Jump to content

Talk:US Airways Flight 1549

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Teamwork Barnstar
I award the Teamwork Barnstar to all editors who have taken part in writing the US Airways Flight 1549 article so well and so quickly. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awards

[edit]

Here are some of the rescuer awards http://www.dhs.gov/journal/leadership/2009_02_01_archive.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.224.140 (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rear door

[edit]

From http://blogs.wsj.com/middleseat/2009/03/25/sully-dont-hang-up/

"Among the new information revealed: The impact with the water ripped open a hole in the underside of the airplane and twisting of the fuselage caused cargo doors to pop open, so the plane would have filled with water from the rear regardless of whether a passenger opened an escape door in the back of the cabin."

Maybe somebody can work this information into the article? Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concern about "TV and film"

[edit]

This section seems like what Wikipedia is not: A directory. It is not the goal of the encyclopedia to provide information on when programs were on about the incident. --Izno (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If any of these programs were used as sources in the article, then they should simply be cited as such in the appropriate areas. And if any of them were not, but can be viewed or read on the Net, then links to them can be placed in EL. Nightscream (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added note to section about why the circumstances of this accident (a river ditching in a metropolitan area in which all the occupants survived and could thus provide first person accounts) makes this listing appropriate. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
It's still a directory, unless you can provide sources talking about the documentaries themselves; i.e., that the documentaries themselves are notable. If you can't, then they should probably be removed. --Izno (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed name of section to "Video and first person accounts" and expanded note describing why these were both significant and unusual in commercial aviation accidents. While this "listing" may not strictly fall within the suggested guidelines about "directories" in Wikipedia, I feel strongly that the existence of so much real time video and photography, and the rapid access to the first person accounts of participants, is significant and unusual enough to warrant its being included in its own section for this particular accident. (Centpacrr (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
That you like it doesn't cut it; there are other arguments on that page which you have made which should also be avoided. --Izno (talk) 01:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more specific with your objection than it "doesn't cut it." I am not taking my position here just because "I like it" but for the reasons explained both above and in the paragraph that I added to the section in the article: real time video of plane crashes is very very rare, as is the availability (especially so soon after an incident) of such extensive broadcast interviews with the first hand accounts by key participants.
This is not a "Google" search type list with thousands of links which is more what I expect the listing guideline is meant to discourage. I agree that such a listing would certainly be inappropriate. Instead there are only four key examples included in the section with some explanatory information about them as to what they contain and why they are significant. I suggest that you click on and watch the linked video files as they really do provide much valuable information. (The links have also been in the article for several months now without any previous objection that I am aware of.) The links explain and direct readers to valuable reference materials that both directly support many of the elements of the event described in the article and provide additional information not available elsewhere. Relavant information should not be discarded simply because it may not absolutely conform to a guideline as to formatting. "Substance" should really be given more deference than "form."
I did not find or add these to the article originally (although I did reformat the first one a couple of months ago for clarity), but for the reasons I gave earlier and immediately above I still strongly believe that they should remain as they are. (Centpacrr (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I support Centpacrr's comments. In this case, WP:IAR could be said to overrule WP:NOT. The programmes mentioned could be used as references, but we don't know how long they will be available for online. Should any link become dead, then I'd support the removal of the link. Mjroots (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good article for reference

[edit]

I reading this article:

It's long seven page article, which should read it. So could use to filling the <ref></ref> tags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B767-500 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of 2009 Hudson River mid-air collision

[edit]

My addition of a reference to the Aug 8, 2009, plane crash in the Hudson 40 blocks from 1549 was deleted here with a summary saying that discussing all other accidents in the general area would make a mess of the article. A high percentage of the Aug. 8 articles make reference to 1549. It's not a common occurence for planes to go down in the Hudson. Americasroof (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Americasroof that the August 8 accident has a significant enough connection (propinquity of its unusual location; rescue/recovery effort) that it deserves a brief mention in the US Airways Flight 1549 article. Centpacrr (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Has it been undeleted/reinserted? --98.232.181.201 (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has been back for four days in a somewhat expanded form. Centpacrr (talk) 09:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Official NTSB Report

[edit]

In reference to the below, the official report has now been released:

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2010/AAR1003.pdf

Quote by Air Traffic Controller

[edit]

Is there any notability for a quote by the Air Traffic Controller about how he felt after losing contact, in a newspaper article about the third anniversary?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aircrew began evacuating ... onto the wings

[edit]

Article says

"aircrew began evacuating the 150 passengers, both on to the wings through the four mid-cabin emergency window exits ..."

This is sort-of incorrect.

Passengers leaving through the overwing exits were doing so of their own volition, whereas passengers leaving through the front exits (1L and 1R) were being instructed to do so by cabin crew. So the cabin crew weren't "evacuating passengers onto the wings".

Cabin crew evacuated the passengers through the front doors (doors 1L (yellow) and 1R (red) on the diagram on page 155 of the report cited below).

Some passengers chose to leave the plane through the overwing exits (blue and red on the diagram) - but they weren't instructed to do so by the cabin crew, and the overwing exits were opened by passengers rather than cabin crew. The emergency info cards showed that the overwing exits were not intended for use in a ditching (landing on water).

This is interesting and significant from a 'human factors' view of the accident, because the overwing exits were not equipped with liferafts. Passengers leaving through these exits were more likely to end up in the water, and therefore were at higher risk of drowning or hypothermia.

Some of the passengers who initially exited through an overwing exit later re-entered the plane in order to exit through 1L and 1R, and get to the liferafts.

Source: NTSB Survival Factors Group Chairman's Report (contains detailed witness statements from cabin crew and passengers) http://www.exosphere3d.com/pubwww/pdf/flight_1549/ntsb_docket/420151.pdf

e.g. page 101 (passenger 17B):

"He went up the aisle to the overwing exits and exited through the right side in row 10. He saw a slide behind the wing that was upside down. Passenger 14A and another man were trying to flip it over. He was freezing and water was coming over the top of the wing and he knew the situation was not good. He saw the slide/raft at door 1R and there was room in it. He turned around and went back to the overwing exits telling other passengers that there was room in the front right slide/raft. Almost everyone was out of the airplane and he estimated that he spent less than 30 seconds on the wing. He went inside, walked up the aisle, and saw the captain in the cockpit doorway. The captain instructed him not to jump into the slide/raft, just slide in. He believed several other passengers followed him and got into the slide/raft after he did. The ferries arrived and he yelled for them to get the people on the wings first."

--93.97.113.11 (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that's the same diagram as on page 43 of the main accident report. http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2010/AAR1003.pdf Passengers who exited the aircraft then reentered and exited through a different exit are designated with a '/' symbol in that diagram. --93.97.113.11 (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable statement: "most successful ditching in aviation history"

[edit]

I strongly suggest omitting the private enthusiastic opinion of that NTSB board member, because he made it without any research. He was carried away by the moment.

How do you measure the degree of success of a ditching? If everyone survives, it is a perfect ditching, which cannot be topped. There is a number of at least equally successful ditchings in aviation history. Let me mention only two of them.

On 16-Oct-1956, a Pan American World Airways Boeing 377 "Stratocruiser" passenger plane ditched in the Pacific Ocean(!). The aft section of the fuselage broke off during the ditching, but the crew had anticipated that and moved all passengers to the forward cabin before landing on the waves. All passengers and crew members (31) survived unhurt and were rescued by a Coast Guard ship, which served as a weather ship at Ocean Station November between California and Hawaii.

On 21-Aug-1963, an Aeroflot Tu-124 passenger jet ditched on the Neva river in Leningrad (St. Petersburg). After the nose gear retraction actuator had detached during takeoff, the nose gear was dangling freely in an intermediate position. The airplane had been circling at 2,000 ft to quickly burn fuel in preparation for a landing on the gravel emergency strip at Leningrad airport, which was deemed less risky than a landing on a concrete runway. Since the fuel tank indicator was overreading at low fuel levels, the engines flamed out unexpectedly in short succession. When the second engine quit, Captain Victor Mostovoy decided quickly to land the airplane on the Neva river, where it splashed down only 14 seconds later. The airplane stayed intact and did not sink. All 52 occupants survived unhurt. Passengers remained seated(!) until the airplane had been towed ashore by a tug boat. (In 2009, Capt Sullenberger was not able to provide this high level of passenger comfort.  :-) )

--195.246.100.57 (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd leave it in, though I'd add a qualifier that it was referred to as such by a member of the NTSB; alternatively, if we chose to not do so, we could change it to "one of only three airline ditchings in history to result in no fatalities" or something along those lines. Also note that one could argue it's the most successful in history simply because it had the largest number of survivors of any ditching in history--though, as you point out, if all souls aboard survive, that's pretty much moot. rdfox 76 (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that it is specified that that statement was made by an NTSB member, it's not so bad. It's not original research, or bias, or something. It's just an opinion. However, it's obviously a very "exaggerated" opinion... When that person said it, they probably weren't thinking thoroughly objectively, nor were they interested in being too accurate. It's kind of like when people (even scientists!) affirm that the Universe was created with a Big Bang for sure, although no one can be sure of that. They aren't thinking properly because, if they do, they'll see there is no certain proof of that. I think we could keep that statement. But the previous sentence also says that it has also been considered a unique event in aviation—that's not true: though it's remarkable and extremely rare, it's not unique. I think we should add something like "However, this was not the only ditching in aviation history in which everyone survived", and then add those two examples. In that case, most rational readers will think "Hey, if other ditchings have also been equally successful, how come these guys say it's unique?" The reader will just mentally criticise the sentence: we don't have to remove it. Some other people may actually think that. Let them keep their opinions, but show the facts that will show to all those who read this "Well... It's not quite that... The truth is that, despite the absolute miracle and surely extremely successful ditching it was, it was not really unique...". If you have no objections, I will soon do that. Thank you for your remark, anyway! -- Sim(ã)o(n) * Talk to me! See my efforts! 19:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was a fair statement to make by that NTSB board member, in light of the amount of passengers and crew on that plane. In terms of total lives saved, it WAS the most successful of all previous ditchings. I suspect most folks who might read that statement, would take it as meant that way. Doesn't detract from the skill and judgment of previous ditching Captains that also managed to save all on board their aircraft, too. Much ado about nothing, in my book. EditorASC (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Injury Count

[edit]

Hi! I updated the injury count that was here (2 serious, 3 minor) to the one in the NTSB report (5 serious, 95 minor, see http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2010/AAR1003.pdf) but I noticed the other count was there for a while so I'm wondering if maybe there's a different source for that or you aren't using the NTSB classifications for injuries? Just want to make sure I'm changing this correctly, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.60.217 (talk) 06:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on US Airways Flight 1549. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on US Airways Flight 1549. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion transferred from User talk:EEng

[edit]

Please could you review the criteria for inclusion of material as set out in WP:EP and linked policies, before deleting facts from this page? Like you, I am keen to make sure that articles are well written, properly copy edited, and don't contain information not appropriate to the topic. But where there is factual information relevant to the topic, that is neutral and verifiable, it should be included. In this incident the flying time of each engine and the various openings beneath the aircraft that might let in water are both relevant factual information that it is reasonable for an encyclopedia to include. Neither you or I could possibly imagine all the various reasons that might bring people to this page. Our mission is to present everything that is relevant, and to present it in the best way we can. IanB2 (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you fundamentally misunderstand the criteria for inclusion of material. We emphatically are supposed to imagine the various reasons that readers will come to the article, and fashion it accordingly. This article is littered with detail which the lay reader cannot appreciate or even comprehend, and which does nothing to help him understand what happened in the incident. For example, you apparently want the article to say:
Ditching button (the central square orange area) on the overhead panel of an Airbus A330.
The Airbus A320 has a "ditching" button that closes valves and openings underneath the aircraft, including the pressurization outflow valve, the ram air inlet, the avionics ventilation inlet and extract valves, and the pack flow control valves. It is meant to slow flooding in a water landing. Sullenberger later noted that it probably would not have been effective anyway, since the force of the water impact tore holes in the plane's fuselage much larger than the openings sealed by the switch.
-- and even include an image showing the location, in the cockpit, of this switch that wasn't used! Now, I ask you, what is the typical reader supposed to do with the fact that "the pressurization outflow valve, the ram air inlet, the avionics ventilation inlet and extract valves, and the pack flow control valves" are among ("among" -- not even a complete list, apparently) of various ways water could enter after a ditching? The answer is Nothing, because almost no readers will have any idea what these doohickeys are, though they sound very impressive. Here's my version, half as long and without the gee-whiz image that tells the reader nothing except that button not pushed was orange and surrounded by lots of other knobs and switches:
The Airbus A320 has a control that closes valves and openings in the fuselage, in order to slow flooding after a water landing, but the flight crew did not activate it. Sullenberger later said this made little difference since the impact tore significant holes in the fuselage anyway.
Notice I've also substituted e.g. "forse of the water impact" --> just "impact", which is the same thing for all practical purposes.
This is just one of scores of similar places where the article can and should be streamlined so that a lay reader can follow what happened without having to plow though stuff of no consequence. Those interested in aircraft design can find out about the ram air inlet and outflow valves by consulting the sources. EEng 10:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair points. I absolutely agree that many articles on here need copy-editing down (which TBH is my usual approach) and you are right that endlessly mentioning such things as the wings being attached to a plane or the river being the Hudson is annoying, and I deleted a lot of such from this page quite recently. And the photo of a switch can definitely go! But I do suggest that deleting Canada Geese wasn't wise, and if we give the engine hours at all it would be sensible to attribute the figures to the engines? We also need to recognise that this particular page is a sensitive one to the people involved, mostly still living, and be careful deleting too much factual material in one go. Good luck with your edits IanB2 (talk) 10:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe that discussion actually led to agreement. I'll notify the media!
You were right, and I was wrong, about Canada Geese (and I believe I send a thanks for you setting me straight on that). If I keep going on this article, please keep watch and revert where appropriate, but remember: every added detail means that the reader's limited reservoir of attention will be spread that much thinner, so that he absorbs everything already in the article that much less well. The question, always, is whether that loss is justified by the value of the new thing added. EEng 10:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being faced with what is typically my own argument was a clear sign to stop digging whilst I could still see out of the hole. ;) Just take a little care...for many involved (helpers as well as passengers) this incident was the most significant of their lives. IanB2 (talk) 10:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You seem abnormally easy to work with. Have you visited The Museums? EEng 11:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

[edit]

If this could get to GA, it would make a great DYK:

... that after Flight 1549 landed in the Hudson River, the airline gave each passenger $5000, a ticket refund, and a letter of apology?

Actually, what were they apologizing for? The geese? EEng 22:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then the geese should be apologizing. EEng 00:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are good sources that should enable us to properly reference an extra section to set out the effects of being struck by an airliner in midair and of a large bird being sucked through a jet engine? IanB2 (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Effect on the bird, or on the engine? Now that I think about it, the airline probably should have apologized to the geese too. BTW, people have survived being inhaled by a jet engine [1] (doesn't look so good for the engine, though) – there's even an "International Classification of Diseases" diagnotistic code for it, V97.33 Sucked into jet engine. EEng 01:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on US Airways Flight 1549. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA/FA push

[edit]

Hello. I'm thinking about taking this article to a possible GA or FA, using Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 (an FA) as a point of reference. Here's what we may need to do:

  • Lead section - while it's a pretty good summary, the lead should be at least three to four paragraphs depending on the situation.
  • Route, aircraft, crew and passengers section - we can expand it to include that plane's history and how it changed through the years.
  • Investigation - we can add the safety recommendations if necessary.
  • Final report - we may need to create a separate section.

If there are any other suggestions, please let me know here. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lot of stuff in the "Media and popular culture" could be pruned out likewise "Crew awards and honors" could be reduced to a couple of paragraphs and remove some of the less notable stuff. MilborneOne (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. This article has been heavily copy edited by me and even more by User:EEng, and is hopefully in pretty good shape. I am not convinced the plane's prior history is of much significance given this was a bird strike that would have disabled pretty much any plane? I did review the investigation report some time back and think the principal recommendations are in the article; a further review and perhaps an itemised list wouldn't do any harm. The usual problem with leads is that editors try to pack too much in; I always saw the guidelines as maxima, and if we've said it all with fewer paragraphs, well, that's a bonus! Nevertheless we should check that the lead does cover all the most important points. MapReader (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Brief mobile comments:
  • It's clearly GA already.
  • Popcult/media needs substantial cut. I suspect there are sources commenting on the saturation media coverage -- we should be working from that rather than accumulating our own list.
  • Crew awards needs a lesser trim.
  • Lead probably should touch on investigation's consideration, and rejection, of possibility of airport landing.
  • For God's sake keep fancruft on aircraft history to a later section or a footnote.
EEng 16:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from cutting down the pop culture section as well as expanding the lead to summarize all aspects of the article, should we nominate it for GA immediately or have it go through a peer review beforehand? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'women and children first'

[edit]

Nothing about this? I found it astonishing that crew members could behave in such a bigoted way in the 21st century. Even if you didn't it's surely worth mentioning. 105.228.103.17 (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to explain what your point is and why it is relevant to this article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We are familiar wiith the concept. However, as I can find no reference to it in this article you really are requested to be more specific about what your point may be. Britmax (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, women can't be heroes. They'd be sheroes. EEng 04:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction. I often miss that, as I'm an "arch sexist"! - BilCat (talk) 05:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the accuracy of a reliable source

[edit]

In response to editor EEng:, who asked this question as he reverted [[2]] my proper correction of a statement in the article, which was not accurate in the way it was quoted from the NY Post link citation that was used to support that statement:

"How is that a correction, and what's Thursday got to do with it?" ~~ editor EEng

My answer:

1) Here is the actual statement in the NY Post, which was used to support the somewhat different statement (which used quotation marks) in this Wiki article:

"NTSB board member Kitty Higgins said Thursday’s feat 'has to go down the most successful ditching in aviation history.' But to Sullenberger and his brother pilots, it’s just another day’s work."

2) And, here is how the quotation was presented in this Wiki article, before I made a slight correction:

A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Board member called the incident "the most successful ditching in aviation history."[6]

3) While it CAN be permissible to make only a partial quotation of some authoritative person being referenced in a reliable source news article, it is NOT proper to change wording in the Wiki article so as to make it appear that the authority person said something different than what he/she actually did say. Specifically, NTSB board member Kitty Higgins was NOT quoted as using the word "incident," -- which has an entirely different meaning than the word "accident," in all airliner accident investigations conducted by ICAO members. Thus, although probably done with good intention by the Wiki editor that constructed that line, it was not proper to imply (with the altered Wiki wording) that she referred to an airliner "accident," as an "incident." Doing so would have been highly unprofessional, considering her position as a member of the NTSB.

4) Here is my correction of that part of the Wiki article:

A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Board member said Thursday’s feat “has to go down [as] the most successful ditching in aviation history.”

I used the word "feat," instead of "incident," because that is the word used by the writer of the NYPost (our RS) article. I also included "Thursday's" because that too is more accurate as to what the NYPost author said about Kitty Higgins' comments. I then went on to make one adjustment to the quotation itself, because it is obvious the NYPost writer made a typo by leaving out the word "as." I added that word in the proper way [within brackets] to indicate what was clearly implied by that quotation.

It appears to me, editor EEng, that your reversion of my proper correction of wording for that passage, was generated by an improper use of Twinkle. Please read the cautions given to those who use TW to find and revert deliberate vandalism.[[3]] One of those cautions is:

"Never forget that one takes full responsibility for any action performed using Twinkle. One must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies or risk having one's account blocked. Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used."

Your edit summary, given as the reason for reverting my proper correction of the wording, indicates you did not bother to read what the NYPost writer actually said about Kitty Higgins. Had you done so, you would have quickly understood why I made that revision and why it was proper. It appears you improperly relied upon TW to revert some alleged vandalism. If that is what caused you to revert my proper edit, then it is clear that TW was wrong in this case. EditorASC (talk) 09:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EditorASC wants to change
A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Board member called the incident "the most successful ditching in aviation history."
to read
A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Board member said Thursday’s feat "has to go down [as] the most successful ditching in aviation history."
There's no substantive difference between
X said Y "has to go down [as] the most successful ditching in aviation history"
and
X called Y "the most successful ditching in aviation history"
so that only leaves how to fill in Y.
  • The article cannot refer to "Thursday" the way a dated news report would.
  • Feat is not an appropriate word to use in WP's voice.
  • In nontechnical articles Wikipedia uses nontechnical language that normal people will understand, and to a normal person an incident isn't the FAA's "one of a specific list of events such as a complete loss of information from more than 50 percent of an aircraft’s cockpit displays, according to 49 CFR 830.5(a)(9) blah blah blah" [4] but rather just "something that happened".
I've therefore reverted the text to the original. (I considered A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Board member called the ditching "the most successful ... in aviation history" but that's awkward.) If you don't like that, you'll need to wait to see whether others are convinced by your wall of text above.
Your fussing about Twinkle makes no sense, since I indeed used "an appropriate edit summary", just like you said. EEng 13:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd put "Thursday's feat" in quotes too. I think verbatim quotes have to be retained as verbatim, don't they? Otherwise the passage could be re-written without any quotes, which sort of loses the point? I'd say that the distinction between an "accident" and an "incident" is quite important as far as encyclopedic coverage of an aviation event is concerned. (blah blah blah). But I think we should all forget about Twinkle for now. Happy to get other views. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, verbatim quotes do have to be verbatim, in the sense that what's in quote marks has to be the actual words of the source (except where [ ], ..., etc. are used). As always, beyond that the question is whether the way the quote as used is true to what the quoted source intended – the more of the original quotation you slice away, the greater the danger that what remains distorts the meaning. In the present case, X said Y "has to go down as Z" is just a verbose way of saying X called Y "Z" – they mean the same thing.
I don't see how we can include Thursday at all, unless we first explain that the, er, incident occurred on a Thursday, and what would be the point of that? And if we did, we'd be partly quoting Higgins (via the post's quote of her) and partly quoting the Post itself, and that would be a mess to attribute.
If you like we can go to the somewhat awkward
A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Board member called the ditching "the most successful ... in aviation history".
as previously mentioned, thus avoiding the incident/accident issue – unless someone's now going to say we shouldn't call a ditching a ditching. EEng 17:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I saw the word "Thursday" for the first time in that quote, I'd suddenly assume that it had happened on a Thursday. I really don't think some kind of "prior explanation" would be required. And I really don't think I'd be some kind of genius there. If an actual NTSB board member, like Kitty Higgins, chose to use the word "feat" (instead of accident or incident), I'm happy to see that word used too. It's not "an issue", it's just the words she chose to use? Happy to hear other views. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the exact text from the Post:
NTSB board member Kitty Higgins said Thursday’s feat "has to go down the most successful ditching in aviation history." But to Sullenberger and his brother pilots, it’s just another day’s work.
So feat appears to be The Post's word, not Higgins'. It's newspaper-speak. The only way we could use it in the article would be to say something like An NTSB board member said what the pilots did "has to go down [as] the most successful ditching in aviation history." The New York Post called it a "feat". We're not gonna do that, obviously. What do you think of my earlier proposal,
A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Board member called the ditching "the most successful ... in aviation history".
-- ? EEng 22:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I see. I'd still have no problem with "Thursday" and "feat" if the quote was presented as from NY Post. But yes, it's Higgins' quote that's the notable one. Your suggestion looks perfectly reasonable. Except now I'm left wondering what were the exact words that Higgins used and whether there's any better source to them than NY Post. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly if someone finds Higgins' complete sentence that would solve this whole mess. EEng 01:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or it could be just omitted until consensus is reached here. It's not an essential factual part of the narrative. Although it also appears prominently in the lead section as well, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

[edit]
Reply to Editor EEng:
Your statement about "49 CFR 830.5(a)(9) blah blah" has no relevance to the "accident" Vs "incident" issue that I have raised and is, quite frankly just as silly as is your contention that we cannot use the word "Thursday," even if quoting something said by some relevant person.
Neither is your contention that "In nontechnical articles Wikipedia uses nontechnical language that normal people will understand," of any merit. To the contrary, Wikipedia articles about airliner accidents are indeed technical articles that conform to the standards and definitions of the NTSB and ICAO member investigative agencies. That is why the Info Box in the article is titled "Accident Summary" instead of "incident summary": Because those terms are defined and subscribed to by our FAA, EASA, the NTSB, ICAO and all other ICAO investigative boards all over the globe. It is also why the article says there were 5 "serious" injuries: Because those terms are also PRECISELY defined by ICAO, et. al., as is all Glossary nomenclature used by International ICAO Investigative boards.
For your information, the PRECISE definitions of "accident" and "incident" are given in ICAO, ANNEX 13, TO THE CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION [5]
If you want to use that NYPost news article, to support a statement in this Wiki article, then the statement must accurately reflect what was said in that supporting linked article. That is precisely why I changed the wording in the first place: Because, prior to my change, it did NOT accurately reflect what was reported by the NYP, as to the Kitty Higgens comments.
As it stands now, following your reverting of my more accurate statement TWICE, so as to favor your own preferred OR statement, this Wiki article does NOT accurately reflect what the NYP article actually said. The Post never used the word "incident" at all. That makes sense since it was talking about a specific statement by a NTSB board member. It would be strange indeed if a person like that had used the word "incident," when it clearly was an "accident." Those are two very different words that have precise meanings, when used by members of the NTSB or any other ICAO airline accident investigation board members. If the NYP article did not say she referred to that "feat" as an "incident," then your insisting that it should be changed from "feat" to "incident" amounts to OR on your part.
What kind of justification in your mind, gives you the right (considering the "No OR rule") to make a very significant change to what the NYP reported she said, to what you apparently WANT her to have said? You know the rules: Each statement in the article must be supported with a WP:RS and that linked source must ACCURATELY support the statements you choose to make in the article.
That leaves you with two options, if you intend to comply with the "no OR" rule. a) Find another WP:RS that actually says she referred to that accident, as an "incident," or b) remove the statement entirely, because there is no WP:RS to support such a statement in this Wiki article. It cannot remain there, just on the basis of your own OR desire. It's that simple. EditorASC (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where we're not quoting a source we paraphrase it, using ordinary words in ways ordinary readers will understand; outside of a technical context, we're not bound by a word's technical definition, nor should we try to be, because that would limit our ability to write in ways lay readers find natural. Readers will understand the incident to mean "the time that plane hit birds and landed on a river", because the ordinary meaning of incident is "something that happened"; no "source" is needed for such paraphrasing. We're not putting incident in quotes, so we're not implying that's the word Higgins used (which seems to be your major concern, though it's hard to tell because you ramble so). We could just as well call it an occurrence or event, except those would be really awkward. EEng 17:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"we paraphrase it, using ordinary words in ways ordinary readers will understand; outside of a technical context, we're not bound by a word's technical definition, nor should we try to be, because that would limit our ability to write in ways lay readers find natural."
Do you have a Wiki policy page to support your arbitrary statements about what readers would find natural? What constitutes an "ordinary" or "lay" reader? Can you show us a WP aircraft accident MOS writing page that would define it the way you are arbitrarily defining how our readers think and interpret language? This still amounts to your using your own OR to justify how the alleged quote of Higgins should be presented in Wikipedia. If you deviate from how it was stated in the NYP article, then it amounts to YOUR OR and Not a reference to what was said in that article.
Wikipedia has an entire article about aircraft accidents and incidents and the lead paragraph goes into the ICAO Annex 13 definitions of those two terms. On what basis then, do you rely on your own OR, about how the average reader will or should interpret those terms in Wiki article about airliner accidents? [[6]] EditorASC (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, try it your way. Fix it without using the words "feat" or "incident." Let's see if that will work as a reasonable compromise. EditorASC (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I found a better source which gave the complete quotation, so used that. Problem solved.EditorASC (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing useful, relevant and notable information

[edit]

In response to Editor EEng, and your editing comment of: " (doesn't matter exactly when and where she said it, nor her precise position, nor (when you think about it) her name; that she's in a position to make such a judgment is what matters)" AND "(And now we come to the heart of the problem: what do we call "It"? Well, she certainly called it a ditching)" [[7]]

Those are not appropriate editing summary comments at all. To the contrary, the name and position of the NTSB Board member who functioned as the public spokes person in their news conferences related to this accident, is highly notable, relevant and proper information to include in the article, especially when she made a statement that was a real "attention getter."

I recommend you take a look at the Asiana Airlines Flight 214 article and note how many times it mentions comments by Deborah Hersman, the public spokes person for the NTSB, during that accident investigation. Mentioning Higgins in this article, along with the actual comments she made, is quite consistent with the same format in the Asiana 214 article.

I am going to put that information back into the article. Please do not remove it again. I remind you that removing such legitimate, relevant and notable information from a Wikipedia article, without very good reasons, is often viewed as not being for a constructive purpose.

If you nevertheless insist upon decimating that information again, you should state clearly on this page why you don't think any kind of consensus is necessary. We are not here to make jokes out of the editing process. We are here to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles. EditorASC (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certain policy exceptions (such as removal of BLP violations) aside, consensus is needed for any change which has been objected to. So far there are three of us discussing here, and two of us (i.e. everyone but you) agreed that your original change is undesirable. All three of us then agreed on
An NTSB board member called the ditching "the most successful ... in aviation history.
Since you found a source giving the next sentence of the quote, I went ahead and incorporated that, giving
An NTSB board member called the ditching "the most successful ... in aviation history. These people knew what they were supposed to do and they did it and as a result, no lives were lost.
If you want all the stuff about when exactly she said this, her exact position within the NTSB, and other cruft, then you explain why that helps the reader understand the subject of the article, and get your fellow editors to agree; as already explained in my edit summary [8], I believe none of that stuff adds to the reader's understanding, because it doesn't tell the reader anything about the accident or how it was viewed, nor does it add to the authority of the person quoted in any significant way. In the meantime you'd be very ill-advised to try to force your preferred version into the article again, as that's not how Wikipedia works – see WP:BRD. EEng 15:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're now trying to do exactly what you must not do, which is force your preferred version into the article [9] despite the reasoned objections of your fellow editors. EEng 17:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New York Minute?

[edit]

Re this recent edit to the lead: The text says: ".. the crew made its first report after becoming airborne at 3:25:51" and "At 3:27:11 the plane struck a flock of Canada geese.." So that looks to me like 1 minute and 20 seconds later? Meanwhile, the main graphic gives "3.26 takeoff" and "Bird Strike 13:27:11" and that's actually only 1 minute and 11 seconds. Any suggestions? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that "almost immediately" is appropriate since, in the context of air incidents / accidents that strongly suggests seconds rather than minutes. But surely the exact time after take-off is a simple and basic fact that ought to be fully known and well reported? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I just wanted to gloss over the problem for the meantime. EEng 23:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the graphic is wrong, can it be altered? Mjroots (talk) 04:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see the original uploader on Commons was ChrisnHouston. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Popcult needs cleanup

[edit]

Who agrees it's time to take an axe to the popcult section? EEng 22:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's a bit much. - Samf4u (talk) 13:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

The goal of this article is not for it to be as short as possible. While the story summarizes as "A plane landed on water and all hands survived," there is more to the story.

It is a sad moment that I see all the vandalism to this article removing various referenced facts, especially those surrounding what firms and individuals performed the rescue.

Deleting the names and ages of the people involved, as well as quotes from the various air and sea pilots, reduces the quality of Wikipedia. While Wikipedia has its qualities, there are too many "deletionists" who seem to derive excessive self-pleasure from removing facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.215.141 (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect without going through the edits that those "facts" that have been removed are probably not noteworthy in an encyclopedia. So not really vandalism just editors making sure the article meets the norm for this type of article. If you have anything specific then raise it here and it can be discussed. MilborneOne (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... "excessive self-pleasure"?? Not sure where you've conjured that up from. I suspect many regular editors are "fed up to the back teeth" with deleting unwanted trivia. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't normally name non-notable participants in events unless they're referenced elsewhere in the article. Not among Wikipedia's jobs is giving credit where credit is due and so on – there are whole books on the event that do that. Now excuse me while I go self-pleasure. EEng 16:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. Well, you know, there will always be exceptions to any rule. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Flight

[edit]

In terms of the opening sentence, does this incident relate to an aircraft or a flight? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both. The dispute currently raging relates to the choice between
US Aurways Flight 1549 was an Airbus A320 which, on January 15, 2009, struck a flock of Canada geese...
and
US Aurways Flight 1549 was an Airbus A320 flight which, on January 15, 2009, struck a flock of Canada geese...
See WP:ASTONISHME#commission. EEng 11:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the second use of the word "flight" is unnecessary. A flight consists of an aircraft going from point A to point B at a specific time. The reader can infer that Flight 1549 consisted of an Airbus A320 traveling between a starting point and an intended destination at some specific time, with details to be supplied later in the article. Following the logic of the proposed edit, since the flock of geese was struck by an airplane, not by a "flight", the new wording should be something like
US Airways Flight 1549 was a flight in which, on January 15, 2009, an Airbus A320 struck a flight of Canada geese...
The original wording is more concise. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 12:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah no, that's not the "logic" here. Your flight of geese is a flying straw man. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To say that "US Airways Flight 1549 was an Airbus A320" is incorrect, surely. A flight employs an aircraft. A flight is just a scheduled service that may be serviced by any available aircraft? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Flight 1549 could have been serviced by any available aircraft, but in fact, on the day in question, it was serviced by one particular Airbus A320. I think the reader can equate the two and accept Flight 1549 as a shorthand way of referring to the Airbus A320. It was the Airbus A320 which struck the flight of geese. It's inconsistent to say that Flight 1549 can only refer to the flight and not to the aircraft but then say that the flight struck the flock of geese. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pecisely. EEng 22:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. But if we are aiming for consistency, this shorthand might apply equally across all other similar accident articles? Perhaps this is a question for Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This common-sense (and formally perfectly appropriate) principle does indeed apply equally across all such articles, but since they're guarded by breathless airfans (one of whom, I see, has restored the flight was a flight idiocy to Flight 1380) that's not a hill I'm willing to die on -- for now I'll content myself with keeping just this one article from opening with a lead that looks like it was written by robots. EEng 15:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the second "flight" is redundant. Per WP:REDUNDANCY, "Keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence. Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information that is not already given by the title of the article". (Emphasis in original.) Since "flight" is mentioned in the title, we should not repeat it in the first sentence. - BilCat (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^I would think that "US Airways Flight 1549 was operated by an Airbus A320-214 ...." appears a lot better than the current or alternate versions. MilborneOne (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's as necessary as saying The World Cup was won by the members of the team competing for Brazil when you could simply say Brazil won the World Cup. Everyone knows that the country of Brazil can't itself kick a ball, but they understand nonetheless. Operated by is excess verbiage that adds nothing to the reader's understanding, even if it does bolster airfans' warm inner glow at the feeling of having mastered industry lingo. EEng 22:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, you'd have to say "Brazil won the World Cup", disambiguated with piped links, at the very least. MilborneOne's suggestion looks quite reasonable. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Destination

[edit]

Sidebar says destination was Sea-Tac: Seattle Tacoma. It was not It was Charlotte, North Carolina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelschuyler (talk • contribs) 00:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Verification failure, and content re NTSB simulations moved here from the article

[edit]

Here, I've removed some content from the article and inserted a {{fv}} tag. The direct quotes immediately preceding the tag aren't supported by the (moved) cite, and I don't have time to try to track down usable sources for those. The source does not support the removed content either. That content was:

A further simulation, conducted with the pilot delayed by 35 seconds, crashed.

... which doesn't seem to make sense. I'm guessing that this meant to say that the turn by the pilot was delayed, but some quick googling didn't turn up clarifying information, a quick look at earlier article versions (e.g., [10]) didn't clear this up and I don't have time to pursue this further just now. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The press release was cited instead of the report itself. Fixed [11]. EEng 18:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for additional content

[edit]

As a first time reader of this article, I was left with a couple of unanswered questions. If you guys know the answers, you may want to consider adding this info to the article.

  • This article could use a paragraph or section with details about the water rescue. What government agencies were involved? Who arrived first? What ship took the majority of passengers?
  • This article could use more details about what happened inside the aircraft during the evacuation. Was it orderly? Did anybody take charge? What percentage of people donned life vests? How many people were immobile and required assistance?
  • How much time did Sully take off after the incident? Did he fly at all again before retiring in 2010?
  • You may want to make the "Sully" move its own section, and go into detail about the differences between the movie and what actually happened in real life.

Hope that helps. Thanks. – Novem Linguae (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All great ideas (except maybe the stuff about the movie, which should be in the article on the movie). Do you have any idea where sources exist for these points? EEng 06:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 June 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus against this proposed move (non-admin closure) buidhe 18:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


US Airways Flight 1549 → Miracle on the Hudson – This incident would seem to fall into an exception of the relevant naming conventions, as this incident has acquired an accepted popular name and therefore the article should have that name. I would argue more people recognize the proposed name than the flight number. Obviously, the issue is somewhat academic as both names will bring readers to the target article, and both are already present in the lead in bold font. There appears to have been some edit warring over the proposed title when the page was first being developed before settling on the current name. Now over a decade removed from the event, I think it would be appropriate to revisit the issue; I merely wish to generate discussion and consensus and would be fine with either title. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commonname? Are you sure you aren’t taking a US-centric position for a global encyclopaedia? MapReader (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anthropocentric airbushing of tragic geese deaths

[edit]

Can we at least mention that a few innocent geese had their lives taken by "hero" Sullenberger in this fateful event? These geese had families, and a bright future (that was not Rolls-Royce foie gras). 2600:1012:B027:972:28FE:1C8E:FCE:CBD0 (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation maps show the airspace around LaGuardia as restricted, yet the geese flew there anyway, without obtaining clearance; I have little sympathy for such rulebreakers. Furthermore, your stuff about their having families is just your own WP:OR and an attempt to inflame the passions of the jury. EEng 19:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Video of the landing

[edit]

For some reason, one of my Facebook friends posted this in the past 24 hours.

https://www.facebook.com/flyhighdreamhigh3223/videos/826921944162133

I see a lot of external links, but is this something we can use here?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so, since there was no objection.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox plane1:

[edit]

Should we use infobox plane1 on this article and many simlar articles with one aircraft ? I think use plane1 then the image will be in a more visible position Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:US_Airways_Flight_1549&oldid=1240764626"