Talk:Comair Flight 191

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Comair Flight 191 article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Comair Flight 191 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 28, 2006 Peer review Reviewed October 12, 2006 Good article nominee Listed Current Status: Good article

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

	Comair Flight 191 is part of WikiProject Bluegrass Region, a project which aims to coordinate work for and expand coverage of the Bluegrass region of Kentucky. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join or engage in discussion.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	Please explain ratings you add or change by editing this article's ratings summary page.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management articles on Wikipedia.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Archives

August 28-29, 2006 August 30-Sept. 1, 2006 Sept. 2-Sept. 9, 2006

Contents 1 Entire victim list 2 The crash 3 Comair 5191 Passenger and Crew List nominated for deletion 4 Moving article 5 Mediation? 6 More victims section debate 6.1 Every casualty is notable 7 "victims" or "casualties" 8 Added Comair's "extreme caution" warning to "Aftermath" 9 NTSB Press Release 10 Taxiway, again 11 GA on hold 11.1 GA passed 12 FAA Staffing policy 13 Error in runway diagram 14 NTSB release 15 Rotation @ 138 per Bombardier, but... 16 Aftermath section 17 DAL5191 18 Runway Lights 19 Location of crash 20 Cause of Crash 21 improvements?

[edit] Entire victim list

I was under the impression we were not going to list the entire victim list. Did I miss a change in consensus on that? Talk:Comair_Flight_5191/Archive_2 put forth the concept that notability was required to list names. Most other crash articles do not provide the entire passenger manifest. I'd revert it, but I don't want to end up on someone else's enemies list. So... I'm asking for additional comments. Dual Freq 23:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I've read carefully through the archive material you cite and certainly there is no indication of consensus on exclusion of a passenger list - in fact notability seems to have been the theme of the discussion. I suggest you read it carefully as well. Paul venter 21:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, there was no vote, but Talk:Comair_Flight_5191/Archive_2#.22Victims.22_isn.27t_a_good_section_title contains discussion, several editors agreed with removal with no dissenters. I thought that was a consensus. Seems like only one editor wants to keep it. I maintain that if this list remains, then we must add the names of the dead from every other plane crash. These people are no more and no less notable than an average passenger on TWA 800, KAL 007 or any other aircraft accident. Their deaths are tragic and I encourage people to read the list and the biographies, but it belongs in a newspaper not an encyclopedia. Dual Freq 22:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no 'enemies list'. The listing I made above was simply to point out the consistent removal of knowledge for the article under the rubrics of relevancy and notability. I think the few people who dare contribute to this article are reverted within minutes. I have made no additions to the article for a couple of days and have watched the talkpage from the sidelines. So the atmosphere here is decidedly against any additions to the page. Thus most people have moved elsewhere. Who wants to stand in front of an oncoming train? I don't think any additions have been allowed to remain on the page recently? Correct me if I'm wrong. Mytwocents 18:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out my non-removal of information in your list of removals of knowledge that should not be confused with an enemies list. I think right now everyone is waiting for reliable information from the NTSB before adding disconnected facts, out of context from newspaper articles seeking to spray blame from the cockpit to the tower. Dual Freq 23:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

One hundred percent in agreement with the above. There was considerable discussion that was largely against the inclusion of a victims list a few days ago, and there has been absolutely nothing changed since. In fact, as discussed somewhere above, it might be appropriate to pare down the list of victims we're naming as-is, since the notability of Hooker, Parsley, and Smith has not been established. I've removed the list per previous consensus.--chris.lawson 00:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I removed the list, and would concur with removing other names from those remaining. Peyna 00:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh. I meant to remove it, but apparently I commented here and forgot to actually do it.--chris.lawson 01:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I was just giving you a hard time, no worry. =] Peyna 04:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

In various types of disaster Wikipedia generally does not list the victims unless otherwise notable. An exception might be, as in the Columbine High School shootings, when the deaths occurred over a considerable time span and each death or injury was part of the narrative sequence of the story. Likewise for the 41 victims in the Donner Party timeline or the 29 dead in Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571. Edison 05:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Paul venter has no interest in participating in this discussion and has continually re-added the victim list. I have no desire for an edit/revert war, and will let the rest of you sort this out. Peyna 13:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well Paul has some work to do then. I suggest he get busy updating all the articles in Category:Accidents and incidents on commercial airliners in the United States to include names. Probably less than 100, so he should have little difficulty updating them all with victim lists. My point being, The dead in this crash are no more and no less important than any other aviation accident. Just being dead doesn't make you noteworthy enough to be named in an encyclopedia. Some of the articles in the category I listed cite pilot error and don't even name the flight crew. Eventually the names will be removed from this article as well. Dual Freq 14:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Since Paul has not responded on the Talk page, and since the Wikipedia precedent is very much against including a complete victims list, I am going to re-blank it.

Paul, please discuss it with us here on the talk page or else people will consider your actions vandalism. You might have a valid argument, but you must make that argument on the Talk page. Right now, the Talk page concensus is 100% against a complete victims list, therefore continually re-adding it is a form of vandalism. --Jaysweet 15:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's not call Paul's actions a form of vandalism, I used that term and there was an uproar. I don't agree with having any names in the passenger section but I wouldn't delete the names from the page, I think it more appropriate to put the names on a separate page and link to that page. The only names to keep are the notable names, and if a name is notable it should have it's own page. Mfields1 17:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw Paul's earlier point, that history could benefit if there were a complete passenger manifest available. I don't think it's Wikipedia's job to do that (I think that falls with the NTSB), but I see your point... I know it's a stretch, but could a passenger manifest for this flight make sense for inclusion in Wikisource??? (just trying to brainstorm a compromise here...) --Jaysweet 15:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Or we just provide a link in the external links section to a list on a website with staying power (something other than a memorial). See What Wikisource includes. I don't think this would qualify. Peyna 15:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, you are right, that falls pretty squarely under the "Reference material" heading. <shrug> Oh well, it was a thought.

Anyway, Paul, if you read this, please make your case. Right now you are out-voted something like 4- or 5-to-1, not to mention the vast Wikipedia precedent. If you would like to be a "pioneer," as you suggest, you're going to need to make your case. --Jaysweet 16:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that a precedent (or lack thereof) constitutes a mandate. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think that Wikipedia policy rules out the inclusion of a passenger list. In fact, Wikipedia tries to be detailed in its coverage of any subject. Creating an outside link is simply defeating the idea of having everything relevant in one article; if that idea is not upheld, then an article could be replaced entirely by references to outside sources - I don't think that is or should be the policy. With regard to notability, I feel that to be largely a very subjective judgement; try telling any of the victims' families that their deceased relatives are not considered notable enough for inclusion in what should be an unbiased record of the accident. However, that aside, completeness of important information should be the most important criterion. As for changing or adding to the records of hundreds of other aviation accidents, is a separate issue. We are dealing with one particular event here, and we can choose to act creatively and sensibly, or we can become paralysed by conservatism and the desire for uniformity, even if that uniformity is seen to lead to stagnation. Paul venter 19:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you've stated your case. I'm going to continue to disagree with you, and since at this point the consensus does not seem to be in any jeopardy, I've reverted your changes. I don't really like the link to another page, either, but I left that in for now pending further discussion. VxSote 21:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with the "consensus" that the addition of a manifest does not add any value to the article. However, I don't see how adding the line "For a complete manifest, see Comair 5191 Passenger and Crew List" detracts from the article. This line, which is included in the article right now, seems sufficient. Just an outside opinion. ​​​​​​Auburn​​​​​​​​​​​Pilot​​​​​​ 18:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

And just an after-thought, if that page is deleted (it's nominated), I don't think the list of names should be added to this article. If it doesn't warrant its own page, I don't see how it warrants inclusion here. ​​​​​​Auburn​​​​​​​​​​​Pilot​​​​​​ 18:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The crash

An edit was made that says "Clay called for rotation,[6] and the aircraft sped off the end of the runway." In the foot noted article attributed to the Lexington Herald is written Did the pilots realize at some point they were on the wrong runway and decide to go for takeoff, perhaps because they were past the point of safely aborting? Or did Clay call for rotation because the plane had reached the designated speed, and the pilots didn't realize they were in the wrong place until they ran off the runway? (next paragraph) Debbie Hersman, a member of the National Transportation Safety Board, said last week she couldn't answer that.. Did NTSB release a tape or statement saying Clay did call for rotation or has the article incorporated a speculation by the newspaper? It seems to me a different reference ought to be used. If there is not a better reference it will be edited. Mfields1 11:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think if you reread what you have pasted here it seems to suggest that rotation was called for, and the newspaper is just speculating whether that was because they reached the appropriate speed or because they realized they were out of runway? Peyna 13:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see where NTSB stated that "Clay called for rotation" or if they have released the actual transcript. I doubt the actual transcript was released any time soon. Maybe someone heard a press conference by NTSB stating "Clay called for rotation"? Mfields1 13:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have been unable to find any other reference than the article you cite above. I just drew the logical conclusion from the reporter's statement, but I don't see anything to back it up. However, it is unlikely the plane was going fast enough to gain any lift without some rotation, so is it a safe assumption that at some point prior to running off the end of the runway the nose was lifted? Otherwise it seems it would have crashed much closer to the end of the runway and there would be more significant tracks in the grass at the end of the runway and in the berm. Peyna 15:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Peyna, please have a look at the slideshow at: http://www.heraldleaderphoto.com/multimedia/unfinished/journeys.html I'm requesting this because of the 6th photo in the slideshow. Since it has been pretty well established that the airplane was moving at somewhere near 135 miles per hour, as it got to the end of the runway it was near the speed required for rotation. Did they pull back on the yoke or not? We (Wiki) are not the experts but I think NTSB will be able to use the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder in timeline fashion to put the pieces together. If Clay in fact did "Call for rotation" and NTSB has reported that, then it's fact and should be reported. What we don't know is the urgency in his voice, for example. If it was a "normal" voice, e.g. just Clay calling off speeds to Polehinke and stating "rotation" then it will be safe to assume neither knew anything was wrong, perhaps realy ever. If on the other hand, there is some conversation, even a quick "ROTATION!!!" then maybe they learned at the last second. I think it takes something like 2 seconds (on average) for the human mind to 1) sense something is wrong, 2) go through a denial stage that it is not happening, 3) accept that it is happening and 4) take corrective action. In TWA Flight 157 the pilot aborted at just beyond V1, with the result that the runway was overan. In the photo http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=255693 there are tire tracks off CVG runway 27L but when the terrain falls away one could say the plane "became momentarily airborne". Of course that was never intended in this case, instead they were trying to stop the aircraft and because of running off the runway the and then over the embankment there was enough lift generated that the plane sort of glided down the embankment and skidded to a stop after the undercarriage was sheared off. I'd like to see some additional opinions on this because the article indicates they intentionally tried to take off. Intentional meaning "they never knew they had chosen the wrong runway" or meaning "they discovered they chose the wrong runway and decided to make a go of it anyway". I think it is early to put in that Clay called for rotation without knowing the intention. Mfields1 17:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

IIRC someone found a correlation between people with slow reaction times having accidents where the front of their car was damaged, and people with quick reaction time have damage to the backs of their cars. But 2 seconds is unbelievably slow for, say, a driver to react to a deer running in front of the car by braking or steering. Simple reaction time could be 100 msec or longer, and choice Rt could be 300 msec or longer. Fatigue, distraction, or other impairing factors increase reaction time.Edison 19:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, all those factors increase reaction time. There's a neat on line test for reaction time: http://getyourwebsitehere.com/jswb/rttest01.html Maybe there's a better term for the whole cycle than reaction time. What I'm suggesting is that an event like taking off on the wrong runway is not an anticipated event, whereas an engine failure would be an anticipated event. In other words, when the pilots are accelerating down the runway they already know that if the engine failure occurs they must decide between takeoff and abort. For the Comair 5191 pilots they most likely had no idea what was going on (ran out of runway because wrong runway was selected), but when / if Polehinke is able to recall accurately we might find out. Edison, I didn't understand "IIRC" in your statement. Can you let me know what that means? Mfields1 20:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

IIRC is short for "If I recall correctly" when you remember some fact but cannot privide the book or magazine citation to check it, and do not wish to be called a liar if the recollection is faulty. Edison 17:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC) RT as for applying the brakes of a car or moving the yoke of a plane would include the time for the sensory info to reach the brain, the time for the brain to send out a command to the hands or feet, and the time for the muscle to make the needed movement. Let me restate that 100 msec or slightly less is the minimum for a simple reaction, as if you have your finger on a button, know a signal is coming, and only have to press when you see or hear the signal. It can be WAY longer if inattentive or if it is a surprise, or if a complex decision has to be made before the response. Edison 17:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What the Herald-Leader article also states is, and I quote, "Clay called for Polehinke to begin lifting the nose." This is the newspaper's way of saying to the general public, which does not know what "rotation" means, "Clay called for rotation." This was clearly stated in an NTSB brief on the CVR transcript. I've removed the {{fact}} tag as a result.--chris.lawson 01:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the NTSB brief - is there a video or audio file on the internet, or a transcript of that brief? If so would you let me know where it can be found. I have searched and find no reference except the Hearald-Leader article. If it was broadcast and you heard it, was it on CNN or something? Mfields1 22:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comair 5191 Passenger and Crew List nominated for deletion

For anyone not following everything, I've nominated the page Comair 5191 Passenger and Crew List for deletion (discussion here). This page is sometimes linked to from the page; User:Paul venter removes the link and inserts the full manifest directly into the article. As the nominator, I feel that the page should be deleted, because the information isn't needed, either on a seperate page or in this article, and so I hope that the result of the discussion for that page can be applied here. If the result is to keep, I suggest keeping the seperate page and linking to it; if the result is to delete, I suggest not including the full manifest here, for the same reasons currently being cited on the deletion discussion page. —LrdChaos 21:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on the deletion discussion thus far, it doesn't look like very many editors agree with the concept that a victims list is encyclopedic. That seems like a consensus against inclusion to me. Dual Freq 02:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

NO. The casualties are an integral part of the description, if there were no casualties, how would this be a notable incident? The casualties belong in the article and not on a separate page, unless the individuals are at some point found to be notable enough to have their own article. A separate list is bad beacause without the crash, they are not notable and without the casualties the crash itself is not particularly notable. User:Pedant 17:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I believe having the manifest as a list on a separate page is perfectly acceptable — and preferable to including it in the article. The casualties are an integral part of the story, but other than the aircrew were not "active participants". I still feel linking to an external source would be best, since a non-encyclopedic site could do a much better and more compassionate job of addressing the living drama. Nonetheless, given the extensive combat here between editors who believe the list is or is not encyclopedic, supplying the casualty list as a separate page is quite a reasonable compromise. Askari Mark | Talk 19:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose -- for now. I think a complete victim list in the main article doesn't make any sense at all: it violates an unbroken WP precedent, it does not appear to meet notability requirements, and anyway, an external link to a passenger manifest is just as good. Frankly, I think that having a separate manifest page is a good way to deflect controversy until time has passed and this ceases to be such a hot topic. At that time, perhaps the other page will be quietly deleted... --Jaysweet 19:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: If you are looking to weigh in on keeping or deleting Comair 5191 Passenger and Crew List, this is not the place for that; you want to reply at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comair 5191 Passenger and Crew List. If that's not what you meant to object to, then I'm not sure what it is that you're objecting to, as my original comment offered two suggestions, one each from the likely outcomes (keep or delete) for the seperate page. From the comments, it appears as though you would support keeping a seperate page; if that's the case, please consider voting at the appropriate spot, and reconsider the work "oppose", because it appears that you're actually saying the same thing that I did ("If the result [of the AFD] is to keep, I suggest keeping the seperate page and linking to it", not including the content of the page in this main article). —LrdChaos (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I was just following what other people were doing... I'll check out the AfD page now. Since it sounds like I wasn't clear: I don't think a complete victim list belongs anywhere in Wikipedia in the long term, but if putting it in a separate article will quell the controversy for now, then I don't mind doing that. Better to have a near-orphan article of little value than to continuously struggle with the pollution of a legitimate article... --Jaysweet 20:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to make sure that people's opinions get heard in the right spot. I happen to agree with you that the list doesn't belong in Wikipedia at all; my suggestion for keeping the seperate article was a contingency for if that page is/was kept after the AFD (which I don't expect it will). —LrdChaos (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, you were absolutely right to prod me to comment over on the AfD discussion rather than here. Of course, looking at the page, it looks like it will be an overwhelming "delete" consensus :) I'm not surprised, and I can't really say I disagree... --Jaysweet 20:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually see the creation of a separate article and the resulting deletion process as a useful way to gather opinions of other editors regarding the suitability of the material. While I will stop short of equating a vote to delete that page with a vote to not include the list in the main article, I think it does provide useful feedback. It also helps us to remove some of the controversy from the main article, as Jay suggested.

If the separate article is not deleted, then I will of course support a link to that article. If it is deleted, then I will continue to oppose inclusion of the list here, unless "delete, this belongs in the main article" becomes the main theme of that discussion. VxSote 20:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving article

Article should be moved to Crash of Comair Flight 5191 2006 August 27 ... any objection? That would leave the Comair Flight 5191 article for all the flights that did not crash. User:Pedant 17:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Title is too lengthy and would only serve to confuse the general public - the readers. Just how much can you devote to "Comair flight 5191" that does not in some fashion relate to the crash? You'd be having a very empty article. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. As Seicer said, the flight number is only notable because of the crash; if you remove that, what you're left with is a single-sentence introduction ("Comair Flight 5191 was a domestic U.S. flight from Lexington, Kentucky, to Atlanta, Georgia, operated on behalf of Delta Connection by Comair."), a link to this article, and a whole lot of unnecessary, unencyclopedic content about the flight. For other air crash/disaster articles, the pages are "<airline> Flight <flight#>", same as this. I don't see any reason to make this page inconsistent. ——LrdChaos (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. The Wikipedia precedent is strongly in favor of the format used now, i.e. the airline and then the flight number. I think it is concise and unambiguous enough, especially since the flight number is usually retired after a serious accident. --Jaysweet 17:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Those other articles actually have the word "flying" in them don't they? This article doesn't have flying, and isn't about a flying aircraft. "Title is too lengthy" ? What about Galaxy Airlines Lockheed Electra 188 disaster ? Length of title shouldn't be a reason for having an innaccurate title. How about Crash of Comair Flight 5191 until we have another Crash of Comair Flight 5191 at a later date?

I'd think Comair Flight 5191 should be a redirect to this article until some article on the regularly scheduled flight was written. I'm not stuck on my proposed title either, just "Comair Flight 5191" is a bad title. One, it isn't specific, it would be like calling Lassie A sequence of separate canine performers which actually would be more correct than the title of this article being Comair Flight 5191. Two, it wasn't a flight any more than you would call it a "flight" when a skateboarder does an ollie. Flight, in an aviation sense, occurs when induced drag creates lift, which pulls the aircraft into the air, not when an aircraft smashes into a berm and is launched briefly into the air. User:Pedant 17:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

1960 New York air disaster/1963 Rochester air crash/Galaxy Airlines Lockheed Electra 188 disaster/Marshall University air disaster (1970) User:Pedant 17:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if nothing else, you are definitely living up to your username with these questions about whether it technically counts as a "flight" or not ;p ;)

I would invite you to peruse List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft, and see that in almost all cases, the title of the article is of the format "<airline> Flight <number>". This includes a number of "flights" that also crashed shortly after takeoff, e.g. Air Florida Flight 90, which was an accident where, just like this one, the plane did in fact leave the ground, but did not have sufficient velocity for sustained flight and immediately stalled out.

The primary exceptions to the naming convention are ones which have a specific, more well-known name (e.g. Tenerife disaster), and stub articles that just haven't been fixed yet. If you wanna change the convention, you've got a lot of work to do :)

(Also, allow me to out-pedantify you at your own game, by pointing out that "flight" in this context means would correspond to this link's definition #4, i.e. "A scheduled airline run or trip," rather than the actually act of flying ;p ) --Jaysweet 17:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Just saw your list of counter-examples... True, but watch as I provided twice as many examples supporting my position: Armavia Flight 967, Chalk's Ocean Airways flight 101, Mandala Airlines Flight 091, West Caribbean Airways Flight 708, Air Florida Flight 90, TANS Peru Flight 204, China Eastern Flight 5210, Air Algerie Flight 6289. I could go all day, really... See List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft, and the trend is pretty clear (in fact, with the four you named, arguably those should be moved to correspond with precedent! And incidentally, 1963 Rochester air crash was recently up for deletion... --Jaysweet 18:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Article should follow the established naming scheme for similar incidents as long as the name is not ambiguous. If any other Comair Flight 5191 was notable, then a more precise definition would be warranted; however, as far as I know, there are no other Comair Flight 5191s that are notable enough to warrant inclusion in WP? --Sykes83 18:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. "Crash of Comair Flight 5191" would probably be best, but since it's hard to imagine many other reasons that would make a commercial flight sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion in an encyclopedia, the established scheme seems preferable. --Askari Mark | Talk 19:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. There is the notion that name "Comair Flight 5191" didn't even exist until this crash happened and that became the commonnly used name for Delta 5191 / Comair 191 (see archived discussion about previous page moves). Because it is the common name, and because no other Comair Flight 5191 has been notable (if any have ever existed), it doesn't really make sense to have the name of the article be anything else. If anyone does write an article about an arbitrary, non-notable airline flight, it will probably be nominated for deletion. VxSote 20:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. None of the other flights had any significance to warrant their own article. Should a similarly title flight become notable, it can be handled the same way we do when flights with the same name have both crashed. Peyna 22:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely oppose in the strongest possible terms for all the reasons stated above, particularly those cited by VxSote, Sykes, and Peyna. (And I agree with Jaysweet's comment that the minor counterexamples cited should be moved, in compliance with WP:CN, to a more appropriate title.)--chris.lawson 00:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. The current title conforms to precedent for other air crash article titles. Mytwocents 02:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, so where does the article about the scheduled airline trip go? All the Comair Flight 5191 trips that didn't crash? Comair Flights 5191 which actually flew? Where do you suggest? And knock off the cracks about my name! I mean it, no personal attacks, is no personal attacks. User:Pedant 15:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Pedant: I am astounded that you took my comments about your name as a personal attack. You discuss the roots of the word in depth on your user page, and acknowledge the definition I was referring to here. Being a bit pedantic myself, and in fact rather proud of it, I assumed you had chosen the username in good humor. Apparently I was mistaken about that.

I did not mean for that to come across as a personal attack -- in fact, based on your choice of username, I thought you might take it as a compliment. Perhaps I was projecting, since as I said I am somewhat proud of my own penchant for pedantry. In any case, I apologize if you took offense. That was not my intention in any way whatsoever.

To answer your question, "where does the article about the scheduled airline trip go," the answer is nowhere. Why would there ever be an encyclopedia article about that? Unless Comair breaks with tradition (which is possible, but unlikely) there will never be a scheduled flight known as "Comair Flight 5191" ever again. We already know that nothing worth talking about ever happened on that flight before. So there ya go. There is no need for an article about the regularly scheduled flight, nor will there ever be one. --Jaysweet 15:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment to Chris -- I was thinking about moving some of the counter-examples to be named after the flight number. However, in at least one case, it was a collision between two commercial flights. The precedent for those cases seems to favor a "disaster" naming (e.g. Tenerife disaster), unless one of the flights was a private plane, in which case it seems to favor the commercial flight number (e.g. Allegheny Airlines Flight 853). I dunno, just an observation, I thought it might be relevant to this discussion as well... --Jaysweet 15:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Digging deeper, I found that out of Pedant's four counter-examples, one of them was a two-plane collision (see above for my assessment of the precedent in that case), one of them was an unscheduled flight and therefore had no flight number, and the other two don't list flight numbers in the article (and the latter is even up for deletion as non-notable). As per precedent, I am going to try and dig up the flight number for Marshall University air disaster (1970) and rename the article. (Since 1963 Rochester air crash is AfD'd, I don't want to confuse the issue by moving the page) --Jaysweet 15:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation?

I have been invited [1] to informally mediate on this page. This may well not be a good idea; you might find you prefer King log. I have no idea what this dispute is about; I have no preconceptions as to what it should contain; I have no experience of mediation. But if the edit warring continues I'm just as likely to protect the page :-). So... anyone in favour? Against? William M. Connolley 21:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The main edit warring I currently see regards the complete victims list. (There was some earlier edit warring about whether certain fringe details were relevant, but that seems to have mostly died down). Those editors arguing for the inclusion of the complete list (e.g. Mfields1, Paul venter, etc.) seem to be reasonable-yet-misguided folks, at least to me. Just having a neutral party read over the relevant sections in the Talk page and assert that the consensus is against inclusion (and correct me if I'm wrong on that, please!) might be enough to stop the edit warring... --Jaysweet 21:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue is premature for mediation. Some people apparently are quick to jump for such things when discussions are still ongoing and have not broken down entirely. Peyna 22:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I am hopeful that the brief dispute regarding the victims list is on its way to a resolution, but I am less confidant about the previous arguing. I'm afraid that while it has been mostly quiet for the past few days, the issues at hand remain unresolved and those with opposing viewpoints are in no danger of reaching consensus. In favor of receiving your guidance in the matter, especially with regards to certain policies where the interpretation seems to be a core part of the dispute. VxSote 23:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the important thing is to bring back the sense that we can be bold in editing this article. Hopefully we can find a alternative to deleting and reverting other peoples work and make this an inclusive exercise. Informal mediation will help bring back some much needed civility. Mytwocents 02:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• "I have no experience of mediation" ... well, the first thing you do is get yourself suited for Kevlar-sleeved abestos skivvies. ;-) I became involved here following the request for neutral expert advice (see the "NPOV Resolution" section above). Hopefully I've had a small positive impact. I remain a disinterested commentator and have not participated in editing the article (nor do I intend to). From where I sit, there are three basic disputes here. One is whether it's desirable and NPOV to list all speculated possible contributing factors to the crash, even if they insinuate that a non-responsible individual may have borne some of responsibility. I think my suggestions have been a reasonable response to that. A second issue is over what to include or exclude — particularly with respect to the so-called "victim list". Since most of the interested editors are now voting over proposals rather than meleeing, I think this one is on its way to some sort of resolution. The third — and most virulent — issue is the revert wars where various parties add, remove, and revert additions boldly and on their own initiative, without any real attempt at coming to a consensus first. A lot of it is "simple" inclusionist/exclusionist disputes mixed with "my way or the highway", but some of it is also annoyance over the slight of having one's work undone in mere minutes after finishing them. Best of luck! Askari Mark | Talk 02:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

THings seem to be moderately peaceful today... I shall watch the discussion William M. Connolley 08:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

We have all beat each other senseless... :-) Mfields1 22:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel that my mediation so far has been a great success :-). Do please continue... William M. Connolley 22:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

ha ha ha! Yeah, things have been going well the last two days. Glad you could help us out ;p --Jaysweet 22:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More victims section debate

I noticed that Peyna pared the victims section down a bit more, and while I generally agree that we're headed in the right direction with that, I think we should probably leave a couple things in. Polehinke is already named in the article as the first officer; I don't see any reason why we should not continue to refer to him by name, especially since he had a direct role in the crash itself. It also seems reasonable to me to name the police officers who polled Polehinke from the wreckage, as they played a direct and unique role in the immediate aftermath. The language of this section also seemed much less awkward in the previous revision. I recognize that we have to draw a line somewhere, but I think an argument could be made for the officers' actions being notable enough to warrant the inclusion of their names. However, as I write this, I find myself referring to them as "the officers"... hmmm. VxSote 04:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to having the captain and first officer's names in the article, I just removed them from that section since someone else had proposed it and we could see how it looked. Feel free to add that part back if you like. Peyna 10:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw a report in a local Ky mewspaper (not online) that the victims were burned beyond recognition. Numerous county coroners were called in and worked for days on identification; one coroner apparently removed the remains of his relatives from the plane, and did not recognize them, although he was watching for them. Is this assumed in a plane crash and so not to be mentioned in the article? There was also an accuount in a newspaper that the first responders saw people moving in the wreckage, discounting the "killed instantly by the crash" account. Again, mentionable or not?Edison 16:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the first responders' report of a small number of people moving inside is really a contradiction of the coroner's statement that most people died instantly. We know that it was possible to survive the impact, simply most (if we take the coroner's statement to be accurate) did not. Also, given that the coroner revised his position from saying most died in the fire to most died on impact, I would hope that he had found some specific evidence in support of that.

I probably wouldn't say that the burning of the victims is assumed in plane crashes in general, although I do think that saying the victims were killed instantly and the plane burned is probably sufficient. Thinking of how we might still incorporate that information, though, I'm tempted to move the statement about the victims dying on impact to the victims section and have it read something like All 47 passengers and two of the three crew members were killed. Most victims died instantly and were burned beyond recognition by the post-crash fire.' It seems a tad overly graphic to me, but if others want to include it, I probably won't object. Moving the mechanism of death from the crash to the victims section would simplify the crash section, however, and I may do that anyhow if there isn't much opposition. VxSote 17:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Generally when an aircraft crashes on takeoff — when it has its maximum amount of fuel onboard — any fire will tend to have that effect. Intense fires can shrink the body to much smaller than their original size. However, with dental records and DNA matching, most relatively intact remains can be identified. I don't see any reason to include such morbid details as "burned beyond recognition" in an encyclopedic article, though. "Most [or All] victims died instantly ..." should be sufficient. I have not seen a report regarding first-responders seeing people moving; I think I'd look for an independent verification before adding that. Askari Mark | Talk 18:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The "burned beyond recognition" could well be omitted. Edison 04:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Every casualty is notable

I still don't understand why any of the victims' names are being removed. This article is only about the crash of a commercial airliner. If there were not passengers it would not be notable. Every one of the passengers and crew killed in this incident are notable because without them the crash is not notable. I also object to the use of victim over the use of casualtiy as victim has connotations of blame.User:Pedant 15:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There might be notable aircraft accidents without passengers, e.g. cargo aircraft accidents. (This article is about the aircraft accident, not about the passengers, is it?) An accident could be notable regardless of whether passengers died or not because of the causes that led to the accident. To determine the causes is mainly the task of NTSB. The focus here is more on how to avoid similar accidents in the future and less on the fact that passengers died, however tragic this may be. "Casualties" are not necessarily notable (think of car accidents, etc.; do you have articles about every person that died in a car accident, because of heart failure, etc.?). The death of a person is notable if the person was notable before its death but not necessarily due to its death. Since i'm most likely not notable to Wikipedia, my death also won't be notable (unless the circumstances are rather unusual). Should i ever die in an aircraft accident i won't insist on being mentioned by Wikipedia. Gerd Badur 19:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "victims" or "casualties"

It seems that both of these words are actually troublesome for the same reason. "Victim" implies there is a corresponding action on the part of another. "Casualty" implies that it was an unavoidable accident that just happened, with no identifiable cause. I think there is a stronger argument to be made in regards to using "victim," because there are known causes: the runway was too short, the plane was not going fast enough under the conditions to take off, etc. Peyna 18:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What little precedent I could find seems to favor "victims" (e.g. American Airlines Flight 191#Victims and Pan Am Flight 103#Victims, although in most airline crash articles, the mention of the victims is included under the section detailing the crash itself, i.e. does not have a separate section.

In addition, I think one could argue that the only "encyclopedic" victim information here is about the surviving first officer.. so one might make an argument that all of the other information in that section should be deleted, and the heading changed to "Lone survivor" or something like that. Of course, I'm too much of a wuss to actually suggest that approach myself... ;p --Jaysweet 18:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "victim" has the sense of someone who was actively preyed upon; "casualty" suggests less specific intent to inflict harm on that specific individual. Askari Mark | Talk 18:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the section regarding "victims" could be incorporated into the crash section, and then we create a new section on "survivor". Peyna 19:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

How does it look? Peyna 19:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Not bad... it nicely avoids the victims vs. casualties debate, and I think it still reads coherently. --Jaysweet 19:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Just for comparison: NTSB Aircraft Accident Reports usually have an "Injuries to Persons" section where there is further distinguished between "fatal", "serious", "minor", "none". "Casualties" are often called "fatalities". Gerd Badur 19:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The infobox uses "fatalities," which is probably the most neutral term we're going to find. Peyna 20:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought about suggesting that, but before your re-write the section was as much about the survivor as it was about the fatalities, so that didn't work either... Looks like your rewrite will probably stick. It flows pretty well... (and will flow even better once the passenger manifest AfD closes with a "delete" vote ;D ) --Jaysweet 20:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the revised format is much more encylopedic. In time, the mention of the memorial service may need to be removed as it is dated. Mfields1 20:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added Comair's "extreme caution" warning to "Aftermath"

Whenever I make a major edit to a controversial article, I always pre-emptively justify it on the talk page. I added to the "Aftermath" section an article about Comair's announcement that the pilots were using outdated charts, and that they had issued a warning for their pilots to exercise "extreme caution" during the taxi to the runway. I think this is significant only because of the announcement, i.e. if it were just that they had outdated charts I would not have included it -- but the "extreme caution" proclamation I think makes it a notable part of the aftermath.

(On a side note, my personal pov on this accident is that the outdated charts are an incredibly minor contributor at best -- part of the takeoff checklist is to confirm your compass matches the runway heading, and fifty bucks says that will be cited as the primary cause in the NTSB's report) --Jaysweet 20:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

My personal view is that the announcement and email are probably more of a CYA / PR move than anything else, and probably tend to imply blame (at least as portrayed in the media) where it is not necessarily justified, much like the tower staffing issue. It is however, a result of the accident, and I think we should include it in the aftermath section for the same reasons that we decided to include the tower staffing details there. I think I might have also seen a comment in the media along the lines of a NOTAM would have covered any outdated info regarding the taxiways, and we might want to see if we can find and work that (or other statements) in somehow in order to present a more balanced view. In other words, I don't want to imply that the pilots didn't have all of the appropriate information available to them when that hasn't necessarily been determined. VxSote 21:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more, and in fact CNN has consistently frustrated me with loaded statements like, "the lone controller turned his back before the takeoff to do paperwork" (which is his freaking job people!). If there's a NPOV way to assert that the pilots, updated charts or no, still should have been aware of which runway they were on, that would be great... I'll see if I can't find something like you mentioned. ---Jaysweet 21:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Okie-dokie, I added it. Heh, actually, my last edit there feels a little pov... But it's not the worst, so I'll let others fix it if they like. --Jaysweet 22:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Since that NOTAM should still be in effect, can anyone verify the airport spokesman's claims a little more authoritatively? Right now, it seems like it's sort of the airport's word against Comair's to the casual reader, and that's fairly unlikely to be the case. Either the NOTAM was issued, or it wasn't, and if it was indeed issued, it doesn't matter if the pilots were using outdated charts, as they should have received and understood the contents of the NOTAM and its effects on their intended taxi routing. (Again, I think the taxi route change is very tangential at best, but I like what we've got in there right now.)--chris.lawson 03:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I linked to the NACO airport drawing last week and it was correct and updated to reflect the taxiway change. If it is published correct, there would be no NOTAM issued.[2] However, according to this page, Jeppesen didn't change their diagram until their "8 SEP 06 revision of the Airway Manual". I don't remember a NOTAM issued on that day, but I have no way of seeing historical NOTAMS. Still, I don't think one is issued if the published drawing is right. Could this be a problem with Jeppesen not being as current as NACO? Dual Freq 11:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, a NOTAM of some sort should have been issued if I'm understanding the construction properly. The taxiway re-routing was completed within the previous day or two, according to most of the news stories of the accident, which means that when the NACO chart was first issued, it was actually wrong, and therefore a NOTAM should have been issued explaining the differences between the chart and what was actually present at the airport. (Jeppesen's revision cycle, which is close to -- but does not match -- NACO's, disseminated the data in the first effective revision after the completion of the construction.)--chris.lawson 00:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The only problem I have is that the "new" Jep map matches the NACO one with A-7 on it that we downloaded and discussed here only days after the accident. It was dated 1 Aug 06 - 31 Aug 06. I'm thinking that the new Jep and the August NACO are both correct. I have no idea what the old Jep and the July NACO one looked like. I think they look like the image on the main page without the X on it. Meaning the taxiway with the X was open, but now (and the morning of the accident) it is closed. Dual Freq 00:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NTSB Press Release

For those interested, NTSB published a press release today: NTSB press release September 25, 2006 Gerd Badur 18:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The article says "The aircraft impacted the ground about 1000 feet (305 m) from the end of the runway,[8]" while the press release says "The main wreckage was located approximately 1,800 feet from the end of the runway." Who is right? Or did it "impact" at 1000 feet and skid to 1800 feet?Edison 19:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The pictures I've seen definately show a ground scar with some length, but I'm not sure if it was really 800 feet worth. I'm also having trouble finding the 1000 foot number in the sources. I think maybe it would be best to reword the article to something like The aircraft impacted the ground and came to rest about 1800 feet (305 m) from the end of the runway... I suspect that subsequent NTSB reports will give a more precise description of the ground scars. VxSote 20:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is the part where the aircraft was momentarily airborne, and that Clay called for rotation? This "calling for rotation" is only in one published newspaper column. Some persons have claimed this was stated at an NTSB news conference, but I would like to know how they could have called for rotation, yet "all three landing gear were on the ground as the airplane exited the runway"? I feel the article compomises some things because the NTSB has not officially released the CVR transcript. If someone can point out an actual transcript of the NTSB news conference I would like to see it. I don't have much issue with the 800 ft vs. the 1800 feet because it is clear at the speed that the aircraft was going, the breakup would have been over a long section, when you consider some small parts would be on the ground where impact began. Mfields1 22:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I've updated that section to make it a little more clear that the plane never left the ground; even if Clay did call for rotation, that doesn't necessarily mean that the plane actually rotated, so the two things aren't necessarily in conflict with each other. The NTSB may release more information that contradicts that statement, and if they do, then we can update the page accordingly. —LrdChaos (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If a plane never quite left the ground and slid 800 feet, (1800 feet vs 1000 ft) that is more like deceleration and less like a crash.Edison 04:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taxiway, again

All taxiways named "Alpha", is that really unusual, and looking at the chart it is not true. They have A, C, D, E and F. Are they not also numbered A-1 to A-7? Any opinions on the recent addition? FAA NACO diagram, shows taxiway names in case anyone has forgotten. Do we need to add the labels to the image on the page? --Dual Freq 22:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The official diagram you have linked, is not the same as what is at the airport. Where "A" and "A-7" join the end of runway 26, the diagram does not show the additional taxiway in the actual photo. In changing the runways they closed "A-7" to allow more footage in the setdown area of 22. The taxiway that enters the runway, between the end of 22 and the intersection of 22/26 was supposed to be the taxiway to use; it will be up to the FAA or the airport or the map artist to explain why it was not on the map since it is clearly in the photo. One guess is that the taxiway was less important when the taxiway that connected the (now closed) runway 15/33 was closed and 15/33 itself was closed. Confused? Probably Clay was too. Mfields1 23:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've seen much more complicated runway configurations and diagrams, so no, I'm not especially confused. This seems like a pilot error situation, but I'd be willing to back off that belief if there was no edge lighting on either runway and all runway signage was also not illuminated or they were giving inaccurate taxi instructions by ATC. Otherwise, I have a hard time understanding how they could get lost on such a small airfield. As for the "unreasonable risk" stated in the article, I don't see the risk any more unreasonable than any other airport. --Dual Freq 23:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd really like to know who hired a British aviation safety investigator to take a look at this and compile a report on it. I can assure you it wasn't the UK government, nor was the NTSB or FAA involved. The point is, this guy probably has a very good reason (read: $$$$$) to find a problem. For him to state an "unreasonable risk" is present and to get very basic facts absolutely wrong (i.e., there are not multiple taxiways named "Alpha") is utterly irresponsible. Oh wait. We know exactly who did it. The plaintiffs' lawyers. Gleave will undoubtedly be called as an expert witness. Considering that the Global Aviation Law site is that of a law firm, IMO it fails the reliable source test and this addition should be stricken from the article. (It's no different than CNN speculating that the taxiway construction had something to do with it. Whether it's a reporter or a lawyer doing the speculating doesn't make any difference.) --chris.lawson 01:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it would be a plaintiff's lawyer who hired this British aviation expert. Does the taxiway matter anyway? It has been widely reported that the government (in this case the local government, who operates the airport) cannot be sued. By operates I mean maintaining the runways, etc. The legal actions should not be a surprise. I mean, these people lost their life, and others are dependent on them. It would be callous to assume the attitude that "that's too bad" and ignore the loss of life. Firstly we should all be concerned, as the NTSB will be likely to consider, what could have been done to prevent such an accident. Will we be "safer" flying after they have made their study? Hard to say, because typical for most accidents a chain of events or series of events occurred to cause the accident. It's not the same as (for example) a mechanical component failure, where perhaps an inspection was not done properly, or maintenance not performed, etc. Still, they (NTSB) will thoroughly look at everything and include it in their report. It's always possible (not likely it would seem) that there will be some very tiny component that went wrong. If that is the case then of course the plaintiff's lawyers will go after the manufacturers. Typically though there is a shotgun approach to go after as large a group as possible, so that some of the defendants will settle outside of court and money will change hands. Gleave may not have to appear in court, depending on how the lawyers make their case and how the litigants settle things. In my opinion, an expert hired for something like this doesn't normally act in a responsible manner, only in a manner to get the results. In this sense we are very lucky to have such an organization as NTSB where they will do a thorough job at looking at all factors even if they appear to not be related. Mfields1 00:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's all quite true, but you really hit the nail on the head with "an expert hired for something like this doesn't normally act in a responsible manner, only in a manner to get the results". That's precisely why his statement has no business in the article. :) --chris.lawson 01:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Considering that Global Aviation Law did not have full access to primary investigation materials and artifacts, it seems all they're doing is stating what is obvious in retrospect. The "report" they compiled could be nothing more than a collection of newsclippings for all we know. It's pretty obvious to me that they're trying to advertise their services and I doubt these would be pro bono. I would place the quote somewhere between hearsay and spam. Askari Mark | Talk 03:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :

1. Well written? Pass

2. Factually accurate? Pass

3. Broad in coverage? Pass

4. Neutral point of view? Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images? Pass

Additional comments :

• Lead section adds new material and doesn't conform to WP:LEAD.

Lincher 02:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA passed

The required lead modification has taken place and the article now fulfills all the requirements for it to be of GA status. Lincher 18:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Rightfully so, I just linked in here and it's fantastic. Maury 22:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAA Staffing policy

I'd like someone to show a reference to the changed staffing policy. Include a URL or a link to an article, etc. FAA ended it's nap policy after the crash, and a Nov 2005 policy required tower operations and radar approach operations to be handled by separate controllers. I'm not saying that two controllers had any bearing on the crash but now the lead paragraph in the article attempts to implicate responsibility for the crash on tower personell, and that a decision has been made as a result of the crach, to staff the tower with two controllers. Mfields1 22:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The CNN article pretty clearly states: "The Federal Aviation Administration on Tuesday acknowledged that only one controller was in the tower, in violation of FAA policy, when a Comair jet crashed Sunday while trying to take off from the wrong runway in Lexington, Kentucky." What sources say the policy was changed? Perhaps what did change was the enforcement of the policy. If we have a source for that, it might be worth mentioning. The policy existed, the quesiton is whether it was actively enforced or followed. Peyna 23:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The CNN article is misstating the policy, and has been doing so for quite some time. The CNN article in question appears to be this one:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/29/plane.crash/

It states, in part:

The memo says two controllers are needed to perform two jobs -- monitoring air traffic on radar and performing other tower functions, such as communicating with taxiing aircraft. In instances when two controllers are not available, the memo says, the radar monitoring function should be handed off to the FAA's Indianapolis Center.

It then goes on to state:

The FAA this week increased overnight staffing at Lexington as well as at airports in Duluth, Minnesota, and Savannah, Georgia, Cantwell said. "It says to me that they're aware that a one-person (midnight shift) is not an adequate staffing," Cantwell said. "Unfortunately it takes an accident to make them come to their senses."

This is a subtle point, so I'll restate it yet again -- the FAA's policy required two controllers to work the radar and tower operations. It never stated that both these controllers had to be physically present in the tower at Lexington. Under the previous policy -- which was undeniably violated -- the lone controller in the tower was required to hand off radar duties to Indianapolis Center. (For whatever reason, this handoff was not made, thus violating the previous policy.) Under the new policy, there is no provision for a single controller to be working in the tower, period. This is already clearly stated later on in the article, in the Aftermath section, but it's becoming increasingly obvious some people are too pig-headed to listen to anything I say on this point.--chris.lawson 00:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not good to use name calling on Wikipedia. Mfields1 00:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Later in the CNN article linked above it says "According to the FAA, the agency implemented the policy last year after a near in-air collision at Raleigh/Durham International Airport. At the time, only one controller was staffing the tower, sources told CNN. - and (next paragraph) - After the incident, an FAA administrator ordered that the radar and tower functions be separated.'

Yes this is the point, the policy before was that the functions be separated, was it not? How the work got accomplished is (in same tower or at different locations) is a different matter. In the CNN article linked above the only direct quotes come from Andrew Cantwell, regional vice president of the controller's union. He is not setting FAA policy, that would be someone in management. Mfields1 09:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The only source that said the policy was changed, was the Wikipedia lead section! That's why I changed it to reiterated and Clawson changed it back. I have reworded again because the Wikipedia lead section contradicted the section further in the article. It was a large error and I corrected it. Mfields1 23:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"However, Republican Rep. Robin Hayes of North Carolina – a pilot – stressed the lone controller at Lexington was not responsible for the crash, and indeed it isn’t necessary to have two controllers in an airport tower for aviation to be safe." from Hearing Defends FAA’s Controller Staffing, Praises Safety Record, September 21, 2006. The staffing concern appears to me to be a rapid, knee-jerk reaction to an accident. Had the FAA done nothing it would have been blasted. After the heat is off, that tower will end up back to 1 controller along with all the other ones. I've said it before, there are towers with ZERO controllers in them at 5 am and airline pilots manage to take off on the correct runway at those airports. --Dual Freq 23:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you are correct that with no controller an airline pilot can manage to take off on the correct runway. Aren't all the calculations on which runway is planned to be used done before leaving the gate, if not before the pilots board the plane? On the other hand, the point was made in the media that the FAA violated it's own policy. If they want to allow ZERO controllers because it can be done, then, they at that point, can CHANGE their policy. We are anxious to see the NTSB report on everything that happened, to the best they can determine. The NTSB operates independent of the FAA. When the FAA investigated accidents there was a conflict of interest. Rightfully the FAA announced the mistake when they found it. It remains to be seen if NTSB will even comment on it in their report; if they do they might explicitly state it was NOT a factor. We will have to wait and see. But, if FAA CHANGED it's policy after the accident, then show me the link or refer to the policy change. After the accident, FAA did change its policy on allowing controllers to take naps while on breaks (not that the policy had anything to do with the accident). Mfields1 23:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

An internal FAA news site, found via google, clarifies media reports on staffing saying,

“The FAA sets staffing levels at its air traffic control facilities based on expected traffic levels. Traffic at Lexington Airport during overnight shifts is very low, with an average of fewer than eight aircraft between midnight and 6AM. At this traffic level, only a single tower controller is needed to safely separate surface traffic.

“Some air traffic control towers also separate airborne aircraft using radar equipment. FAA guidance is to provide individual controllers for the radar and control tower functions. In this case, our manager at Lexington — based on the low traffic levels at that facility — scheduled one controller to handle both functions during the overnight shift. The FAA has since added a second controller for radar coverage. Had there been a second controller present on Sunday, that controller would have been responsible for separating airborne traffic with radar, not aircraft on the airport’s runways.

“Lexington, like most airports of that size, does not have surface radar, and there are more than 100 airports that operate safely without a control tower.”

Where is this policy CNN is talking about? Also, this was released August 30, 2006 as a rebuttal to the media coverage about "violating own policy". Probably not published by CNN as it didn't fit the image they wanted to portray of negligence. --Dual Freq 00:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The policy memo itself is linked in the Aftermath section, dated 16 Nov 2005, and states exactly what CNN states -- that two controllers were required, but the radar controller could be remotely located at Indianapolis Center.--chris.lawson 00:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the Lexington Tower decided to comply with the separation policy (radar vs. tower) by utilizing a remote controller. That is stated clearly in the memo, about how they would comply as of November 2005. I want to see the memo that said they changed their policy. They may have changed their operational practice, and added a 2nd controller at LEX, but show me where FAA changed their policy. Mfields1 00:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Operational practise == policy. That CNN article used to state it even more explicitly, but "The FAA increased overnight staffing" is pretty damn clear -- that's a policy change, not simply following their old policy. If their old policy did not require two controllers to be physically present, and the FAA is now requiring two controllers to be physically present, that is a change in policy, period.--chris.lawson 00:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed that is the point. The policy has not changed, and it still does not require two controllers to be present. If it does, show me the memo. Nobody has even shown the original policy, only the memo from LExingtion Tower stating how they will comply with the policy. You might argue that the old policy was ambiguous, and to clarify it the FAA changed it's operating practice after the accident to staff with two controllers. By now I'm surprised someone hasn't posted that memo to the internet. Well, maybe they just called all those towers up on the telephone and said "hey, when when we said two controllers were required, we really meant two controllers physically located in the same tower". I would like to see something from FAA, like a press release, etc. Just because CNN says FAA increased staffing does not show they changed their policy, only they changed their practice. Mfields1 00:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The policy has changed. That's what "the FAA increased overnight staffing" levels means. The old policy was not the least bit ambiguous. It required one controller physically present in the tower, and a second controller who could be located in the tower or in Indianapolis. They are now requiring two controllers to be physically present in the tower. This was not the case before. Thus, it changed. How are you not getting this?--chris.lawson 01:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm not either then. If I eat two handfulls of cheerios this morning, does that mean I changed my policy because I ate only one yesterday? What if policy is "sometime eat one and sometimes eat two"? I'm not being silly here, the situation is identical. The FAA policy was "put one or two controllers physically in the tower, at your discretion". Now they are putting in two, at their discretion. Well that certainly doesn't seem like a policy change to me. As Dual's quote pointed out, the rep believes they will return to one in the future. That suggests that one or two remains the policy, as it was in the past. Unless there's evidence that states there is and always will be two controllers in the tower, then this could be precicely what Dual's rep claims it is, a temporary knee-jerk reaction to appease the press. Maury 02:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The FAA policy was "put one controller in the tower and one working radar at Indy, or put two controllers in the tower." The FAA policy is now "put two controllers in the tower at all times". The FAA may indeed change policy again in the future, but that's irrelevant, as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The fact is that policy changed to require two controllers to be physically present in the tower at all times. They weren't required before, and now they are. Pretty simple...--chris.lawson 02:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem "getting this" if it is a sourced change from the FAA, or a news bulletin from the FAA that they have a policy change, or a news item from a news organization that says the FAA changed their policy. The only place I see that FAA 'changed their policy' on this (i.e. two controleers physically present) is Wikipedia. Plus, it has been reported the controller on the scene said "...he was also all alone, managing both radar and ground control...". The policy separates these functions. Mfields1 09:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's exactly what the CNN story is saying. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.--chris.lawson 14:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the link. Just as the release above says, "Had there been a second controller present on Sunday, that controller would have been responsible for separating airborne traffic with radar, not aircraft on the airport’s runways." To a non-aviation knowledgeable reader saying two controllers in the tower can be confusing. It could be assumed that means 2 in the actual tower cab, looking at aircraft when in fact the other controller would be sitting in the dark looking at a radar screen, unable to see that an aircraft is taxing to the wrong runway. --Dual Freq 00:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Um, don't look now, but with this new lead section aren't we backing once again into implying that having only a single controller in the tower was a (or the) primary cause of the accident? Askari Mark | Talk 02:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't like that either, but WP:LEAD says the lead should be a summary of all sections of the article, and I tried to follow that guideline without implying anything. I'd be OK with no summary of the Aftermath section at all in the lead, but I think this is a fairly good compromise.--chris.lawson 02:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Then why don't we state it more positively with something like "Following the accident, the FAA has changed controller staffing policy in the hopes of minimizing the chance of future such incidents at smaller airports." or words to that effect? Askari Mark | Talk 03:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to re-work that. I do think it's important that we note that the FAA changed the policy, though -- that was the whole reason it was included in the Aftermath section in the first place (as can be seen from the archives of this page).--chris.lawson 04:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That's fine that you decided the FAA changed the policy. The lead section gives a point of view in saying that "the FAA changed staffing policies...in an attempt to reduce the risk of future such incidents." The FAA never stated that. Firstly, the (pre-accident) requirement was that tower functions and monitoring air traffic radar were separate functions, and it has been established that one function could be done at Lex tower and the other could be done remotely. At the time of the accident the mistake was that the lone controller was doing both functions, and the radar function had not been handed off to Indianapolis as the internal memo indicated it would. Secondly, it is widely reported, and FAA stated (on Tuesday 29 August), that even if there had been two controllers, it would not have prevented the accident. The tower controller did his duty properly according to statement that have been released (and included in the Wiki article) of communications between tower and Comair 5191. The policy in 2005 was implemented due to a near in-air collision at Raleigh/Durham International Airport. The way the intro has been written it now leads the reader to conclude that the problem was one controller in the Lex tower vs. two controllers and by stating "...in an attempt to reduce the risk of future such incidents..." it makes it seem like the FAA has it all figured out, (i.e. the risk has been reduced) and the problem has been solved. Lex does not have ground radar and nobody in the tower is monitoring the planes to see that they actually get to the right taxiway. How will they do that, with binoculars? If someone can actually produce a memo or press release, stating that FAA has changed it's policy to include that a second controller in the tower now has the responsibility to monitor aircraft to insure they are on the correct runway, I'd like to see it cited in the article. Mfields1 02:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Mfields, for clarifying to me that "in an attempt to reduce the risk of" is synonymous with "the FAA has it all figured out, ... and the problem has been solved." It certainly would never have occurred to me. I suppose going from a policy of permitting one of the controllers to be "offsite" to mandating two onsite controllers at all times constitutes no sort of "change" of any kind either. <jk> Inasmuch as I agree with — and have also made — most of the same observations on the controller issue as you summarize above, and was trying to neutralize, through my edit, the implication that the controller situation was a causative factor, I didn't like seeing the original statement appear in the lead section in the first place. As Chris pointed out, though, it was added to satisfy the WP:Lead guidelines. Accordingly, I'm going to go with my first instinct and be bold and delete it altogether. I'm justifying it on this bases: a) WP:Lead is a set of guidelines, not rules; b) the first of the "Three Rules" is not necessarily germane to news articles; c) the brief added para. did not address all of the aftermath items (which would have been an undesirable duplication of effort in any case); and d) the only "aftermath" of any true significance is already addressed in the lead — the deaths of the passengers and crew. I recommend it be left at that. Askari Mark | Talk 21:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll boldly rush in where angels fear to tread & give my two cents. The source material I've reviewed appears to support that the staffing policy (separation of radar & tower functions) remained unchanged, but the procedure used to implement that policy (handing off radar control to Indianapolis Center vs. having a second controller available locally) was altered.

In analysis, it's important to consider that single staffing entails inherent risks, regardless of the job. An individual, on his own, develops bad habits, habits that become reinforced because "nothing's gone wrong before." This is one of the cited reasons for the requirement that all large aircraft operating under FAR Part 121 scheduled air service have a minimum flight crew of two and that railroad locomotives be crewed by two people. The presence of others can increase alertness and reduce fatigue, and has been shown to improve regulatory & procedural compliance. In this case, a second controller (in the tower cab -- IIRC, Blue Grass airport doesn't have a separate radar room) would have lightened the administrative burden, and, conceivably, freed up the tower controller to observe & monitor takeoffs & landings. Tower controllers are trained to spot issues with departing or arriving aircraft, such as leaks, blown tires, or structural anomalies.

This accident appears to have been the direct result of pilot error in runway selection, but the failure of air traffic control to detect the error would be a contributing factor, along with the flight crew's failure to check that their heading was correct for the runway they were using, and errors of omission or commission on the part of the airport operator in staffing the tower or marking the runways. For that matter, it's an arguable point that the aircraft's onboard AHRS was flawed in its design that it failed to alert the crew when takeoff power was applied. In the end, though, it all comes back to FAR 91.3, which mandates the pilot in command's ultimate authority & responsibility for the safe conduct of the flight. Since human error is unlikely to be eradicated, studying & reporting on the factors that contributed to the error is the best approach we have to improve aviation safety. --Ssbohio 02:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Error in runway diagram

According to the article "Human Factors Issues Key in Comair Flight 5191 Probe" in Aviation Week & Space Technology, dated 09/04/2006, the closed taxiway between runways 22 and 26 is the one indicated by the article here as "desired", and the taxiway the crew should have taken is the one indicated by the article here as "closed". Enduser 19:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to add that I can more readily see how the accident might have occurred if the Aviation Week & Space Technology diagram is correct. Both crew members had been to this airfield several times, and were used to taking a "left" turn with respect to barriers ahead. With the taxiway they were used to taking now being closed, the "left" turn they were used to taking put them directly on runway 26. Enduser 20:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The aerial photo on this page is correct, there are several proofs linked in the archives. To summarize them, I looked at all of the post accident images (on yahoo news) and linked several in the archives. They all show the taxiway with the X as being the one that was closed and the desired one as the one that was open. The big change at the airfield was moving the approach threshold of runway 22. This move made the X'd out taxiway no longer intersect the runway proper. Any aircraft using the X'd taxiway would have entered an area that was no longer part of the runway. The desired route on the diagram is correct. --Dual Freq 19:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NTSB release

The NTSB has just made a release stating that it will open a public docket into the accident in January 2007, and expects to close the investigation shortly after. I will add this to the article tomorrow, I have just run out of time today. Blood red sandman 19:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

But I did manage to grab five minutes to say that, since this is a good article, and one that took a lot of effort (apreciation should go here to the many editors who got this article to high standard) to get there. Therefore before we just shove in new information, I'm gonna give this 24 hours for anyone to comment on the issue of putting this in, but it's a really minor adition and I don't anticipate a problem. All going well it will go in tomorrow without anyone having to say anything here. - Blood red sandman 23:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine to add a brief update as to when the release is planned. Askari Mark | Talk 01:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I must admit I agree. I'm going ahead and adding it. Blood red sandman 11:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That's the way to be bold! ;-) Askari Mark | Talk 02:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rotation @ 138 per Bombardier, but...

This New York Times article says, in part:

Captain Clay followed the normal takeoff routine. He noted when the plane’s speed reached 100 knots, or 115 miles per hour. Then he said, “rotate,” the signal for Mr. Polehinke to begin liftoff.

Maybe it's just my mind playing tricks on me, but it sure sounds like they're implying "rotate" was said a whole lot earlier than 138 knots. Can anyone else find a source that's a bit more explicit about this? The AP has wire stories all over the place now but they don't seem to be saying much about this bit. What would really be useful would be the NTSB actually putting this stuff on their site, but if it's there, I can't find it.--chris.lawson 05:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The reference with timestamped CVR excerpts shows 13 seconds passed between the 100kts call and the call to rotate. I don't know if the NYT article meant to imply anything or if they were just going over the sequence in a cursory fasion. I don't think there's much to it either way. VxSote 22:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aftermath section

I received a very kind E-mail via the foundation from someone who has strong ties to one of the crew members of this flight. She kindly explained to me that there was misinformation in the aftermath section, which I have now corrected; please see this new source. Be careful in your wording of this article, as many people, including loved ones of those who were lost in this tragedy, are reading this article. —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 17:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DAL5191

Flight 5191 would have filed its flight plan as COM191, not as DAL5191. Thus, I'm removing the DAL5191 designation from the article. The reservations reference to DL5191 is correct, because Comair does not book its own Delta Connection flights.

For an example of how this works, check out these examples from FlightAware. Try tracking flight DAL5190. Next, try tracking COM190. This concept will also work for Flight 5191 as long as COM191 remains in the FlightAware database (it's there as of today). Yayro 17:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Title of this article is wrong. It was Comair Flight 191, not 5191. Should be changed immediately. Mstuomel 22:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The title should be Comair Flight 191 or Delta Airlines Flight 5191, I'm not sure yet which one. Archtrain 20:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Technically, Mstuomel is correct. However, most large public sources of information refer to this flight as Comair 5191, so it'd be confusing to rename the article "Comair Flight 191". Folks familiar with the aviation business probably could make the connection between Flight 191 and Flight 5191 without a lot of effort, but the rest of the general public might not find that transition so easy. "Delta Flight 5191" is both incorrect and rarely cited, so I'd lean even further from that title. Yayro (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Runway Lights

A long time ago when most of this article was written, there was dialogue about why the pilots would use the wrong runway. There is an article written in the Lexington Herald that seems to show new information about the status of the runway lights on that day and a few days before: http://www.kentucky.com/211/story/42385.html Mfields1 01:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Location of crash

There is some disagreement over the location of the crash. Both the article and Blue Grass Airport are clear that the airport is outside Lexington city limits, so the info box should say Fayette County, Kentucky, not Lexington. The first paragraph naturally should and does make it clear that we're talking about the Lexington, Kentucky airport here.--Prosfilaes 18:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The location of the airport is within the combined county-city of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County. Furthermore, Blue Grass Airport's location is unreferenced and unwholly inaccurate -- perhaps it was true before the city-county merger decades ago. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

To add, the airport is in the rural service area (RSA), not the urban service area, for which the boundaries should not be confused with the descriptors, Fayette County and Lexington, respectively. Just as it may lie in the RSA, that does not equate it to being outside of Lexington. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That is what they mean by unincorporated. Fayette and Lexington merged in the 50's I believe. They did the same thing that Louisville Jefferson County did just recently. This is the adress for the airport, 4000 Terminal Drive, Suite 206 • Lexington, KY 40510-9607. This is why I said the next time this gets changed it will be cited as vandalism. People have continually been changing it to Fayette County with disregard to the actual location of the airport. All anyone has to do to verify this is to go to the airport webpage at www.bluegrassairport.com or look up Lexington, KY and Fayette County, KY on wikipedia. Not trying to be a butt just getting tired of reverting this thing after clearly explaining the revert.User:Bluecord

I signed in with the full intention of editing the location of this article, but given the comments here thought I would seek discussion before doing so. Some are relying on the wiki article on Bluegrass Airport as support for leaving the reference to unincorporated Fayette County.

I submit that that article should be edited as well. There simply is no such thing as unincorporated Fayette County. Unincorporated means not part of a city. All of Fayette County was incorporated into Lexington when the voters approved a merger in 1973. As a local, I can assure you that Bluegrass Aiport is factually in Lexington, KY.

As someone mentioned, this is similar to the Louisville merger. Every part of Jefferson County that was not part of another city in Jefferson County (called unincorporated) was merged with, or incorporated into Louisville Metro. There are no longer unincorporated parts of Jefferson County.

This is a different concept from what many are used to, but the county and city are the same thing here. I would propose editing to read "...from Bluegrass Airport in Lexington-Fayette County, Kentucky, west of downtown."

The hyphenated use is consistent with the legal name "Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government" and local usage. See the about Lexington section on the web page of the Lexington Convention and Visitors Bureau. I'd appreciate feed back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexeagle (talk • contribs) 20:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

For the reasons stated above, I have changed to read "from Blue Grass Airport in Fayette County, Kentucky, four miles (6 km) west of the central business district of the City of Lexington." This is factually accurate, and merely deletes the reference to unincorporated and gives more detail about location. This seems to be best solution given all the back and forth.--Lexeagle 20:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cause of Crash

The boxed area on the article page says that the cause of the crash is "crash on take-off". This is not the cause of the crash, but the result. The cause has been established by the NTSB. Primary cause was pilot error. Contributing factor was an understaffed tower. Perhaps this should be amended.

[edit] improvements?

consider eliminating the chart of nationalities. This can be summarized by text. Also consider less of a diary style of writing (on September 12, ..... on September 14, .....). Overall, an article that others have put a lot of work into and it shows! Archtransit 00:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)