Talk:Mohawk Airlines Flight 40

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Did You Know An entry from Mohawk Airlines Flight 40 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 13 September 2006.
Wikipedia


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Installed Backwards?

Reading what the FAA Airworthiness Directive has to say I think the valve was defective in design was not installed backwards?

And the replacement valve has to be insulated and the piping replaced with higher melting point Stainless Steel.

Mkouklis 09:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Just got through doing some wikification to the article and making sure the links work but now that I've read the whole NTSB report I'm inclined to agree with Mkouklis. I couldn't see anything explicitly stating the part was in backwards, only that it was defective, its flaps were warped, etc. It appears that the only thing 'backwards' or 'reverse' was the airflow due to the defective part, not the part itself. Welcome any proof to the contrary because otherwise, while it's a worthwhile article, the investigation section wording would have to be modified and it negates the reason it was nominated for DYK... Cheers, Ian Rose 10:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The entry at Mohawk Airlines said it was installed backwards. - Blood red sandman 16:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
So I see. Was that your only source for the wording in this article? Maybe the guys who wrote the Mohawk Airlines article misinterpreted their sources and it started there. I checked that mechanic's memoir and he didn't say anything about the part being installed backwards either. As ever in the wonderful world of Wikipedia, I'm not so much concerned with truth as verifiability and at this stage I can't see anything to verify it. I'll see what I can find from the Mohawk Airlines editors and if no joy there we'd better change both articles to something more in line with the NTSB report's wording. Cheers, Ian Rose 05:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm going to go ahead and remove the information about faulty instalation from the articles for now, before it does any more damage. If a source turns up it can allways be replaced. Changing the wording from "installed backwards" to "failed" shouldn't be a problem since even if it was installed backwards, it still failed. Therefore, while slightly more vague, at least it isn't downright misleading. - Blood red sandman 06:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)