Talk:Comair Flight 5191/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

Article Name

As has been discussed below, the proper Comair designation for this flight was Comair Flight 191. It also used the designation Delta Flight 5191. There is no Comair Flight 5191. The media has misidentified the flight. The name of the article was changed to reflect the flight's correct designation. Please do not bring it up again without a good reason. - DiegoTehMexican 22:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying all the government agencies, the NTSB, the FAA are wrong and you are correct? It does need to be brought up as if you google it you see not only the vast majority of news sites but also most official US government sites are using Comair flight 5191.72.75.17.190 14:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
That's fascinating. The Comair website calls it "Comair Flight # 5191". Are you saying they don't know the number of their own aircraft? --Dhartung | Talk 23:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
As was discussed below, both the control tower and ticketing services referred to the flight as Comair Flight 191, and it is likely that that is the designation the NTSB will use. - DiegoTehMexican 23:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Since the NTSB is using Comair Flight 5191 in every offical press release, I would say this is incorrect72.75.17.190 14:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
A designation that is merely "likely" is speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Dhartung | Talk 02:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The comair website refers to it as Comair 5191 simply to save confusion between the difference in the Delta and Comair numbers, as most people (families, etc), will have known is as Delta 5191. The official flight number IS Comair 191.84.71.130.95 02:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Assuming that Comair is generously avoiding confusion is a nice thing to think of them, but it is original research unless you have a statement from them to the effect that they are doing so. Original research is not permitted on Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 02:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Working in local news media in Atlanta (I work for the NBC station here), we were provided a flight number of 5191 by officials with Comair, contrary to the admonishments of others here, we did not "incorrectly" use the 5191 number.--Mhking 02:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course you are not using it incorrectly. the NTSB also uses Comair 5191 in all its press official releases.14:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Comair website is operated by Delta, so it uses Delta flight numbers. The 5191 designation is a combination of the original flight number used internally within Comair, which is 191, combined with the Delta practice of affixing a number designated it as a Delta connection flight. All Delta flights that have 4 digits and begin with 5 (and some with 4-) are operated by Comair. Delta owns ComAir, so ComAir usually uses Delta Flight numbers when dealing with anyone outside of ComAir. The exception is with ATC, where ComAir, like most subsidiary carriers use their original flight numbers. If you visit the ComAir website, any link you click on for flight information will link you the main Delta page for checking flights, so that's why they use 4-digit Delta Flight Numbers. 208.61.5.116

The NTSB has been using Comair 5191 thus far in their press releases. Peyna 02:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I propose a move back to the name used in every single media and official source. Any claim that Wikipedia is right any everyone else is wrong is blatant violation of WP:OR Geoffrey Spear 15:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's time for a vote on this. I was the original poster for the section 'Rename' below. At the time it was correct to move to Comair 191 because it was being used by many news agencies at the time and is technically more accurate that Comair 5191. However, most people do now incorrectly call it Comair 5191, so in accordance with the Wiki policy of using the most common name, I now support a move to Comair Flight 5191. However there needs to be something in the first section that explains that the commercial designation was Delta 5191, the 'behind the scenes' designation was Comair 191, and that Comair 5191 developed as a compromise between the two to indicate it was operated by Comair, but was the Delta 5191 flight. 81.79.186.16 15:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it was correct to move the page to Comair 191 based on the flight plan and other media reports using that designation. I still feel that this should be the name of the flight, but it is now clear that the all media reports as well as the NTSB preliminary report now report the flight as Comair 5191. We should not speculate as to the reason, or put POV into the article as to the appropriateness of this renaming, but I do now support moving the article back to Comair 5191. We should, however, mention that the flight was originally Comair 191. I'll leave the details of that to the lead-in paragraph discussion below. 165.236.112.245 16:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What's up with everybody being anonymous!? If you're going to state your opinion please log in! -newkai t-c 17:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If we are voting (as I presume we are) on the name, I support a move back to Comair Flight 5191, based on the information provided by Delta, Comair and the NTSB. The media are working based upon that information, as is everyone else. There is no logical reason that WP should be any different. --Mhking 18:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there's general agreement to move the article (back) to Comair Flight 5191, unless there's real disagreement in the next 30mins or so I'll make the move. Thanks/wangi 18:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
If it will stop the revert wars then go for it. After the dust has settled it can be moved back to 191 if that is indeed the correct term. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 18:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

General agreement? I think not. Comair doesn't sell its seats, Delta does. Really this is Comair 191, Delta 5191. I fly as a passenger on Comair as Delta regularly from Bangor (BGR, a nice solitary 11,000+ ft runway: very safe) to Huntsville (HSV, another solitary long runway) by way of CVG (Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky). The Comair flight designations are what the crew uses, and I can't imagine that the tower was calling it anything but Comair one niner one. I've seen it referenced elsewhere that Comair's planes were only used on the weekend out of LEX, that during the week Pinnacle (aka Republic) operates this same flight. In that case, it really re-emphasizes that Pinnacle nnn would be called Delta 5191 also. I'd say leave this at Comair 191 *until someone sees a FINAL instead of a preliminary* report from NTSB. --Sturmde 19:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I continue to object the move back to Comair 5191 as this is not the technically correct name of the flight. It is either Comair 191 or Delta 5191, not this is random mix/match that the media and Delta have put together. -newkai t-c 19:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Should the title of the sidebar (Crashinfobox template) be updated to reflect the article name change, or should that remain the "technical" name? Also, do the Comair 191 and Delta 5191 names need to be sourced? --Sykes83 19:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the infobox title.
I don't think this is a big issue to get worked up about - it's pretty clear what term is being used to refer to this accident, and it makes sense for that to be our article name (per WP:NAME). Rember we use the common name, not always the correct/official name (e.g. United States, United Kingdom for starters). Thanks/wangi 19:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Well to be fair that isn't a good example wangi as both those terms are recognised by the UN as the 'short form' names of those countries. 81.79.93.184 21:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I also object to the move back to Comair 5191, per the arguments made above by Sturmde and newkai. Just because others refer to something incorrectly does not mean that it should always be referred to incorrectly. (The more commonly used term, "Canadian goose" redirects to the proper term, Canada goose, for example.) Our listing this under the improper name will only perpetuate that incorrect use. Cmadler 21:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that the name should remain Comair Flight 5191 at the very least until a reliable source indicates that Comair 5191 is actually incorrect. Although we know that Comair 191 and Delta 5191 are both correct, every reliable source that I've seen so far suggests that Comair 5191 is also a proper designation for the flight, even if it is not the preferred technical designation. Every claim to the contrary (specifically that Comair 5191 is incorrect) that I've seen so far is original research. If a reliable source is identified which suggests that the current name is incorrect, then I might be inclined to change my mind (although that is unlikely because I think WP:NAME is pretty clear on the issue), but as I see it now, the point is moot to start with because reliable sources suggest that "Comair Flight 5191" is both correct, and the preferred naming convention for this flight by media, the airlines, and the NTSB. --Sykes83 22:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Original research!? Find me one timetable or flight status log that uses the combination of Comair and 5191! It's either Comair 191 (see flight status sniplet below) or Delta 5191 (see any ticket or timetable). The combination of the two is original research by Delta and/or the media. -newkai t-c 23:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
That proves that Comair 191 and Delta 5191 are both appropriate designations; however, how does that give any indication whatsoever that Comair 5191 is incorrect? As it has already been proven, there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of reliable sources that suggest that Comair 5191 also a proper designation. What has been presented that directly refutes that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sykes83 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Although I agree that Comair 191 is the most correct designation, I also agree with Sykes83 above. Our beef is with the media, et al, who have chosen to use the Comair 5191 designation, not with the editors of this article. VxSote 03:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Consider why the media is using Comair 5191: (1) to avoid confusion among the general public, and (2) because the airline and the NTSB are providing that info to the media. The fact that official sources are using the "incorrect" name and that nearly EVERYONE calls it by the "incorrect" name makes it de facto correct. The media has therefore made no mistake -- only a few Wikipedians who are avoiding reality in the name of "correct" are mistaken. It may not fit the custom, but it is what it is -- and that's apparently Comair 5191. To call it otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is to introduce POV. The way the article is named right now looks great, especially with the explanatory note in the intro. Goeverywhere 04:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


It should be noted that ship 7472 was a Canadair CL-600-2B19 Regional Jet CRJ-200ER - not a 100ER, as was incorrectly mentioned on the page numerous times. http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0471147/L/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Siebenviertel (talk • contribs) .

It has been noted that the aircraft was in fact a 100ER, not a 200ER. See elsewhere on this talk page. VxSote 20:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Comair CRJ Image

The copyright tag says "This is a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit." I don't exactly think putting this photo on a page about an aircraft crash promotes Bombardier's work in the media. Although it does illustrate the work in question. Any opinions? Perhaps Image:Lufthansa.crj-100.d-aclp.arp.jpg or Image:SkyWest-United Express Canadair CRJ-700ER.jpg although they are not ideal. Todd661 08:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not either of those. Lufthansa is the wrong airline. The SkyWest/United Express image is not only the wrong airline, but not even the right aircraft type (at least a CRJ-200 is nearly identical to a -100, the -700 is notably bigger). Obviously, the best option would be a photo of N431CA, but I don't have any of those. I do have a photo of a different Comair CRJ-100ER, N941CA I could upload. Will do that tonight if nothing better is proposed by then. Oh, and new topics are supposed to go at the bottom. ;) -- Hawaiian717 21:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Image of Crash Location

The bullseye on the image showing the crash site may be incorrect; looking at the New York Times images it would appear that the crash site is much closer to the airport (right next to the buildings off the approach end of the runway).

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/08/27/us/27cnd-crash2.650.jpg

The bullseye image is almost certainly incorrect; see below for more discussion of this. That's why I removed it from the article.--chris.lawson 06:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes --- the crash site is beyond the first cluster of trees, located three to four plane lengths adjacent(ish) to the building. The bulls-eye was a valiant attempt, and should perhaps be pulled closer to the runway a bit. Thanks -- Colby Scudder (Lexington, KY)

Comair flight code

Was there a Comair flight code for this flight (something like OHnnnn)? Only the Delta code DL5191 is know so far. MikeZ 13:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

OH191[1] -- Hawaiian717 18:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

DL5191 refers to a Flight Number. )Whenever you are on a commercial flight they say "Welcome abour Delta Airlines flight 5191 with service to ...)

The tail number which is the identity of the aircraft is N431CA. You can find the registry information for N431CA at the following website FAA Aircraft Registry

Comair and Delta operate under separate air carrier certificates. Air traffic control identifies this flight as "Comair 5191," whereas "Delta 5191" is a marketing reference. The flight is dispatched and operated by Comair for a Delta schedule. Contrary to the author's statement, "Comair 5191" is the more correct reference.

In any case, there's no point in changing and/or moving the intro sentence regarding the flight code every five minutes. Ma.rkus.nl 16:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
ATC refers to ComAir flights with 3-digit ComAir flight numbers. If you fly ComAir, you will notice that the pilots, probably out of habit from ATC communications, will says, for example "ComAir Flight 123". Some of them also append "Delta Flight 5123." Very rarely will you hear a pilot say "ComAir 5123." As the above anonymous poster points out, ComAir operates under a separate air carrier certificate. ComAir flights are referred to in ATC as "Comair", not as "Delta." Therefore, ComAir flight numbers are more correct for the ATC and maybe NTSB, where as Delta flight numbers are more correct for the purposes of marketing and company press releases. I think the current title is acceptable, but I'm going to move the section on ComAir flight numbers into the first sentence. 68.211.185.69

Comair history & investigaion

There appears to be articles in the media about this being the second crash involving a Comair plane within the last twelve months, that the parent company has also gone bankrupt in this period of time and there has been massive reductions in spending and staffing. This information would be relevant to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.99.188 (talk • contribs)

Do you have a reference for the other crash? Do you have reliable sources that explain the connection between the parent company bankruptcy and this accident? We don't want to invent such a connection ourselves. Weregerbil 15:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The information about the last twelve months is mentioned in the history section of the Comair article. Mention of previous plane crash, bankruptcy, cost cutting and job reductions. Maybe that article isn't authoritive enough either. Eregli Bob. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.99.188 (talk • contribs)

You mentioned a second crash within the last twelve months. I still can't spot it. There was a crash in 1997 which is older than twelve months, did you mean that one? What would be needed is a reliable source explaining the connection between parent company bankruptcy and this crash. We can't go around suggesting there is a connection if we don't have reliable sources saying there is a connection. Weregerbil 15:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to say there is a connection to a previous crash, management & financial situations related to this latest crash. Despite this these are obvious areas that an investigation would consider. (My mistake about previous crash, not in last 12 months but in 1997). Eregli Bob. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.99.188 (talk • contribs)

Please read Wikipedia's policy on original research. We cannot report things even if they appear "obvious" to you unless we have reliable sources saying they are relevant. Weregerbil 16:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What Weregerbil said. Unless someone can provide documentation that there is a verifiable link between the bankruptcy of Delta and/or Comair and this crash, this section has absolutely no business in the article. (It doesn't really have any business in the news stories about it, either, but we can't control what the media reports.)--chris.lawson 19:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

yeah, but i think theres a pretty firm case that when an airline gets in money trouble one of the first things that suffers is maintnence. all that you need for proof is a generalised article about it to quote.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.165.8 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Make the case for that in the face of everything so far saying that this was not even remotely maintenance-related, and a fairly straightforward case of pilot error. Go ahead. I'll wait.--chris.lawson 19:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I am a CRJ200 Captain with almost 4 years in the CRJ and have flown in to KLEX many times. While as was pointed out maintenance was probably not a factor it appears human factors were. Most air carriers in bankruptcy have seen huge changes to the working agreements (contracts) with the pilot groups. Contrary to public views contract changes are not only about money. They are also about increasing maximum duty days, more days at work and more flight hours per day. This has the potential of aircrews flying more weird schedules on the back side of the clock. Yes, there are FAA limits - but even the NTSB has recommended changes with these current outdated rest requirements. I have seen the effects on myself and other crewmembers after starting at 4:30am and flying with over 14 hours of duty time. Many of us in the industry have said for a while that the airline industry was on thin ice with the ravaging of work rules and trying to do less with more. Of course all of this will come out in the investigation. I do not work for Comair and do not have their current agreement or know what the rest issue of this crew was but I can say that from what I have heard so far, and based on the gross nature of the alleged pilot error; rest and fatigue might have been issues. Cheaper tickets are not always that cheaper. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.44.129.186 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I fixed some spelling errors and made the statement more readable. Mfields1 22:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

lexington local, editing, please help

I'm a lexington local (living in Georgetown, KY, 11 miles from Lexington), and I used to work at the Bluegrass airport (once as a security guard, and again as a cabbie), and I'm trying to add to the page as I can. I'm watching the news on this and adding what I can. Can someone please help, and clean up my edits, as i'm not very good at editing the wiki. thanks.

---Thanks to the people cleaning up behind me! :)

I'd like to add the location of the crash to the image I just added - do you know the location, and a source to back that up? Thanks/wangi 16:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
They just had the name of the police officer on wlex18, I didnt catch it. Someone add it to the lone survivor part.

OH! the crash location! It was 1/2-1 miles straight out from the short runway, on the airports side of Versailles road. Check WLEX18 website, and other news sources. Extend the line from point 26 to 08 about a half mile, and thats it. That picture's not big enough to show the crash site.

Would this
be about right? /wangi 17:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Fatalities

Would it be appropriate to list as fatalities the two known crewmembers who succombed in the crash? /Swank

that looks like about what wlex18 is saying.
yeah, list them. - Lexington Local.
Done. I'm not sure if it's best to list their positions on the plane (to differentiate them from passengers), but I did as follows:
  • Jeffrey Clay (pilot)
  • Kelly Heyer (flight attendant)
  • Less Morris
/Swank

(victims listed) No! not at all! how will we find out comprehensively if there are similarity's in coincedences. I think this kind of list would be a just contribution to wiki. And since they are available now, it's best to list them now so we note when there are iregularity's, like the 2 japanese civilians, and other possible edits... Victims need our consideration sometimes to be regognised. 80.57.242.87 22:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I live in Huntsville, AL, and they said on the news that one of the victoms/fatalities of the crash was a woman who worked as a project manager for the Intergraph company, although I did not have a pen and paper to write down the name or the details. But I did find some details here on the tv station's website. Just passing along information. --Travlr23 13:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Lexington Herald Leader has a list of victims in todays final Metro edition. If anyone would like, I can type it up here. --melloss

Some lawyers

A google search showed some lawyers are already looking for victim's families http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/airplane_accidents Sorry, this is not with the Wiki policy to post on the talk page but it seems to be a sad commentary on the legal profession.Mfields1 17:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

yeah, i added another section about that on the page. :P -Lexingtonian


dang, gone already. well, this is what i added.

It looks a law firm that has as one of their specialities airplane accidents, and they have a list of other airplane accidents on there as well. It's not surprising that they would include the latest news regarding airplane accidents. Almost all states, afaik, prohibit direct solicitation from anyone known to need legal services in a particular matter. Peyna 02:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It says of the 50 total fatalities, 49 passengers and 2 out of the 3 crew. Wouldn't that be 51? What happened? 198.96.32.149 04:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't currently state that (there was some bad math earlier, briefly) and every source I've viewed has 47 pax and 2 (of 3) crew dead. I'm not sure what you are referring to... is there something I've missed? VxSote 05:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Lawyers

It was quickly learned by a wikipedian through a google search that lawyers had waited less then eight hours on a Sunday to begin searching for the victims familes. website turned up by google search

Public Reaction to Lawyers

At least one local resident of the Lexington area was quoted as saying "All lawyers should be drug out and shot square in the face with a very painfull non-leathal weapon untill dead!"."

Aircraft type

Media sources are reporting this aircraft as a CRJ-200. It's a CRJ-100ER: http://www.airfleets.net/ficheapp/plane-crj-7472.htm . The FAA database is no help since it just says CL-600-2B19 which can be a CRJ-100 or CRJ-200: http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=431CA -- Hawaiian717 18:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Bombardier's website states that the only difference between the 100 and the 200 was the engine types.--Tomtom9041 20:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm watching the NTSB briefing live on CNN that started at about 3:20pm PDT and the NTSB board member confirmed that the aircraft is a CRJ-100. -- Hawaiian717 22:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Strangely, the New York Times is now reporting that a statement by Delta identified the aircraft as a 200: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/27/us/27cnd-crash.html (page 2, at the top). I'm thinking the NTSB's report will be the authoritative source on this once a prelim has been published, though.--chris.lawson 01:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Various sources indicate the plane was delivered in 2001. By 2001 the CRJ-100 was no longer being produced, and therefore the plane was a CRJ-200, and airfleets.net is incorrect. According to the Airliners.net description of the CRJ-100 and 200, "The original CRJ-100 series - the 100, 100ER and 100LR - was augmented by the 200 series (with more efficient engines) in 1995." This particular aircraft was manufactured six years after the switchover. The confusion is because this flight was usually operated by a CRJ-100, but since seating is the same they can often be substituted for one another.

"Augmented" does not mean "discontinued."--chris.lawson 06:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

So its simply strange that Delta reports it as a 200. Maybe a better explanation is that it WAS a 200. A bunch of photos of the aircraft in question N431CA to prove the point http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0516815/L/ http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0471147/L/ http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0803068/L/ http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0889583/L/

So you've now got the NY times, Delta itself, the fact that it was made 6 years after production switched to the 200, the most reputable aviation website (airliners.net) and a bunch of photos all listing it as a 200. What more do you people want?? accept it was a 200 and move on. It's far simpler than saying "strangely" the airline got it wrong, and still claiming you are right

Comair's site has it as a 100. Airliners.net is not reliable, their info (especially if you look at photos) is user-submitted and not always verified. It's like using Wikipedia as a source. :P http://www.comair.com/news/index.html?id=317 -- Hawaiian717 15:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I initially thought it was a CRJ-200 as well, but this FAA website listing a preliminary accident report (it's third on the list): http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/preliminary_data/media/B_0828_N.txt So the FAA says it's a CRJ-100, although I do still think it's weird to see a CRJ-100 built in 2001. Even an AP article I read referred to a CRJ-200, but I think for now the FAA will be the most reliable. Alex 149.169.115.78 17:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The New York Times is reporting that Bombardier and the FAA are alternately called the plane a CRJ-100 and a CRJ-200. [2] It'll probably take a few days for this to be resolved. - DiegoTehMexican 19:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The latest word I have (not from a verifiable source though) is that it was built as a -100 and upgraded to a -200. -- Hawaiian717 01:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the information i provided above, which shows Delta calling it a 200 and the constant reference to it as a 200 (before the crash) i now can put information that will hopefully end this argument.

The initial NTSB report, a source i don't think anyone can argue http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060828X01244&key=1 I'm changing it to 200 and hopefully we can put this issue to rest.144.133.88.7 08:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed this part in the NTSB report: "This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors." Why would you doubt Comair's own information? 65.127.231.6 08:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Because Comairs information probably comes straight off the schedule and was probably written by a worker with no direct involvement in the issue typing a statement. Delta has said it was a 200. Now the initial report of an NTSB team on the ground in Lexington says it was a 200. Thats enough for me 144.133.88.7 10:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

So you assume that Comair got it their own plane type wrong, but Delta got it right? That's convenient. The NTSB report says that it is preliminary and may contain errors. The prelim is not a reliable source of information. The most reliable source we have at the moment is Comair. In addition, your changes cause the statements to not agree with their stated (footnotes) sources.
BBC reported that it was a 200. Airliners.net pictures also say that it is a 200. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 20:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no way for anyone to positively identify a 200-series CRJ based on a photograph alone, as the only difference from the 100-series CRJs is the engine internals. Airliners.net is fairly notorious for having incorrectly identified photographs (right general aircraft, but wrong model or series), as stated above.--chris.lawson 20:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a question no one has asked yet...when a CRJ-100ER is upgraded with engines from the 200ER, does it remain a CRJ-100ER, or is it redesignated a 200ER? My experience suggests it would remain a 100ER regardless, but does anyone know for certain?--chris.lawson 20:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I would think Bombardier would know the type of plane that they manufactured. They are calling it a CRJ100. http://www.bombardier.com/en/3_0/pressleft.jsp?group=3_0&lan=en&action=view&mode=list&year=null&id=3664&sCateg=3_0 Nonetheless, I also see many media articles (like CNN) still calling it a CRJ-200.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Westwind273 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 30 August 2006

Oh, and for the record, the engines in the 200 aren't any more powerful than the engines in the 100, just a tad more efficient (to the tune of 45 km extra range on the 200ER as compared to the 100ER). So for the purposes of this discussion, I'd say it matters not at all whether the aircraft was a 100ER (which it was) or a 200 (which it wasn't). Either one would have crashed under the circumstances.--chris.lawson 04:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Causation v. Result

I made an edit in the section on the crash, changing "intense fire resulting in the crash" to "intense fire following the crash." The previous wording seemed confusing to me, in that it suggested fire broke out aboard the plane before impact which, according to the rest of the section and the news, is not the case. From what I've read it was crash, then fire. So I made the change. "Resulting from" would work, too, I guess. Plumbob78 18:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


There were initial reports that the aircraft was on fire before it crashed, this is from early area TV(WHAS11 Louisville) I'm not sure if stating either way would mean anything, until NTSB issues final report, this seems to be pretty blatant pilot error, or unfamiliarity with airfieldUnseemlyWeasel 01:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Fire when aircraft impacted ground (www.lex18.com)

HEY! (lone survivor)

who took off the lone survivor section?! i think that should stay up there. for crying out loud, how many times does a plane crash and only 1 person come out alive? that also had information about the guys that pulled the co-pilot out of the plane. i think it should stay up. and dont say that putting it in the victims part is just as good. i think he should get his own section in the article because eventually the whole investigation will center on him for a while, and he's the freaking co-pilot! if anyone knows what happened then he's the best bet considering he was sitting in the cock-pit.
put it back! put it back! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.217.165.8 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

new motion

i'd like to introduce a motion to clear this talk page because it's getting pretty cluttered. if anyone needs to read past edits then they can look in the history, but right now this is pretty nuts. anyone 2nd the motion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.165.8 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-27T20:18:24

Sorry, but no. You can halp matters by signing posts and posting in the normal fashion (new comments at the bottom, proper heading levels), see: WP:TPG & WP:TALK. Thanks/wangi 19:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Rename

This article needs renaming. The flight was Comair 191 and Delta 5191. There was no such thing as Comair flight 5191. 84.64.118.121 20:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That's basically beside the point, the WP:NAME policy says "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize"... And in the press & news this is is being refered to as Comair Flight 5191.
As I understand it tickets are only sold via Delta, not Comair - so the Comair flightcode isn't too relevant. Thanks/wangi 20:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
you might be right, cnn.com is calling it delta flight 5191. i'd check some other sources too


here's my sig for the anal-retentive ppl that ruin the spirit of the wiki 68.217.165.8 20:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • so are Fox and CBS--Tomtom9041 20:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delta's website calls it Comair Flight 5191 [3] Dan D. Ric 21:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That is flat out wrong, the accident report will refer to it as OH or Comair 191, air traffic control called it Comair 191, the article should be 191-Reid A. 21:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
According to the flight status:

Airline Comair Inc. Flight Number 191
Departure City (Airport) Lexington, KY (LEX)
Departure Time 08/27/2006 06:14 AM
Arrival City (Airport) Atlanta, GA (ATL)
Arrival Time 08/27/2006 07:25 AM
Remaining Flight Time 01:11 (scheduled)
Aircraft Type Bombardier CRJ 100
Current Altitude 0 feet
Current Groundspeed 0 mph
Flight Status Scheduled

I also believe this article should be called Comair Flight 191 -newkai t-c 03:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'm in agreement with the above two responders. Anyone object to this move?--chris.lawson 04:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Media reports seem to pretty universally referring it to as flight 5191, so that's what most people will recognize. Comair Flight 191 currently redirects to this article; perhaps after the excitement calms down we can switch things around, assuming that the NTSB report refers to it as flight 191. -- Hawaiian717 05:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I support a move to Comair flight 191. Yes, we should follow the most recognizable naming, but not if that name is completely wrong. 191 is the Comair number, 5191 is the Delta number. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I know the media is calling it various names, but we can correctly title the article Comair Flight 191 and have both "Delta Flight 5191" and "Comair Flight 5191" redirect to it. Obviously "Delta Flight 191" shouldn't redirect, however, since it was a famous plane crash in Dallas during the 1970s or 1980s (I can't exactly remember which but that's not important). Alex 70.58.112.77 07:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree as well. It is Comair Flight 191 (as identified operationally on the flight plan), and commercially as Delta Flight 5191. Comair doesn't have a 5191; identifying it as DL191 would also be incorrect. cailloux 13:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The media either is/was misinformed or used 5191 because that's what people had on their Delta tickets, helping relatives identify what flight crashed. We are of course not here for that reason and thus should use the correct flight number. -newkai t-c 11:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a consensus to rename this article to the correct name. I move that we do that. -Reid A. 17:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting debate. I suppose flight numbers are reused all the time, but Delta Air Lines Flight 191 outlines a completely different disaster with a very similar flight number. In that article they even emphasize that "Delta discontinued use of the flight number "191," as is the norm when a carrier suffers an air disaster." Apparently they didn't get very much distance from the number. DeweyQ 17:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

DeweyQ, the point is that this was not Delta 191, this was Comair 191, with a 'commercial' and 'unofficial' flight number of Delta 5191. This number of the flight, as far as the FAA and NTSB are concerned, was Comair 191 and the article should be named as such. I see this is the status quo, let's hope it remains so. 84.65.155.165 20:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Where is your evidence that "as far as the FAA and NTSB are concerned", the number is 191? In this NTSB release they call it "Comair Flight 5191", just like the media. From what I can see, you're claiming the NTSB as an authority without evidence. --Dhartung | Talk 05:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources call it 5191

Here are the reliable sources I have found so far that are using the Comair Flight 5191 designation: CNN, New York Times, MSNBC, Comair, Blue Grass Airport, Delta/Comair statements, NTSB ... need I go on? --Dhartung | Talk 23:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Being reliable does not make them correct; widespread perpetuation of an error also does not make it less of an error. The article is now named correctly, and should stay that way. VxSote 00:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
What is your reliable source for your claim of "correct", then? I'm entitled to ask, as information in Wikipedia must be verifiable. --Dhartung | Talk 02:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Lemme see www.delta.com's timetable. WhisperToMe 02:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Is Delta's timetable the most common name that is being used? --Dhartung | Talk 02:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe the person who is arguing that it is ComAir 191, is doing so quite logically, considering that ComAir flights are referred to in ATC communications with their original 3-digit internal ComAir flight numbers. The four-digit number is just Delta's way of indicating that it is not an original Delta flight and that it is instead one of their partners/subsidiaries. 208.61.5.116
I didn't see in WP:NAME where it says that technical terms used internally by organizations are the preferred convention. Could you point me to the policy where this is supported? --Dhartung | Talk 05:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I would have thought that the sites of Comair itself, Delta, and the NTSB - all of which designate it Comair Flight 5191 - would be the most reliable sources on the matter, since they ARE the parent companies of the flight concerned and the official US Federal Agency responsible for investigating "every civil aviation accident in the United States" (their words) 82.153.129.223 05:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the flight should be called depends on what criteria are used. If one goes by what the tickets read and what the gate agents and flight attendants announced, the flight is Delta Flight 5191 (or if you want to be real technical, something very similar to "Delta Flight 5191 operated by Comair for Delta Connection." However, if one goes by how the pilots and air traffic controllers referred to the flight, then it is Comair Flight 191 (their actual words would have been "Comair 191." Thus far the news media has called it Comair Flight 5191, probably for two reasons: One, the flight was called 5191 everywhere that wasn't "behind the scenes", and two, Delta wants to make it clear that the flight wasn't operated by Delta, but was instead operated by Comair. Therefore one winds up with Comair Flight 5191, which works, but isn't really quite accurate. Alex 70.58.112.77 07:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. That's your criteria. It is an official policy of Wikipedia. I have no idea why people are objecting to this simple and relatively uncontroversial instruction. Unregistered editors, of course, are excused for not knowing how things are supposed to work. --Dhartung | Talk 08:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is an official NTSB preliminary report, where it is clearly called Comair Flight 5191. --Sykes83 16:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

crash location

got more info on that. it was a bit past that white building with the black roof. oh, and heres my signiture for the anal-retentive types that keep ruining the fun of this for everyone else 68.217.165.8 20:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

About runways

Do we really need this section? This page is a report of a crash incident, not a study on airport design. I would suggest the first 2 paras of this section be removed and the rest combined with the heading "The crash". Maybe add a link to the wikipage on Runways if felt really necessary... HTUK 20:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

yeah we need it. it's a major contributing factor to the crash. the runway the plane took off from is 1500 feet too short for that type of plane to take off from. 68.217.165.8 20:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
On what do you base the above claim? Personal knowledge of the CRJ-100ER flight manual? Because as a professional pilot myself, I can assure you that saying "X runway is Y feet too short for that plane to take off from" is a meaningless statement. There are a number of factors that influence takeoff distance, including (roughly in decreasing order of importance) weight of the aircraft, field elevation (altitude), temperature, wind, humidity, technique used, etc. To say that a CRJ can't possibly take off in less than 5,000 feet means something entirely different from saying that a fully loaded CRJ on that specific day, at that specific airport, couldn't have taken off in less than 5,000 feet. I suspect the former is untrue, and the latter is precisely why the crash occurred. (BTW, if your source for the above is "talking heads on TV", I'm not the least bit surprised, and I don't hold it against you. Most people have no idea that the so-called "aviation experts" the cable news channels drag out for these sorts of things are just about useless, CNN's Miles O'Brien being the major counterexample.)--chris.lawson 20:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Have you flown this type of aircraft?  :-) Mfields1 02:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
then I would think that should be said as part of the factors for the crash, pretty much as you'd said it in that sentence - nice and short and without the need for too much direct comment on runway design in the article itself? Helps keep the article to the point and a manageable length. Just a thought. HTUK 20:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
i'm not too much worried about length. i think at this point we should gather all avalible info, and then let it get sorted out later. i think we might need to get a new section about the causes of the crash, but we need to deffinatly state the diffrences in the runway lenghts, minimum runway distance for take off, and we need to put something up there about why this happened. so far i'm hearing a lot about mis-communication between ground controll and the pilots, and pilot error. 68.217.165.8 20:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S. OH! and i want to know what the plane bounced over on the runway! was it just the runway itself, or something on the runway, or what?
The plane could have bounced over the recently paved main runway, or some broken concrete or asphalt on the general aviation runway. The FAA rated this runway as poor. Mfields1 02:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
It's highly unlikely a 50,000-lb+ aircraft could have bounced over anything a mere 900 feet into its takeoff roll (the intersecting runway). Furthermore, you can see the runway condition in several of the photos, and it's not nearly as bad as the AirNav information (which, IIRC, comes from the FAA's Airport/Facility Directory and may not even be in sync with current A/FD information) would lead you to believe. Runway condition was not a factor in this accident. I'm certain of that.--chris.lawson 02:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I have yet to see any report confirm this initial "bounce" idea. (Note that it's not in the main article any more.)--chris.lawson 02:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm somewhat familiar with Blue grass Airport because - when I was still active with the New York Army National Guard - we used to fly into and out from that airport when we did our annual training at Lexington-Blue Grass Army Depot near Lexington. Looking at the photo, I can see a problem with the article. Look closely at the photo, and you will see that - since the photo was taken almost directly above Runway 04/22 from out in Space - that 04/22 is NOT the too-short runway, 08/26 is. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Erm, isn't that exactly what the article states?--chris.lawson 22:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

A note on runway capitalization -- as major news outlets report it, as well as other aviation outlets (AOPA, EAA) -- when referring to a specific runway, then it is a proper noun and the "r" should be capitalized (i.e. Runway 22). When referring to a specific strip of pavement, you would refer to it as Runway 08/22 (including the leading zero, as painted on the runway). cailloux 20:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Please show me a photo where these supposed leading zeros are painted on runways.--chris.lawson 21:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
http://www.fotosearch.com/BNS245/ind119/ Mfields1 21:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's one too :-) http://www.oaklandairport.com/media_photos.shtml Mfields1 21:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Want to start with Google Earth... Heathrow... 09R? (that's bottom left / south east on the sat image), 09L will be the same too. For another, try 06 at Edinburgh Airport... Those two are off the top of my head. Common practise on WP:AIRPORTS is to preceed with 0 too. Thanks/wangi 21:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1093597/L/ 165.236.112.245 21:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not common practise anywhere in the United States. As this is a US subject and a US airport, the zero should stay off. (Have a gander at the Google Earth images of KLEX if you wish. No zeroes.)--chris.lawson 21:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree; you were right. I referenced a few other sources and there is no leading 0. cailloux 21:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Should the division between the ends of a runway be a "/" (slash) or a "-" (dash)? I have usually seen this in print as a slash, but want to make sure that it's consistantly right so there isn't a versioning between the two. cailloux 21:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have an idea for how we can avoid it entirely...I'll go make the change. :)--chris.lawson 21:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Look guys, different sources use different conventions, different countries different markup. However comon use on Wikipedia is to seperate with "/" and include the leading zero (check the airport infoboxes), It makes sense to stick to this in thsi article. Thanks/wangi 22:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

As I stated above, this is a US article, referring to US subjects. It is common practise in the US to number runways without the leading zero. Wikipedia should not contravene common practise for the sake of artificial internal consistency. The zero stays out on US airports.--chris.lawson 22:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Data point: I have never heard the leading zero referenced on US radio communications. Example: "SkyWest 4892, caution wake turbulence, Runway Nine Right clear to land." FCYTravis 22:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Why would you expect to? Thanks/wangi 22:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll second that. I've heard it a couple times from pilots, but I've never once heard it from ATC, and it's not recommended phraseology in the AIM either.--chris.lawson 22:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh please Clawson... Please don't go making a point and stripping the zeros on all the airport articles... Jeez Louise! Thanks/wangi 22:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not making a point. I'm doing the right thing. Find me an FAA publication that shows zeros on runways. Go ahead. I'll wait while you do.--chris.lawson 22:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey, why don't y'all cool it and take this to one of your talk pages? - DiegoTehMexican 22:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Various national civil aviation authorities differ on their terminology. However that is not a valid reason to simply ignore something that has, until now, largely been a standard on Wikipedia airport articles. WP:AIRPORTS exists to try and standardise airport articles on Wikipedia - you're welcome to joinm and welcome to discuss there too. Thanks/wangi 22:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the "/" or "-" separators, I'm not sure which is most appropriate. FAA publications seem to use both, sometimes even on the same page... see http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0608/00084I28.PDF as an example. Also, I concur with Clawson on the removal of the leading 0 for US airports. VxSote 01:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. Where on the approach plate is there a leading 0? In this article the only two runways of interest would be 22 or 26. In the other direction, they might have a leading zero since runways are compass headings with the final digit removed (22 has a corresponding runway 4 or 04 as it would appear on the runway). THere is no reason to mention runway 4 or runway 8. --Tbeatty 05:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


ONe other thing that I haven't seen is the effect of the illusion but it will be a contributing factor so I added runway width. 26 is 75 feet wide, 22 is 150 feet wide. The illusion is that the narrow runway will look longer than it is. It has fooled pilots before (mostly on approaches with respect to altitude). I suspect this is a reason why it didn't look bad from the pilots point of view since the perspective was the same. --Tbeatty 05:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Images on news websites

Anyone know what the copyright statis on the major news websites is? i'm wondering if we might be able to use those in our article. i'm also wanting to get a more humanitarian strain in this article. what about all the other people that are not involved in this?
here's my sig for the ppl that ruin wiki
68.217.165.8 20:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Their status is "copyrighted" which means they are NOT, with very limited exceptions, fair game for use in this article.--chris.lawson 20:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
yeah, i know. thats why i'm saying lets find out what exactly that copyright issue is. there might be some images that are useable, or in public domain. also it might be that we just need to ask them if we can use their images on the wiki. could even be that we just need to link to the image and give them credit or something. 68.217.165.8 20:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
If you can find any images that are unquestionably public domain, or if you can get written permission, please feel free. I think you'd be wasting your time, though.--chris.lawson 20:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
All major news sites have full copyright: CNN - © 2006 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. All Rights Reserved. FOX - Copyright 2006 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. ABC - Copyright © 2006 ABCNews Internet Ventures. All Rights Reserved. BBC - © BBC 2006. All Rights Reserved. NBC - © 2006 MSNBC.com. All Rights Reserved. They will not waive these rights for Wikipedia. Alexj2002 23:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I won't put a tag at top since it's a current event, but the punctuation should be standardised to appear before the citations, not after. Anchoress 20:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, good work. I came back to do it but it was already done. Anchoress 09:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Terrorism has been ruled out as a possible cause."?

First of all, even the 1 source which addresses terrorism does not say that at all. The FAA use the weasel words of "FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the agency had no indication at all that terrorism was involved."

Second of all. let's think about it; what kind of evidence would already be known so fast that would be an "indication of terrorism"...a handwritten note that survived the fire?

Thirdly, do you really think the Bush admin wants to crush domestic air travel and the US economy by ever admitting this was caused by terrorism if it were to be the case? Remember "National Security" trumps truthtelling every time.

Fourthly, the airplane was "largely intact"...it's hard for me to believe noone got out unless it was an onboard terrorist started fire exactly like the ones that the London guys were allegedly planning.

Fifthly; I simply can not believe this article was published saying "Terrorism has been ruled out as a possible cause." when there is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the sources to justify that rank falsehood. 216.164.203.122 00:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Thanks.
And as someone thats lived in lexington for 9 years, and now in georgetown for the past couple of weeks, i can state from personal experence that lexington is by no means a target for terrorism. why the hell would they want to hit anything here? the whole point of terrorism is to cause terror, and lexington just isnt the kind of city to grab national attention. now yeah, there are a lot of good targets here, but hitting any one of them would only cause agrivation to the locals. no widespread horror to shock the nation and scare us all silly.
Lexingtonian 68.217.165.8 19:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Problems confirming the crash site with Google Earth

1; Live TV is showing the plane carcus nestled next to a forest. The only forest I see is at the end of the longer runway

2; Why are there no crash scene photos online that actually show the plane carcus? They just show cars (NOT EMERGENCY VEHICLES) parked around some buildings.

3; The one CNN crash photo(click on gallery is terrible and but it does show a forest which google earth does NOT show at the end of the shorter runway.

4; This photo showing an emergency vehicle going up a road toward the crash site; Google Earth shows a road like this near the long runway but not the short one.

I would simply like to see a crash scene photo with perspective to the runways; can anyone find one? Comair Man 00:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


There is a "forest" at the end of the shorter runway. I have flown out of Bluegrass Airport many times, so I know.

Furthermore, why is everyone putting absolute faith in Google Earth's data?--chris.lawson 01:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

duh, son absolute faith in what? That you flow off the shorter runway with corsair?? and 'many times' would indicate commercial flights? 80.57.242.87 22:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

why do you say everyone? Mfields1 02:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, anyone. :)--chris.lawson 02:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's your photo. You can even read the 8 at the end of the runway. Dual Freq 01:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


Ya don't put absoulute trust in Google Earth I live close to there...I have flown from that airport several times pretty scary... Caleb09 02:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

also, google earth hasnt had time to update the photos. its not an instintanious process that lets you see everything up to the minute. its simply a large multi image sattelite collage of the earth. in order to get an update the satalitte needs to pass over the area and snap a new photo before you'll see it.

Diagram with no source

I really like Image:Flight_5191_crash_site.png, but it has no source information, and so will likely be deleted from the commons. Can someone come up with a replacement? -Harmil 01:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. I just saw Image:Blue Grass Airport, USGS Urban Ortho, approx crash site.jpg, which will do just fine. -Harmil 01:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I noted above that that photo show the crash site way too far away. See Here. Dual Freq 01:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The current image was uploaded as a replacement for that one. I presume the uploader created it himself, but he needs to confirm that (it appears he's new to Wikipedia and hasn't realised that we need source information yet).--chris.lawson 01:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If someone would like to re-create that diagram and upload it with proper sourcing, here's a Terraserver link that should be a good starting point: http://www.terraserver-usa.com/image.aspx?T=4&S=11&Z=16&X=1774&Y=10531&W=3 The crash site is about 400 meters off the end of the runway and about 75 meters to the left (south) of the extended centerline, at the southwest end of that narrow field. (The thick forest between the runway and the crash site isn't quite as thick now as it was in that photo.)--chris.lawson 02:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved from "Lexington Local" section above...

Cross posting this here since its quite late where Wangi is located and I don't have the tools to edit the image. Image:Blue Grass Airport, USGS Urban Ortho, approx crash site.jpg looks very nice except that several sources say it never made it off the ground crashing into trees just beyond the end of the runway. CBS News Photo 1 shows crash scene with runway in foreground. WSBTV shows a series of pictures that look like the cluster of buildings just off the runway end, maybe 1200 feet. It might be better to place the crash location near that cluster of buildings. See also news.yahoo.com image slide show.Dual Freq 00:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the Yahoo slide show, I would place the final resting place at the yellow arrow.[4] Dan D. Ric 04:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I pretty much agree with that. I would have put it about 20-30 meters further east (right), but that's the general ballpark. Clearly, the crash image we have now needs to be revised.--chris.lawson 04:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I based my image on several sources at the time... at that point it was still 1/2 to 1 mile from the runway and various news shows were running sat images with the area matching mine. I'll updated. Thanks/wangi 08:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Comparing the cited photos with the current diagram, I concur that the approximate location is marked correctly, however it does appear that in the time since the satellite photo was taken, the two long buildings have been replaced, a number of trees have been removed, and some roads have been resurfaced and/or reconfigured. These differences initially led me to question the accuracy of the diagram. 165.236.112.245 17:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Government reaction" section

That the NTSB has launched an investigation into this crash is not remotely noteworthy; their standard practise is to investigate *all* crashes involving loss of life. However, I didn't want to remove the line entirely because the NTSB investigation is arguably part of the government's response. It seems really silly to point it out, however, which is why I inserted "routine" in there in an attempt to emphasise the fact that this was a "standard" investigation just like any other. If someone has a better way of saying that, please do so, or remove the sentence entirely if you think that's appropriate. (Removal would be my favoured course of action.)--chris.lawson 01:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  • The problem with your use of the word "routine" is that it raises the question: Are there non-routine investigations? Are there various levels of investigations, with routine being one of them? Now that I undersand what you are saying, it would probably read better if you said something like, "As in all air crashes, the NTSB has launched an investigation." The fact is, it is not an investigation like all others. All investigations are different. They follow standard routine practices, but the investigation is different and the outcome is, of course, different. Crunch 11:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I solved the problem by removing the section entirely. The reaction has not been notable (read: unusual) in any way, so why mention it?--chris.lawson 19:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Crunch 22:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Photographs

I say it's notable to link to a list of airliners.net photographs taken of the specific aircraft involved in the accident.

There's a link in External Links that does exactly this.--chris.lawson 03:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, IMO now is not the time for a victim list, eventually a victim list is going to be needed here (We are talking about 50 people, after all). WhisperToMe 03:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

50 people who, largely, apart from their status as victims of this disaster, are otherwise entirely non-notable. Number is irrelevant here; the criterion of notability is what must be applied. My heart goes out to the victims and their families, but the line must be drawn somewhere.--chris.lawson 03:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Spellings?

Can anyone confirm the spellings of the first responders' names? The New York Times article [5] differs from what we have here, and from what I saw in one or two other articles earlier.--chris.lawson 03:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

I've nominated this article for peer review, as I think the core group of people working on this article throughout the day have done a bang-up job with it. Good work, all!--chris.lawson 05:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of what has been added has been deleted. :-) Mfields1 22:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Odd section

Can someone explain to me the relevance of the section on crashes of other airlines with the same flight number? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 06:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps its creator can? I think it's sort of dubious too, although it's awfully odd that that flight number seems to be so "jinxed" in the US.--chris.lawson 06:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it should go under a "trivia" section or at least a statement of coincidence should be added at the beginning of that list. I do think it's noteworthy but could be worked on a little bit. 70.58.112.77 07:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed this section as useless coincidental trivia. Feel free to do the same yourself in future articles as this problem is unfortunately widespread and recurring. — GT 08:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
It's much more than useless coincidence. Flight number curses are quite a big thing. When a flight crashes, an airline (particularly in the US) will not use that flight number again for many years, if ever again. I do agree though that this article doesn't need a whole section on it. 81.77.202.210 13:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think curses on flught numbers exist, but i am convinced the suggestion of curses on numbers exists. Its actually a challenging comparison to look up the 191 flights, in the first one half a whole redaction perished, female playboy redactives, but still..80.57.242.87 22:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The Tower

Has anybody read anything on what the airport's tower was doing/saying at the time? One would hope an alert tower would radio the cockpit well before any real buildup of speed. Perhaps it's a very small affair and they were preoccupied by a simultaneous flight? Might even be a story of staff cutbacks leading, at least indirectly, to these deaths, JDG 07:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The media has blamed the pilots for the crash. Anyone with any knowledge of the aviation industry will know that the media do not know of what they talk and that blame attributed in the immediate aftermath of the accident is generally eroneous. My attempts to remove references to sensationalist media reports are therefore the right thing to do. The ONLY valid explanation as to what happened will be the NTSB report when it is published. While this will take time, and therefore not appeal to the media and to those on the public who would prefer a scapegoat to the facts, the fact remains that any talk of what happened is, until the report is published, mere speculation and probably wrong. Ministry of Information 10:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It's virtually a certainty that the media has it right in terms of blame. (Even a broken clock...) Lining up on the wrong runway is always pilot error, as the pilots have the final responsibility to ensure they have adequate runway length. Even if the tower gave them the wrong assignment (which doesn't appear to be the case) then the NTSB would likely find fault with both the pilots and the controller. (This is based on my observations from other crash reports.) Birge 09:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Move to Comair Flight 191?

I think we need to move this to Comair Flight 191, since that's the accurate flight number. --Kitch 13:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not really the accurate flight number... The flight is operated by Comair, but sold by Delta - the flight number on tickets will be DL5191. Also see section above dealing this this issue too. The current article name reflects the name most people would expect to find the article at - it's the title a lot of news outlets are using. Thanks/wangi 13:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
THIS IS ALREADY DISCUSSED ABOVE IN THE SECTION 'RENAME'. Please continue further discussion there.

Other take-off crashes by Canadair CL-600 series aircraft

There may be no connection, but here's a list of recent crashes of the smaller, private, Canadair CL-600 series aircraft.

From: http://www.zap16.com/civ%20fact/civ%20Bombardier%20Challenger.htm

  • 10oct2000 C-FTBZ CL-604 Bombardier Aerospace during take-off from Wichita-Mid-Continent Airport, KS USA the airplane stall at an altitude too low for recovery. 2 fatalities / 3 on board.
  • 04jan2002 N90AG CL-604 Agco Corporation crashed during take-off from Birmingham IAP, United Kingdom. 5 fatalities / 5 on board.
  • 28nov2004 N873G CL-600 Air Castle crashed out of control in take-off from Montrose County Airport, CO USA. 3 fatalities / 6 on board.
  • 02feb2005 N370V CL-600 DDH Aviation the pilot aborted the takeoff at Teterboro Airport, NJ USA, but the plane skidded off the runway. It went through the perimeter fence, crossed a highway and crashed into a building. About 15 people were injured, one critically, but nobody was killed. 0 fatalities / 11 on board.
  • 09mar2005 N660RM CL-600 Romeo Mike Aviation during take-off at Tupelo Regional Airport, MS USA. 0 fatalities / 7 on board.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.193.221.144 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I really don't think there is any connection. Firstly that's a different aircraft, secondly this accident was caused by the pilot using too short a runway. The crashes you mention were caused by other reasons that could not have possibly caused this accident (for example N90AG was caused by icing on the wings, see Birmingham International Airport (UK)). 84.65.155.165 20:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
There's not really a connection, since this was an airliner, and those are bizjets operated under different operating rules. 132.205.44.134 22:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)