Talk:Aviation safety/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Journal of Business & Econimics Research

A Basic Analysis of Aging Aircraft, Region of the World, and Accidents seems like a paper that could be used for incorporating into this article. → AA ^(talk) — 16:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Volcanic Ash + airline safety--resources mentioned elsewhere

This article already seems to have a number of references to government documents and SKYbrary regarding volcanic ash. If you want more references (and possibly more info) for this section, I noticed that several resources, including scientific publications, were mentioned at Talk:Air_travel_disruption_after_the_2010_Eyjafjallajökull_eruption/Archive_1#Nice_article_on_the_engine_topic. In the popular press, the Wall Street Journal published an article, How One Airline Skirts the Ash Clouds, on April 21st discussing Alaska Airline's safety measures for dealing with ash.Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 10:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Shooting down by hostile country

Adding Ukraine's shot down of the Russian flight from Tel Aviv to a list where countries responded to either a violation of their airspace or as part of a military operation within a conflict is misleading as it suggests there were hostilities between Russia and Ukraine at the time of the shot down or that the airplane was shot down as a response to vioolation of Ukrainian airspace. 189.141.57.87 (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Saladin

misprinted airport chart

(left) Herzliya Airport (Israel) runway location and airfield traffic pattern chart was erroneously printed as a result of "black layer" 180° misplacement.
(right) Corrected chart.

Under the heading "Navigation aids and instrument flight" there is an image of a runway map of an airport in Israel and a comment about how the map was misprinted. I can't see the relevance to this article, and the misprint is not mentioned in the article on that airport. Am I missing something? 59.101.18.204 (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

True, misprint is not (yet?) mentioned in the article – but - supplying the pilot with a wrong airfield traffic pattern chart might be regarded as a major contributing factor leading to a flight failure. As such it seems to me natural to be included in the Air safety article. Actually, any misinformation given to the flight crew, be it on the radio, by printed material or by devices such as GPS, VASI, lights etc., might be regarded as air safety risk as well. Consequently I would add a MISINFORMATION section to the article, in which such topics are discussed and referenced. I think the map is highly relevant to the article but if you find a better place please suggest one. Inserting the map in the specific airport article is irrelevant. On the other hand you can find it well in error. Etan J. Tal 15:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC) (talk • contribs)

Not only is the misprint irrelevant, it is an example of a misprint that is so flagrant that any pilot on first glance should catch the fact that there is an error. The image does not belong in the article. It is misleading that such a simple error could cause an accident. 75.208.34.206 (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Whilst the error may be obvious to you, it might not be so obvious to a pilot unfamiliar with the area being diverted to the airfield, perhaps at night.

Such errors may get you killed, especially if the chart fails to notify you of a nearby mountain or hill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.163 (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

DVT or Deep Vein Thrombosis

I'd like to see this briefly discussed, especially with the aging population in the US.

198.22.21.50 (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hypoxia / G-forces

I would suggest briefly mentioning the effects of hypoxia or high G-forces on a pilot's ability to maintain situational awareness and control of the aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.214.156 (talk) 05:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Other possible health hazards

I think the following paragraph should be removed:

Other possible health hazards

Other health hazards may include cosmic rays (when flying above much of the Earths atmosphere), Deep vein thrombosis (from lack of movement), and chemical contamination of cabin air.

First one (cosmic rays) is too much like a weasel word statement, not to mention that radiation from the Sun is a health hazard all over the planet, not just in airliners. If we are to include such dubious "hazards" as that, then we should also mention that stepping out of an open door, while the meals are being loaded at the gate, can be fatal to passengers (that has actually happened).

Deep vein thrombosis is extremely rare and it has yet to be proved that the risk is significantly greater on an airliner, than in autos, trains, boats or just sitting too long around one's own home.

The "chemical contamination of cabin air" links to the article on Aerotoxic Syndrome. However, after reading that article, there is nothing in it which establishes that ANYONE has ever been harmed by airliner cabin air. The section of that article, which discusses media hype of that subject, indicates it may be a way to sell newspapers, but there is no scientific evidence to support the idea that breathing airliner cabin air is hazardous to health.

If we are to put crap like that into an otherwise excellent article as this, then maybe we should include the risk of collision with alien spacecraft?

An aside: It appears that the article has been "protected" against us IP Editors, but I can find no discussion as to why? The revision history doesn't seem to indicate a vandalizing problem, so would appreciate the removal of that "protection," if there is no good reason for it. Thank you, 66.81.53.103 (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've reworded that paragraph to make clear that these are possible health hazards that have been investigated and added some references to show this. I think the article should have wikilinks to the articles on these subjects and it's better in the text than in a long See also list. This article doesn't attempt to say whether aerotoxic is real or not - it just links the reader to the article that discusses the details. As for this being "an otherwise excellent article", I have to disagree - why for example does the terrorism section have a paragraph on cellphones and mid-air collision doesn't get mentioned in the text? I'm slowly working through a long list of things. If you can find a reference to a serious study into the risk of collision with alien spacecraft then that might be worth adding as well! DexDor (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it appears you were correct about the quality of the article overall. That's what I get for commenting after only a rapid skim thru, instead of taking the time to read it all with careful consideration. I like the way you took care of the undue emphasis on the minor "hazards" like DVT, etc. Reading the medical literature on that subject, indicates that it is standard for doctors/hospitals to warn all post surgery patients about prolonged sitting in ANY situation, including too long in a chair at home. Which is why I didn't think that kind of risk merited any mention in an article like this, because the location of the patient, when sitting too long, is not what causes the danger. It is just the sitting, too long ANYWHERE.

I am trying to help improve some of the paragraphs, that you correctly observed as needing improvement. Please let me know if I make any blunders; I don't have many hours to work on Wiki, like a lot of editors, so I am far less experienced. Cheers, 66.81.52.109 (talk) 02:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Good edits - I've just tweaked slightly. Letters to editor aren't WP:RS, but IMO better than no ref. Re post-operative DVT - (I'm aware from real-life that) it can be fatal, but that's a reason to mention it in the appropriate medical article (it probably is) rather than remove from Health hazards of air travel. I hope you'll continue editting and recommend you get a wikipedia account. DexDor (talk) 06:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I wondered about the link to that letter-to-editor, until I read it. Not the usual LTE type of post. The response to the initial person inquiring, goes into considerable detail about the findings of the NTSB investigation into that AMR Eagle crash, so I didn't see grounds to remove that cite link, especially since so many Wiki Aviation articles cite similar web aviation articles as being properly authoritative. Whether or not such articles are in response to a LTE type of inquiry, shouldn't be determinative (as to reliability), IMHO. Seems the substance and details provided in the article itself, should be the guideline. But then, I am not an expert on Wiki rules; just trying to use some common sense and logic as to what should be considered a reliable source.

Thanks for adding the cites needed tags. Most of those statements were already there, when I did the revision. Now, I know what needs to be supported with proper cites. Will see what I can find. 66.81.52.181 (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at the cited website when I replied earlier (morning rush). I'm not sure how RS that website is (and it calls Boscombe Down "Bascombe-Downs"!) Also does it actually compare straight/swept wings? This article's got pushed a bit down my to-do list, but I'll get back to it one day. Some things you might want to bear in mind when adding stuff is to limit the number of example accidents, but use examples from around the world (not just US). DexDor (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm, hadn't noticed the spelling difference between BAS vs BOS. That might be related to the differences in the way Brits and Yankees spell various words. I tried Googling and found quite a few spelled with the Bascombe version: [1], [2]. This American Newspaper spells it "Bascomb Downs."[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28739|This]

As to straight wings, vs swept wings, that is a logical inference on my part. I am not aware of any turbo-prop airliners that have swept wings. I think they all have straight airfoils which enable them to operate on much shorter runways, than can swept wing airliners. The downside is that the straight airfoil is much more susceptible to airframe icing, than are the swept wings.

Another point that might need to be clarified, is that the turboprop airliners usually have de-icing boots on both wings and the tail section. But, most modern day pure jet airliners, with swept wings, do not have any de-icing or anti-icing system at all, for their tail sections. One of the sentences I was trying to edit, seemed to make no distinction, about tail de-icing/anti-icing systems for the tails of those two different types of planes. I was not sure how important it was to clarify that. It would require a bit more additional text, I think, to avoid any misunderstanding of Wiki readers on that rather esoteric point. Would appreciate your opinion on the importance, or not, of correcting that passage.

Thanks again for all your help. I am learning a lot from your vast experience. 66.81.53.2 (talk) 06:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Re Bas/Bos - If the one fact I know in some text is wrong then it does make me (perhaps wrongly) doubt the rest. If you've common sense and good intentions then IMO making edits and learning from any adjustments other users make to them is a better use of time than reading rules. If you've any queries that aren't directly related to the article they'd be better on my talk page. I'm no expert on leading edges and haven't got time at moment so can't really help you there - just make sure you're not straying into WP:OR. DexDor (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Excessive examples and diversity of accidents

In response to your comment of:

"Some things you might want to bear in mind when adding stuff is to limit the number of example accidents, but use examples from around the world (not just US)."

I agree, and I did consider trimming back some of those excessive lists of accidents, as you eventually did. However, because those lists were placed there by others, I have been a bit reluctant to remove what other editors have posted, lest I be accused of trying to start an edit war. Probably better for someone like you to do that, as I haven't had enough experience yet to cut out a lot of the edits of others, without worrying too much about it causing offense. Instead, I have attempted re-writes that improve clarity, while trying to preserve as much as possible, that was posted by previous editors.

As to adding accidents from around the world (not just US), I did do that; possibly you missed it because you have many other projects to work on, besides this article. For instance, I added three new, non-American accidents here: [3]. 66.81.53.113 (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops, my comment was becoz I've seen articles where some editors seem to think "Foo" means "Foo in the US" not your particular edits. If you've a good reason to delete stuff then be WP:BOLD and make sure you explain in edit summary. In cases like this you're not deleting the info from WP - it's still in the edit history and in the main article for each accident. DexDor (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Links to other articles

There should be something about water safety or ship safety, i.e., safety of relating to travel on the water. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Image: Navigation aids and instrument flight

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Honeywell Aerospace has contributed several images to Wikipedia under a Creative Commons license. In addition to adding this one to the Honeywell Aerospace article, I felt it could be an improvement under the "Navigation Aids and Instrument Flight" section as well as at Avionics#Weather_systems. Since it is an image of a distinguishable Honeywell product and features them in the caption, I would appreciate a second opinion on if the image is actually helpful and not promotional. Corporate Minion 22:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that's good. It's been added to the article. bobrayner (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: MOVE was performed per below. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Air safety → Aviation safety – Aviation safety is a more commonly used phrase than air safety for this subject. It is more formal and professional than air safety. It is also less potentially confusing, since air safety could be perceived to refer air pollution related issues. Skrelk (talk) 04:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Support appears to be the common name, also reflected in google search results. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Support per nom, also reduces the chance of someone expecting air quality safety topics. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Support as per nom. Seems obvious to me. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved it, since there were no objections after 7 days Skrelk (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

More Generalized Approach

Instead of mentioning specific flights as examples of particular safety instances, perhaps the article would fare better, if all the prose were expressed under general and more abstract wording. This avoids the unwritten "need" to include certain flights while excluding others, where the only fair way would be to include all flights of a specific incident type. By omitting specific flight examples, this article would appear more cleanly. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 23:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this approach has merit and is worth discussing. Maybe you could provide more detail and examples here. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 12:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, the basic point is to remove all the links to specific flight incidents from the prose, especially the lists -- as there are articles that include all those flight numbers as lists. From there, this article can proceed using accident and incident reports as sources (if necessary). KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 14:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, give it a go. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. Rather than a specific flight, you should point to the list if each member of the list is sufficient to illustrate the hazard. But were there is a single notable example, then the link to that incident should be retained to the best example. 75.208.34.206 (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)