| Revision as of 23:15, 27 August 2006 editAlexJ (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers6,459 edits →Images on news websites: News Sites are ARR← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:10, 28 August 2006 edit undo71.131.230.166 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| This article can suck my balls | |||
| {{talkheader}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Kentucky}} | |||
| {{TOCleft}} | |||
| == Comair flight code == | |||
| Was there a ] flight code for this flight (something like OHnnnn)? Only the Delta code DL5191 is know so far. ] 13:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :OH191 -- ] 18:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Comair history & investigaion == | |||
| There appears to be articles in the media about this being the second crash involving a Comair plane within the last twelve months, that the parent company has also gone bankrupt in this period of time and there has been massive reductions in spending and staffing. This information would be relevant to the article. {{unsigned|124.176.99.188}} | |||
| :Do you have a reference for the other crash? Do you have ] that explain the connection between the parent company bankruptcy and this accident? We don't want to ] such a connection ourselves. ] 15:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The information about the last twelve months is mentioned in the history section of the ] article. Mention of previous plane crash, bankruptcy, cost cutting and job reductions. Maybe that article isn't authoritive enough either. Eregli Bob. {{unsigned|124.176.99.188}} | |||
| :You mentioned a second crash within the last twelve months. I still can't spot it. There was a crash in 1997 which is older than twelve months, did you mean that one? What would be needed is a reliable source explaining the ''connection'' between parent company bankruptcy and this crash. We can't go around suggesting there is a connection if we don't have reliable sources saying there is a connection. ] 15:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I don't mean to say there is a connection to a previous crash, management & financial situations related to this latest crash. Despite this these are obvious areas that an investigation would consider. (My mistake about previous crash, not in last 12 months but in 1997). Eregli Bob. {{unsigned|124.176.99.188}} | |||
| :Please read ]. We cannot report things even if they appear "obvious" to you unless we have ] saying they are relevant. ] 16:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| What Weregerbil said. Unless someone can provide documentation that there is a verifiable link between the bankruptcy of Delta and/or Comair and this crash, this section has absolutely no business in the article. (It doesn't really have any business in the news stories about it, either, but we can't control what the media reports.)--''']]''' 19:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <br> | |||
| :yeah, but i think theres a pretty firm case that when an airline gets in money trouble one of the first things that suffers is maintnence. all that you need for proof is a generalised article about it to quote.{{unsigned|68.217.165.8|19:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::Make the case for that in the face of everything so far saying that this was not even remotely maintenance-related, and a fairly straightforward case of pilot error. Go ahead. I'll wait.--''']]''' 19:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == lexington local, editing, please help == | |||
| i'm a lexington local (living in georgetown, ky, 11 miles from lexington), and i used to work at the bluegrass airport (once as a security guard, and again as a cabbie), and i'm trying to add to the page as i can. i'm watching the news on this and adding what i can. can someone please help, and clean up my edits, as i'm not very good at editing the wiki. thanks. | |||
| -----Thanks to the people cleaning up behind me! :) | |||
| :I'd like to add the location of the crash to the image I just added - do you knwo the location, and a source to back that up? Thanks/] 16:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: they just had the name of the police officer on wlex18, i didnt catch it. someone add it to the lone survivor part. | |||
| OH! the crash location! | |||
| it was 1/2-1 miles straight out from the short runway, on the airports side of versailles road. check wlex18 website, and other news sources. extend the line from point 26 to 08 about a half mile, and thats it. that pictures not big enough to show the crash site. | |||
| :Would this ] be about right? /] 17:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| Would it be appropriate to list as fatalities the two known crewmembers who succombed in the crash? /Swank | |||
| :that looks like about what wlex18 is saying. | |||
| :yeah, list them. - Lexington Local. | |||
| ::Done. I'm not sure if it's best to list their positions on the plane (to differentiate them from passengers), but I did as follows: | |||
| ::*Jeffrey Clay (pilot) | |||
| ::*Kelly Heyer (flight attendant) | |||
| ::*Less Morris | |||
| :: | |||
| ::/Swank | |||
| ==Some lawyers== | |||
| A google search showed some lawyers are already looking for victim's families | |||
| http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/airplane_accidents | |||
| Sorry, this is not with the Wiki policy to post on the talk page but it seems to be a sad commentary on the legal profession.] 17:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :yeah, i added another section about that on the page. :P -Lexingtonian | |||
| <br>dang, gone already. well, this is what i added. | |||
| ==Lawyers== | |||
| It was quickly learned by a wikipedian through a google search that lawyers had waited less then eight hours on a Sunday to begin searching for the victims familes. | |||
| ===Public Reaction to Lawyers=== | |||
| At least one local resident of the Lexington area was quoted as saying "All lawyers should be drug out and shot square in the face with a very painfull non-leathal weapon untill dead!"." | |||
| == Aircraft type == | |||
| Media sources are reporting this aircraft as a CRJ-200. It's a CRJ-100ER: http://www.airfleets.net/ficheapp/plane-crj-7472.htm . The FAA database is no help since it just says CL-600-2B19 which can be a CRJ-100 or CRJ-200: http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=431CA -- ] 18:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Bombardier's website states that the only difference between the 100 and the 200 was the engine types.--] 20:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm watching the NTSB briefing live on CNN that started at about 3:20pm PDT and the NTSB board member confirmed that the aircraft is a CRJ-100. -- ] 22:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Causation v. Result == | |||
| I made an edit in the section on the crash, changing "intense fire resulting in the crash" to "intense fire following the crash." The previous wording seemed confusing to me, in that it suggested fire broke out aboard the plane before impact which, according to the rest of the section and the news, is not the case. From what I've read it was crash, then fire. So I made the change. "Resulting from" would work, too, I guess. Plumbob78 18:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==HEY! (lone survivor)== | |||
| who took off the lone survivor section?! i think that should stay up there. for crying out loud, how many times does a plane crash and only 1 person come out alive? that also had information about the guys that pulled the co-pilot out of the plane. i think it should stay up. and dont say that putting it in the victims part is just as good. i think he should get his own section in the article because eventually the whole investigation will center on him for a while, and he's the freaking co-pilot! if anyone knows what happened then he's the best bet considering he was sitting in the cock-pit. | |||
| <br>put it back! put it back! <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 12:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small> | |||
| ==new motion== | |||
| i'd like to introduce a motion to clear this talk page because it's getting pretty cluttered. if anyone needs to read past edits then they can look in the history, but right now this is pretty nuts. anyone 2nd the motion? {{unsigned2|2006-08-27T20:18:24|68.217.165.8}} | |||
| :Sorry, but no. You can halp matters by signing posts and posting in the normal fashion (new comments at the bottom, proper heading levels), see: ] & ]. Thanks/] 19:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Rename == | |||
| This article needs renaming. The flight was Comair 191 and Delta 5191. There was no such thing as Comair flight 5191. ] 20:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :That's basically beside the point, the ] policy says ''"Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize"''... And in the press & news this is is being refered to as Comair Flight 5191. | |||
| :As I understand it tickets are only sold via Delta, not Comair - so the Comair flightcode isn't too relevant. Thanks/] 20:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :you might be right, cnn.com is calling it delta flight 5191. i'd check some other sources too | |||
| <br><small>here's my sig for the anal-retentive ppl that ruin the spirit of the wiki</small> | |||
| ] 20:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * so are Fox and CBS--] 20:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * Delta's website calls it Comair Flight 5191 ] 21:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *That is flat out wrong, the accident report will refer to it as OH or Comair 191, air traffic control called it Comair 191, the article should be 191-] 21:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==crash location== | |||
| got more info on that. it was a bit past that white building with the black roof. | |||
| oh, and heres my signiture for the anal-retentive types that keep ruining the fun of this for everyone else ] 20:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==About runways== | |||
| Do we really need this section? This page is a report of a crash incident, not a study on airport design. I would suggest the first 2 paras of this section be removed and the rest combined with the heading "The crash". Maybe add a link to the wikipage on Runways if felt really necessary... ] 20:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :yeah we need it. it's a major contributing factor to the crash. the runway the plane took off from is 1500 feet too short for that type of plane to take off from. ] 20:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::On what do you base the above claim? Personal knowledge of the CRJ-100ER flight manual? Because as a professional pilot myself, I can assure you that saying "X runway is Y feet too short for that plane to take off from" is a meaningless statement. There are a number of factors that influence takeoff distance, including (roughly in decreasing order of importance) weight of the aircraft, field elevation (altitude), temperature, wind, humidity, technique used, etc. To say that a CRJ can't possibly take off in less than 5,000 feet means something entirely different from saying that a fully loaded CRJ on that specific day, at that specific airport, couldn't have taken off in less than 5,000 feet. I suspect the former is untrue, and the latter is precisely why the crash occurred. (BTW, if your source for the above is "talking heads on TV", I'm not the least bit surprised, and I don't hold it against you. Most people have no idea that the so-called "aviation experts" the cable news channels drag out for these sorts of things are just about useless, CNN's Miles O'Brien being the major counterexample.)--''']]''' 20:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :then I would think that should be said as part of the factors for the crash, pretty much as you'd said it in that sentence - nice and short and without the need for too much direct comment on runway design in the article itself? Helps keep the article to the point and a manageable length. Just a thought. ] 20:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::i'm not too much worried about length. i think at this point we should gather all avalible info, and then let it get sorted out later. i think we might need to get a new section about the causes of the crash, but we need to deffinatly state the diffrences in the runway lenghts, minimum runway distance for take off, and we need to put something up there about why this happened. so far i'm hearing a lot about mis-communication between ground controll and the pilots, and pilot error. ] 20:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::P.S. OH! and i want to know what the plane bounced over on the runway! was it just the runway itself, or something on the runway, or what? | |||
| I'm somewhat familiar with Blue grass Airport because - when I was still active with the New York Army National Guard - we used to fly into and out from that airport when we did our annual training at Lexington-Blue Grass Army Depot near Lexington. Looking at the photo, I can see a problem with the article. Look closely at the photo, and you will see that - since the photo was taken almost directly above Runway 04/22 from out in Space - that 04/22 is NOT the too-short runway, 08/26 is. ] 22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Erm, isn't that exactly what the article states?--''']]''' 22:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Take-off Field Length== | |||
| The CRJ-100 is specified to require a field of at least 1605m for take-off at maximum weight - shorter than the CRJ-200ER, which requires 1768m. I found the 1605m figure at http://www.gov.gg/ccm/cms-service/download/asset/?asset_id=1419047 and the official specs for the CRJ-200 at http://www.crj.bombardier.com/CRJ/en/specifications.jsp?langId=en&crjId=200 . | |||
| :What page did you find the info on in the first ref? I can't find it, and I don't feel like reading the entirety of a 100+-page PDF file right now ;) --''']]''' 21:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Images on news websites== | |||
| Anyone know what the copyright statis on the major news websites is? i'm wondering if we might be able to use those in our article. | |||
| i'm also wanting to get a more humanitarian strain in this article. what about all the other people that are not involved in this? | |||
| <br><small>here's my sig for the ppl that ruin wiki</small><br> | |||
| ] 20:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Their status is "copyrighted" which means they are NOT, with very limited exceptions, fair game for use in this article.--''']]''' 20:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::yeah, i know. thats why i'm saying lets find out what exactly that copyright issue is. there might be some images that are useable, or in public domain. also it might be that we just need to ask them if we can use their images on the wiki. could even be that we just need to link to the image and give them credit or something. ] 20:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you can find any images that are unquestionably public domain, or if you can get written permission, please feel free. I think you'd be wasting your time, though.--''']]''' 20:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::All major news sites have full copyright: '''CNN''' - © 2006 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. All Rights Reserved. '''FOX''' - Copyright 2006 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. '''ABC''' - Copyright © 2006 ABCNews Internet Ventures. All Rights Reserved. '''BBC''' - © BBC 2006. All Rights Reserved. '''NBC''' - © 2006 MSNBC.com. All Rights Reserved. They will not waive these rights for Misplaced Pages. ] 23:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Cleanup == | |||
| I won't put a tag at top since it's a current event, but the punctuation should be standardised to appear ''before'' the citations, not after. ] 20:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:10, 28 August 2006
This article can suck my balls