Talk:Tupolev 124 ditching in Neva River

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Aviation accident task force

	Russia Portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

	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] Quality standards

The article shouldn't be called "Tupolev 124 ditching in Neva River". It should be something like "Pulkovo Airlines Flight 2093" (just an example).

Furthermore, it should be encyclopedic and start with the title (in bold).

--Ysangkok 17:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aviation EQUALS fixed wing ??

This article strikes me as being a bit odd. It asserts that this flight is one of the few cases of a commercial flight ditching without loss of life. Which is very peculiar since I personally know 3 people who have ditched in (different) commercial flights, each without loss of life. On the other hand, I know as many people who have ditched in commercial flights where there has been loss of life. I am, of course, talking about commercial helicopter flights, servicing oil installations. Which makes me wonder about the way that the aviation industry (or people writing about it for Slashdot (I mean Wikipedia! Whatever.) are using the term "commercial". I'm not going to follow this up, becasue I don't particularly care about aviation except as a user, but maybe someone from the plane-nut wing of Wikipedia might want to take this up to a more appropriate level in the Aviation discussion. I think that "commercial" is being used here to mean something it doesn't mean in normal English. I read "commercial" and I think - 'a business, run for a profit'. In which case obviously the helicopter industry is commercial because the companies are run for a profit, and people fly in them for a profit (our pay-cheque). But I think that the aviation talk-shop are using "commercial" to mean "not military". which appears to be a false dichotomy. In terms of the training we receive before flying in helicopters, the equipment and survival suits we're required to use for flying, the ban on alcohol, food, or anything to listen to ... in all these respects we're more like "military" flying than pissed-up businessmen sharing a plane with first-time-flyers going on holiday. But we're most definitely not military. There seems to be a split here between the popular use of terminology in aviation and the reality which someone really needs to address, because it leads to nonsensical statements like the one that headlines this article.

  Anyway, 2 €c worth.
  If anyone interested in aviation wants to discuss this more, I do actually occasionally look at my talk page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Karley (talk • contribs) 00:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)