Talk:Aloha Airlines Flight 243

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:

Contents

[edit] cycles

Question: how can a 19-year old plane have 80,000 takeoff-landing cycles? There are about 7,000 days in 19 years, so this plane somehow averaged 10 cycles per day? Maybe it was 8,000 cycles, which would average one cycle per day, which seems reasonable..

Answer: 80,000 takeoff-landing cycles is correct. Prior to Sept 11, 2001, Aloha and Hawaiian Airlines typically flew on the order of ten inter-island flights per jet daily. Daily service started at 5:00 am and concluded at 9:00 pm. Flight times were approximately 20 to 60 minutes depending on the route, and turnaround time on the ground was on the order of 20-30 minutes.

Capt Roberto R. MOLA Feb 6th 2008 17:55UTC I agree completely to this concept and, additionally, would say the following:

1)The text I've added in the past about maintenance schedule for Aloha (A deep and thorough inspection of Aloha Airlines by NTSB revealed that the most extensive and longer "D Check" was performed in several early morning installments, instead of a full uninterrupted maintenance procedure. They also found that eddy-current testing inspections on the fuselage skin, as prescribed by Boeing, had not been performed.) is a transcription of NTSB findings. Citation needed? Well, everybody feel free to research that matter and know the truth. Period!

2)Insistence on the so called "Fluid Hammer" effect as the MAIN cause for the failure, neglects COMPLETELY all the official investigation fot the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.37.184.28 (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have carefully written that the Fluid Hammer theory is completely Austin's own thoughts. I have not written anything that brings forth FH as absolute truth regarding flight 243. --J-Star (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Since it is completely Austin's own thoughts, it most certainly does not belong on Wikipedia. No original research. --LonelyPixel08 (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Capt Roberto R. MOLA Feb 11th 2008 18:31UTC

carefully...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.37.160.240 (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

As in taken care to make sure his theory isn't presented as factual in the article. --J-Star (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Source question

Was the page as of Dec 23 plagiarized from this news article http://starbulletin.com/2005/12/22/features/story05.html, or visa versa?

This article was used as part of the source fore the story above. Trödel•talk 18:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The article shows both 80,000 and 89,000 cycles in the aftermath section. Which is correct? 141.228.106.135 12:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

01/12/06: "Vice versa". The article contains the following:

CORRECTION Saturday, December 24, 2005 » A portion of a review of the television show "Secrets of the Black Box: Aloha Flight 243" was taken verbatim from the Web site reference.com. The material was originally published in the online encyclopedia wikipedia.com. The article, on Page D6 Thursday, failed to attribute the information to either source.

[edit] Unreferenced details

The details section, while containing pertinent information and being well-written, generally lacks any sources. Given the specificity of the information contained in there, I am assuming that much of it was drawn from an NTSB report. Nevertheless, most of the claims in the section need to be cited for verifiability. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] redirects needed for this article

70.55.86.54 (talk) 00:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Austin

I reinserted the section on Matt Austin since I feel it is not a violation of WP:SOAP. While Matt Austin did indeed climb the soap box and criticized Boeing for their "Fly 'til it breaks" design philosophy, all that has been left out of the section in the WP article. What remains is only technical information that is relevant. Matt Austin has been featured several times in media relating to the accident and I think he is worthy of a mention in the way that it is now written.

If we do not keep Matt Austin, then we have to also take out people like Joe White and references to Jan Brown Lohr.

The fact that some people do soap box activity does not automatically mean that mentioning them and some of the things they say make the Wikipedia article they are featured in a WP:SOAP violation. --J-Star (talk) 08:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the section once again. Matt Austin is in no way an aircraft authority and devoting a section to his theory violates WP:SOAP and undue weight. Unless Matt Austin has published his theory in a peer-reviewed journal or a respected online source (NOT his own webpage), this also violates the No original research policy:
In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable
Clearly, this section should not be added to Wiki. Please do not re-add the section unless you can cite a peer-reviewed journal or mainstream publication. --LonelyPixel08 (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Matt Austin clearly does have expert knowledge on a subject closely related to this incident: pressure vessels and the failure of such. This was indeed a pressure vessel that failed. The pressure vessel just happened to part of an aircraft.
The section cannot be Original Research since I - who added the section - am not Matt Austin. The section does not make any "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the source" but simply cites Matt Austin's theory. Thus it is not Original Research. Several programs on the incident and newspapers have cited Matt Austin and people formerly from the NTSB have acknowledged that he is not on a wild goose chase. That ought to be good enought to warrant a mention here too.
The section is not WP:SOAP beacuse it specifically excludes Matt Austin's advocacy directed at Boeing. The section only includes technical information that cannot be said to be a standpoint, which is required for it to be a SOAP violation. The information is used by Austin to support his standpoint that Boeing has a faulty design philosophy, but the fluid hammer theory applied to Aloha 243 is not the standpoint itself.
I think that LonelyPixel08 has interpreted the WP rules much too strict, alternatively interpreted them wrong. Unless someone shows exactly what part of NOR and SOAP the section on Matt Austin violates, I'll add it again tomorrow. --J-Star (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
No, what LonelyPixel08 should be referring to is Wikipedia:Undue weight - If Matt Austin's opinion is not held by a significant number of people, his opinion should not be represented. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Well the thing here is that the "community" of people with held beliefs and whose beliefs are relevant since they have taken a deep interrest in the incident is very small. You basically have two schools of thoughts distributed on a mere three parties: 1) failure at multiple points simultaneously. That view is held by the NTSB and Boeing. It should be noted that Boeing also has an interrest in maintaining that belief. 2) The Fluid Hammer Theory, held by Matt Austin. Everyone else base their belifs on information from the NTSB, Boeing and Matt Austin. So I don't think Matt Austin is given undue weight concidering the very small amount of parties whose beliefs are relevant. --J-Star (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Original research is research done by an individual that has not been published in a way that ensures peer review and commentary. Matt Austin's own personal webpage is not an acceptable source. This information can not be in the article unless you can cite a real, respectable source. End of story. --LonelyPixel08 (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
That's not how I read the rule. Original resarch - as I see it - is when the editor makes new claims or makes analysis, synthesis, etc of existing fact. If Austin presents Original Research, then the NTSB must also be said for have presented original research and must therefore not be mentioned in any article regarding transportation incidents/accidents.
Austin's claims and his arguments for them are readilly available, with diagrams, reasonings and illustrations, for peer review on his site and anyone willing to make commentary on it is free to do so. Granted that a Google search for Matt Austin in relation to Aloha 243 does not generate many hits. But this comment from former NTSB investigator Brian Richardson, is not insignificant: "In every accident I ever worked, all kinds of crazies came out of the woodwork with theories about what happened", "Matt Austin is not one of those people. He has good, solid credentials, and he’s not going off the deep end." "Matt may well have nailed the cause of the accident, I just don't know.". This quote comes from USA Today (accodring to the credits of this article). If this doesn't constitute peer review and publication, then what does? And just how much of Wikipedia will you have to slash if you don't accept this? --J-Star (talk) 08:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
J-Star, do you have a reliable source stating that there is a significant number of people who base their beliefs on what Matt Austin has to say? If not, we cannot include Austin as per WP:Undue. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source that says that there is a significant number of people who base their beliefs of what cased the accident with Aloha 243 on what the NTSB has to say on the matter? This may sound like just being cheeky, but I'm serious here. Many don't even know about the accident... and even fewer has a distinct opinion about the exact cause of it. Use the guide you posted below on the NTSB report and you find that it too has trouble living up to the rule. Further more the (former?) NTSB chairman James Hall is stated according to USA Today to think that Austin's theory 'makes sense', even though the NTSB came to a different different conclusion. --J-Star (talk) 08:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, here is a guide: "* If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." - Pasted from WP:Undue

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Delving into the causes of aircraft accidents is a very narrow niche. You won't find much material about them. As such, Matt Austin, despite being just one(1) guy, cannot be said to be insignificant. The reasonings for his theory are easilly available for review, he is an expert on the subject, he has had significant people associated with the accident and the investigation comment on it, and he has been referenced and interviewed in publications and TV-programmes about the accident.

I am going to invoke Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. My justifications for invoking IAR are: the case of Aloha 243 and Matt Austin's investigation of the accident are rather unique and should be judged differently because of the unique context; his theory has been said to be relevant by people who worked within the NTSB investigating the accident; the theory is readilly availably for peer review; his theory has been reviewed; the fact that few have done a review so far is because this is a very narrow niche; the theory has been published in TV-programmes and newpapers; the rules - if followed strict - prevents improving the article with relevant information. --J-Star (talk) 08:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be perfectly satisfied with a summary of Austin's theory using the USA Today article for references, however I still think it's inappropriate to use his own website for references. Since the article is pretty in depth it shouldn't be hard to cite all the relevant information in it. --LonelyPixel08 (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Well USA Today's source for the information is Austin, making it a secondary or possibly even tertiary source since Austin complies his theory from the information revealed by the NTSB investigation. I agree that using Austin's site directly is a touch risky and not quite according to normal practice on Wikipedia. But like I said: Austin's site is a secondary source and he references his sources quite well on the site. Also I'd like to stress - again - that we are talking about a very niched subject meaning that the findings of single individuals or other kinds of single parties - like the NTSB - become quite important which may make it acceptable to do an IAR for these unique cases.
I reviewed the USA Today article and it references Austin's site right on the money. I would very appreciate it if you were to review the Matt Austin WP section and check it against both the USA Today article and his site. If you find that all three say the same things, then we have consensus that the section can be returned as it was, no? (With the added reference to the USA Today article of course).
I agree that Austin's advocacy still should be left out. It borders too close to SOAP and it is not relevant enough for the article of flight 243. --J-Star (talk) 10:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree that the section should be returned as it was, but I did put a summary into the article, sans Austin's damning of the airline industry. Frankly, the way it was written before, it sounded more like a conspiracy theory. I didn't include any links to Disastercity since it's hardly a neutral account, but there's a link to it in the USA Today article that anyone curious enough will be able to find without trouble. --LonelyPixel08 (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I like that re-write. Compact and to the point. Well done. :) --J-Star (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)