because it's just speculation, no matter how many news sources feel the need to report it) or as definite causes (because we just don't know that). —LrdChaos14:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The FACT that the controller had but 2 hours sleep is not speculation, nor are the facts that the pilots entered the wrong plane initially, then taxied onto the wrong runway, then did not heed the discrepancy between the compass heading and the heading of the correct runway. These are verifiable facts and deserve inclusion. If the article said "This factor caused or contributed to the accident" I agree that would be speculation. Verifiable facts which the FAA have noted and which have been reported by responsible media belong in the article. To do otherwise smacks of spin control and unacceptable censorship. Edison17:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm assuming this is meant to be a question as to whether the aircraft was painted in Delta or Comair colors. Currently, all Comair aircraft are painted in Delta Connection colors. Based on photos at Airliners.net this aircraft was in the current livery, with the Delta "flag" logo on the tail, "Delta Connection" titles above the windows, and "Comair" titles below the pilots' windows. Comair CRJ's have always been painted with the Delta Connection livery, the last Comair aircraft type to be painted Comair's own livery was the EMB-120: -- Hawaiian71719:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
"Victims" isn't a good section title
The sole survivor of the flight is, arguably, also a victim. You can extend the label "victims" to include friends and family of the people killed in the flight. So "victims" is POV, and that's not acceptable. I suggest "Passengers and crew" or "Deaths" or something more factual as a section heading. --Ds1320:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Jet crash victims gets 2.4 million Google hits. The term is very commonly used and seems appropriate in this case. Friends and relatives are not generally referred to as victims. Edison20:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
In the vast majority of cases, the term victims could theoretically include people not directly involved in the incident. However in most cases, it's understood that it only refers to people directly involved in the incident. For example, the victim of a hit and run would be the person hit, even though that person's family and friends would also be victims in a way. Similarly, terrorism can affect many people however when victims of a terrorist incident is mentioned, it's generally understood to only include those directly affected by that incident and it is understood family, friends and others who are affected aren't being included even if they are also victims. Nil Einne13:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if this has been covered yet, but at risk of being insensitive to Canada and Japan, why are Canadian and Japanese passenger names in this paragraph. Is citizenship noteworthy in death, if so than what about the citizenship of the rest of the dead? How many were dual citizens, why does any of it matter? No other names listed, at a minimum I propose removing their names, otherwise there is no real reason not to list all of the dead. Dual Freq00:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
There's a weak argument for it being noteworthy because this was a domestic US crash (and therefore non-US citizens are not generally expected to be on such flights), although I agree with you that their names aren't really all that important. Of course, other US air disaster articles here on Misplaced Pages don't generally go into great detail about how many people of X nationality were on the flight. I don't have a strong opinion either way.--chris.lawson00:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
No indication the pilots tried to stop the plane
the phrase in the second paragraph starting "There is no indication either pilot tried to stop the plane...". is a point of view. That might be true, but we don't know it yet. The full report has not been issued. How do we know they did not try to stop the plane? Besides, everything that happened after the pilot lined up on the wrong runway would have been a corrective measure that might have prevented a catastrophic accident. If they had tried to stop the plane 1 second before leaving the end of the runway would the crash results been different? What about 2 seconds? 5 seconds? Mfields101:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
No, it's a fact based on NTSB examination of the flight data recorder, which records (among other things) when the brake pedals are pressed, and when the throttles are moved. If either pilot had attempted to stop the plane, braking action and/or throttle reduction should have taken place. This was not indicated by preliminary examination of the FDR. There is a citation for this in the article.--chris.lawson02:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
There *was* a citation for this in the article, until CNN re-wrote their crash story yesterday. It currently needs a fresh citation (but I can assure you it was in the CNN article at one time).--chris.lawson02:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
What CNN did was re-write the entire story. They have a really bad habit of "updating" stories with completely different text than the version from three hours previous. They didn't so much "change" their story as stop talking about takeoff weight, preliminary FDR/CVR data, etc. entirely and start talking about how tower staffing violated FAA policies. That's one reason I hate using CNN as a ref for anything "breaking". They don't append updates -- they replace everything!--chris.lawson05:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Moved Deadlink of Lexington Herald-Leader in regards to Patrick Smith
The page is no longer accessible, so I have moved the link here and replaced it with the official press release from Habitat for Humanity:
As I noted on your Talk page, that's because the above data points -- with the possible exception of weather conditions -- are utterly irrelevant. We don't go into that sort of detail on the other similar accidents/incidents, so why should we do it for this one?--chris.lawson03:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The relevancy of facts is not your sole decision, unless you were somehow appointed the managing editor of the article. We work by consensus, not by fiat. Edison17:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Please explain, then, what possible significance November, Saturday, morning, twin-engine, medium size, low-wing, jet power, ATP-rated flight crew, and daylight have on this article. Not the incident itself. This article. Oh, that's right, they don't matter, because it's talking about an entirely different incident, and none of these conditions has any bearing on its mention here. What is significant is that the crew of a commercial aircraft taxied onto Runway 26, with the intention of taking off, before both the crew and ATC realised the error. And that's exactly what the article says.--chris.lawson17:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is cited material being deleted from the article?
The flight crew had started the morning by mistakenly getting onto another plane. Initial analysis of the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder indicates the aircraft was cleared to take off from Runway 22, a 7,003-foot (2,135 meter) long strip used by most airline traffic at Lexington. Instead, after confirming "Runway 2-2," Captain Jeffrey Clay taxied onto Runway 26, an unlit secondary runway just 3,500 ft (1,067 m) in length and then turned the controls over to co-pilot James Polehinke for takeoff. The lone air traffic controller, who was working on only two hours of sleep, had an unobstructed view of the runways at the time he cleared the aircraft for takeoff from the longer runway. However, he turned his back to perform a traffic count. Based upon a takeoff weight of over 49,000 pounds (22,000 kg), the manufacturer estimated a minimum of 3,539 ft (1079 m) would have been needed for takeoff.
There is no indication either pilot tried to stop the plane, which reached a top speed of 137 knots (158 mph or 254 km/h) before rolling off the end of the runway."Comair flight almost made it". Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retrieved 2006-08-31. The aircraft clipped the airport boundary fence, cleared a barbed wire fence, and became airborne after hitting a berm. It then hit a group of trees, separating the fuselage and cockpit from the tail, and came to rest largely intact in an area less than half a mile (0.8 km) from the end of the runway where it burst into flames.
See discussion about ATC above. I removed the line about the pilots getting into the wrong plane because it didn't fit the way you had written it. I agree that fact is potentially significant and should probably be worked in somewhere, but probably not in the Crash section, since it isn't directly involved in the crash. (Then again, it's entirely possible the media is making a big deal of something that had no relationship to the crash whatsoever. Perhaps the pilots were given a wrong gate number, or tail number, or any number of other possibilities.)--chris.lawson04:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, I take serious issue with this sentence:
The lone air traffic controller, who was working on only two hours of sleep, had an unobstructed view of the runways at the time he cleared the aircraft for takeoff from the longer runway. However, he turned his back to perform a traffic count.
The mention of the controller's lack of sleep and the use of the phrase, "However, he turned his back" both imply that the controller is somehow at fault here. That violates NPOV and original research policy. At the risk of repeating what has already been said a number of times by the FAA, the NTSB, and other people on this page, it was not the controller's responsibility to ensure the aircraft was taking off from the proper runway.--chris.lawson04:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I accept CNN as a reliable source. Is CNN now reporting that it was the controller's responsibility to ensure the flight was using the proper runway?
I do not accept the conclusions you are drawing from their reporting as meeting Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view and original research policies. I thought that was clear. Do I need to explain it further?--chris.lawson05:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that censoring this article of facts which YOU feel are irrelevant, most certainly does not fall under a NPOV. Arrogance of the sort being displayed by you, should have no place in Misplaced Pages. Paul venter16:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It is not at all arrogant to remove information that has been deemed irrelevant by reliable sources. Your edits to include such information are not appropriate. VxSote16:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
That is simply not logical. One needs reliable sources to establish facts - relevancy on the other hand is a judgement call, and it seems that there is some bad judgement and a large amount of arrogance that goes with this particular edit Paul venter17:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
A couple of editors have deemed themselves the arbiters of relevancy. That is unacceptable, and anyone is free to make his own determinations, especially when consistent with coverage by mainstream media such as CNN or with information releases by the FAA. Editing is being done to remove facts which many editors of this artivcle view as relevant. Please do not make unilateral decisions to delete materisl which many view as relevant, notable, from verifiable sources, and encyclopedic, so as to avert an edit war. Lets negotiate in a responsible way.Edison17:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
No. We have deemed ourselves, as any other Wikipedian ought, arbiters of NPOV and original research. If someone can find a way to add in these (apparently unrelated) facts in a way that does not find fault where none has been found by reliable sources (and in terms of judging fault, I do not find mainstream media reliable, because they'll report anything that sells newspapers/website ads/magazines/TV ads, and will do so in whatever manner seems most sensational, without regard for whether or not such facts truly have anything to do with the subject at hand), I will be more than happy to let the edit stand.
To add a line to the "crash" section stating that the "lone controller on duty had his back turned" is unquestionably in violation of NPOV policy, as it implies that a) the controller was in the wrong, b) having only one controller on duty was in the wrong and b) these two factors caused the crash. It is impossible for these two factors to have caused the crash; there are thousands of airports in this country where there is no air traffic control at all, and pilots somehow manage to take the correct runway for takeoff the vast majority of the time. The controller's undivided attention to the flight -- which, again was not his responsibility once the flight crew accepted the takeoff clearance -- perhaps could have prevented the crash. But to say definitively that it would have prevented the crash is speculation and original research. To say that it could have prevented the crash...well, lots of things could have prevented the crash. Having two different pilots in the cockpit could have prevented the crash. Taking off an hour later could have prevented the crash. Having less than a fully loaded aircraft could have prevented the crash. Yet I don't see anyone trying to add explanations of these factors, which are equally important -- and all equally irrelevant, to that section. Describing the myriad ways in which the crash could have been stopped is not the province of a section discussing the crash sequence.--chris.lawson17:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you denying that it's an accurate summary of the CNN article? C'mon now! Do you want me (or anyone) to place the direct quotes in the article? Are you saying that's not what was said by particular parties? If you think it's NPOV then do some work. Add something from a reliable source that can be cited. Nobody has said would or could. That's a straw man argument. The lone controller did have his back turned! The CNN article says that, in the context of the crash. The flight crew did get in the wrong plane! Absolute fact per CNN,ABC News, ect.! Where are facts in the article, as of now? Gone. They've been censored out! I think that needs to be rectified. Mytwocents19:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that anyone is denying that it's an accurate summary, or that CNN, et al. have their information wrong (I, for one, don't have enough information to contradict them). However, just because something is a fact, that does not mean it belongs in this article. It's been clearly stated in a large number of places that the controller did not have the responsibility to watch the plane as it lined up on the runway. Had been been looking, he might have been able to tell the pilots and avert the crash; however, his actions did not actively contribute to causing the crash, they would merely have prevented it. To say that "the controller's back was turned" in the context of causes of the crash is POV and wrong, because it does not follow from his back being turned that he had any responsibility whatsoever for the crash. The same applies to the flight crew boarding the wrong aircraft: it's a fact, but at this point, we don't know what it means in the context of causes of the crash, and it's wrong to present that as a cause of the crash, because it is not a fact that it meant anything. This article is about the crash and those factors responsible for causing it. Presenting facts in a context that implies they were causes of the crash is not NPOV, and it's not right for an encyclopedia. —LrdChaos20:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I think some editors have made their point that this information does not belong in the "Crash" section since it does not directly relate to the crash. And I agree with them completely. So why not create a separate section, say, "Timeline" or "Miscellaneous" or "Trivia" or "Media Reaction", without any implication that it influenced the crash at all. Geoffreynham20:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Avoid trivia sections in articles. "Media reaction", like "Government reaction", is unlikely to be encyclopedic unless something notable (i.e., out of the ordinary) occurred. Thus far, that is not the case, and at this point, it is very unlikely to be the case.--chris.lawson21:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
That's not how other air disaster articles have been handled on Misplaced Pages, and I see no reason why this one should be treated differently. Furthermore, presenting a timeline section has the same problem: what's relevant in the timeline, what isn't, and why? 5 AM: Captain Jeffrey Clay takes a shower. 4:08 AM: Clay has a cup of coffee and a toasted bagel at the crew hotel's free continental breakfast. 4:25 AM: The flight crew boards a shuttle to the airport. 4:35 AM: The flight crew arrives at the airport. 4:37 AM: The flight crew passes through security. 4:45 AM: Clay and Polehinke board the wrong aircraft and attempt to start its APU before being informed of their mistake by a gate worker. 4:50 AM: The flight crew begins the process of preflight inspection on N431CA. 5:10 AM: Polehinke completes the external preflight and joins Clay in the cockpit. 5:30 AM: Passengers board. 5:48 AM: Clay receives permission from Ground Control to begin engine start and push-back. 5:55 AM: Clay requests, and is granted, a taxi to Runway 22 for takeoff. 5:59 AM: Comair 191 is cleared for takeoff from Runway 22 by Lexington Tower. 6:01 AM: Clay taxis aircraft onto Runway 26, thinking it is Runway 22, and hands the controls over to Polehinke. 6:02 AM: Comair 191 crashes just off the end of Runway 26.
Not a single element in that hypothetical timeline has any proven causal link to the crash up until 5:55 AM, and the only reason the taxi and takeoff clearances are significant is because they prove the flight crew attempted a takeoff from a runway other than the assigned runway. (The clearances themselves had no effect on the crash.)--chris.lawson21:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Like all accidents there is very seldom one single cause; rather there are a number of factors which are normally termed contributory. I cannot imagine that the NTSB would dismiss the presence of the air traffic controller and what he was doing at the time of the plane entering the incorrect runway, as irrelevant. Certainly no one should say or imply that he was negligent and therefore responsible for the crash, but at the same time there are certain factors which might very well have influenced the course of events. Facetiously putting the pilot's shower in the same category as the ATC's actions before and during the crash, displays a remarkable lack of judgement, certainly not appropriate in a flight instructor. Paul venter22:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Certainly no one should say or imply that he was negligent and therefore responsible for the crash
Which is exactly what everyone has been doing. When someone can find a way to include this information in the article in a manner that both demonstrates its relevance to the crash and accommodates neutral point of view, I shall be happy to let it be. Until then, please desist from pushing original research and points of view in this article, and consider this to be a reminder that Misplaced Pages has as its official policy to be civil, which your impugning of my professional judgement violates.--chris.lawson23:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Missing Info Tag
As per discussion above, we need to come to a consensus on how we will include this info into the article; preliminary findings reported widely in the media indicate that there was only one controller who had only two hours of sleep, and that the pilots started in the wrong plane. I will not be here tonight, to participate, but I hope everyone can resolve this dilemma, in short order. Mytwocents19:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It shouldn't be included at all until it is shown to be somehow relevant to the crash. We don't know for sure yet what caused the crash, therefore speculation (and that's what it is) on what might have prevented it is useless and should not be included. Mexcellent 20:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It should not be included. The crash resulted from starting on the wrong runway -- one that was not long enough for the planned flight. Anything a controller would have done, would have been a corrective action to the problem of starting on the wrong runway. Once the plane started rolling, every action taken would have been a "possible" corrective measure to the original mistake. If the NTSB report shows the controller was responsible for directing them to the wrong runway, then it would be included. It is too early to know that. Mfields121:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Has the relative airspeed required for takeoff been calculated based on the weight factor? I have not seen it anywhere. Mfields122:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Off duty pilot in jump seat
The Chicago Tribune is reporting an off duty pilot was in the jump seat. I had not seen this before, has anyone seen that? Is the jump seat in the cockpit or in the cabin?
I'm not suggesting this should be included in the article but I was wondering if this is true?
I forgot to sign the post, but as a follow up, if there was an off-duty pilot is he counted as part of the crew or as a passenger? The article would need a revision if so. Mfields122:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I recall this being reported very early on, but is it significant other than that he also perished? He probably sat in the jump seat because the flight was full. Peyna22:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Jumpseaters typically count as passengers, because they are not performing an official crew function. (There are notable instances where jumpseaters have, due to in-flight emergencies, been asked to perform crew functions, such as United Airlines Flight 232, but even in that case, Fitch was still listed as a passenger on the manifest.)--chris.lawson23:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
06:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
