Talk:Swissair Flight 111

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Swissair Flight 111 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 21, 2006 Good article nominee Listed September 21, 2006 Peer review Reviewed June 10, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept Current Status: Good article

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

Aviation WikiProject     (Rated GA-Class) 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: Aviation accident task force WikiProject Disaster management 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. WikiProject Switzerland (Rated GA-Class) Switzerland Portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Switzerland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 until? 2 Future of the article 3 Good article 4 Boeing? 5 Boeing and impact acceleration 6 Recommendations 7 Importance 8 Citations 9 Infobox image 9.1 1992 photo copyright question 10 GA Sweeps

[edit] until?

The Canadian Transportation Safety Board (TSB) did not release its preliminary report until August 30, 2000 and the final report was delayed until.

Until when?

Any update on the lawsuit?

Y 2003-02-24 is the last update date on the TSB report. Ref 18 speaks to the end of the lawsuit.

[edit] Future of the article

I'm hoping to get this article FA-status, and as such am in the process of re-writing/adding/updating it. See:Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Wikipedia:Article development, Wikipedia:The perfect article, User:Trevor MacInnis/Article Creation and Improvement Drive. I have the TSB report, but would like to know about any reputable websites/books with other information. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 07:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sone things we need:

1. images that are not Non-commercial licenses.
   1. check [1], [2], [3], [4]
2. something about how big the investigation was (for example, I know they invented new ways of investigating, but can't find a reference for that fact,)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevor MacInnis (talk • contribs) 2006-08-05T04:09:24

The TSB report goes into the techniques used at some length.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article

I've made some minor tweaks but in general I think it's a very good article deserving of the title. Having seen the National Geographic documentary on it, I feel this article provides good and detailed coverage of the accident, without using too much technical terms. BabyNuke 20:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

edit: Note, I've have listed it under "Engineering and technology - Engineering failures and disasters" BabyNuke 20:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boeing?

The article states that the aircraft was a Macdonald Douglass product, so I am wondering why was Boeing involved in the investigation and compensation of victim's families? AbstractClass 02:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boeing and impact acceleration

I believe that Boeing had purchased McDonnell Douglas around 1996/1997 so that's why Boeing was involved in this.

I really wonder, though, what was the source for the figure of 350 g's as the impact acceleration? That sounds awfully high. It would imply that objects traveling at the plane's speed (300 kts) came to a stop in about 3 meters. Is there a decimal point missing in that figure? I couldn't find a reference to it in the TSB report. Sean Breheny 209.6.248.221 00:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the one who inserted that number in the article, but I just watched the documentation "Air Crash Investigations - Fire on Board" and this figure was mentioned their too. But it also looks kind of strange to me. --80.218.149.71 20:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas says the buyout 1997. The TSB report 1.13.3 says "in the order of at least 350 g's". This number makes sense, water is an incompressible fluid of much greater density than that of the aircraft, so in impact the water has to be moving at the same speed as the front of the impacted a/c. Compare the mass of water displaced by a cylinder the size of the a/c cabin at 1 tonne/cubic metre to the mass of that cabin.

Delta-v = 300 kt * (1 - m_cab/(m_cab + m_water))

LeadSongDog 18:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recommendations

Section should be more extensive. This is the whole reason for doing the investigation.LeadSongDog 00:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Importance

I've bumped the importance scale on Wiki Project Switzerland to high in accordance with the guidelines. The worst and last major accident in the history of the flag carrier, necessitating the largest and most expensive crash investigation effort in Swiss or Canadian history, dominating news coverage for week, likely contributing to the demise of the carrier (previously regarded as one of the safest in the world). This has to be at least high if not top importance.LeadSongDog 20:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Need a good cleanup. Given the number of refs to the TSB report, I think Harvard style would be best for this article. Objections? Volunteers?LeadSongDog (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox image

Nelievsky said: I fail to see how a user created CG image can be more important that the actual plane image, even with an old livery.)

It's not about the "importance" of CGIs or photos, however the reason livery is important simply boils down to accuracy, the CGI shows the plane as it looked at the time of the incident. Using the 1992 photo is likely to give those who don't know better the impression that the plane looked in 1998 as it did in the 1992 photo. (PS You may not know but many photos on this project are user created as well.) Anynobody 06:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The CG graphic beats the real thing in terms of "accuracy" ? Are you kidding me? I do know that many of the photos on this project are user created as well. So? What's your point? Nelievsky (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1992 photo copyright question

I recognize the photo from Airliners.net, which says Photo Copyright © Christian Waser, all rights reserved. Airliners.net is not affiliated with any entity mentioned or pictured herein. All trademarks are the property of their respective owners. I feel awkward asking this given the disagreement regarding the infobox image, but can you provide some kind of proof that Christian Waser authorized usage of his photo? (All rights reserved is incompatible with a {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} license) Anynobody 06:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would you assume that there's a copyright issue with that image??? You should really feel awkward asking this. The image was uploaded with propper permission from Christian Waser. Feel free to contact him if you insist. Nelievsky (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)