Talk:Southwest Airlines Flight 1380/Archive 1

Archive 1

Error fixed

The article said the flight was NY to Dallas. Wrong. I fixed it. It was NY to Reno, NV with stops in Dallas, New Orleans, and Oakland. All those stops are typical of Southwest. Southwest Boat (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

What is with the "blood everywhere" quotes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Southwest Boat keeps adding back in this quote about there being "blood everywhere." That is seriously lacking context and encyclopedic tone. I have removed it two or three times and other editors have removed it several times as well. Now Southwest Boat is adding citations for the "blood everywhere" quote from news stories, but the quote is still basically presented in a vacuum, with no other discussion. The editor seems to just adamantly insist on including this phrasing, and left the following comment on his/her talk page in response to my request to stop adding it back in: It is encyclopedic because it is not some clean airplane landing but blood all over the place. This may be factual, but needs to be in context. Like, really, really in context, or it's highly un-encyclopedic and in danger of being WP:SENSATION. Darkest Tree Talk 20:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that this does not belong in the article. It is very sensationalist. -- Dane ^talk 21:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree. It should go. It's more suited to a tabloid than an encyclopedia. Jororo05 (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Also agree, dose not belong in the article. - Samf4u (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Removed. Darkest Tree Talk 22:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources quote it. It should stay but can be refined. Even the respected BBC reports it. So does NBC. There are also more than one reports of blood. It was very bloody, not just a broken window and broken engine. Southwest Boat (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Consensus here is that it shouldn't be included. Please do not re-add it unless consensus changes. Thank you! -- Dane ^talk 22:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

SOLVED! Don't like "there was blood everywhere"? A more refined sentence with 4 citations has been added to satisfy the consensus that we don't want "there was blood everywhere". The quote is no longer there but there is note of what those 4 citations said. There are actually many more than 4.Southwest Boat (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

"Bloody conditions in the cabin?" Like it's raining blood? Or like British humour about conditions not being very good? Consensus is still that all the "bloody" quotes are sensationalist and un-encyclopedic. Please stop adding it back. There may be a point in time—later—where it is appropriate to address this information in some way, in a detailed, in-context, encyclopedic manner. Darkest Tree Talk 22:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't like it? I aim to please. I have re-worded it to be upper class and proper. Southwest Boat (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't like it? It happened. And very well cited. Show me some citations saying there was no blood? See Air Canada Flight 797. No blood. Just half of the passengers gassed to death, like in Dachau. Southwest Boat (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that it happened and I have expressed no personal opinion on the existence of this or any other blood, inside or outside of people's bodies. However, your insistence on adding this particular content to this particular article again and again in the face of consensus that it does not belong in this form is WP:Disruptive editing. You have been warned with {{uw-disruptive2}} on your talk page. Please stop. Darkest Tree Talk 22:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

You, Darkest tree, are being overly aggressive. Find your own citations if you disagree. Southwest Boat (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The see also section

Do we really need all those links? Apart from British Airways Flight 5390, they are all uncontained engine failures, but none resulted in fatalities. I think this can be better handled by having a category "Airliner accidents and incidents involving uncontained engine failure". Mjroots (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Definitely looks like a mess. Besides that the "The NTSB stated that the aircraft may have experienced an in-flight uncontained engine failure", so linking to confirmed in-flight uncontained engine failure is a bit premature. Also, not sure if Dynamic Airways Flight 405 is really related, and linking to a new category will definitely help to clean this up. Bohbye (talk) 05:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Created the category Bohbye (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A category and a matching navbox would be really good. Delta 1288 should probably stay if it's expanded because IIRC it was instrumental in the formation of standards designed to prevent... Well, to prevent Southwest 1380. That'd need sourced to something a heck of a lot better than my fuzzy memories, obviously, and if I'm wrong then it can go too. But if my memories match the sources then I'd like to see that one left too. -- BobTheIP editing as 2.28.13.227 (talk) 05:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

National Airlines Flight 27 was an in flight uncontained engine failure that did result in a fatality. In fact, of all the accidents that are listed, it is the one that is the most similar and probably should be put at the top of the list. -- Omega13a (talk) 05:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

With the creation of the category, the section has been culled and a hidden note added re the early Southwest incident. Mjroots (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Also added hidden note that "Category:Airliner accidents and incidents involving uncontained engine failure" is already linked in the article. Bohbye (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Categories are correctly displayed at bottom of article, not linked inline. Mjroots (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

True, but added it to stop future additions of more flight on that section. Edited the hidden note to clarify. Bohbye (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• I still think a navbox would be neat for this. -- BobTheIP editing as 2.28.13.227 (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Reformatting the article

I’d suggest to reformat the page similar to US Airways Flight 1549 using relevant data as we know as of now, and update it as more data becomes available. There is too much repeated data and not much order. Thoughts? Bohbye (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Sounds OK, but probably best to give it a few days to allow editing activity to die down a bit. Mjroots (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks Bohbye (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed: No blood (for future editors)

Before someone is going to place back the "blood everywhere" quotes or any variations of it (and going against the consensus here on Wiki), passengers exaggerate sometimes. In fact pictures right after landing show no blood whatsoever. And no, nothing is cleaned off at an accident site before the investigation is complete. (Source) Bohbye (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if there was blood around the one person that died. - Yuhong (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll speculate: the "blood everywhere" reference is referring to the cabin floor (not appearing in photographs) in the area where other passengers administered CPR to the fatality, who experienced extensive traumatic injuries to her torso and upper body due to her partial ejection through the broken window, and very possibly deep lacerations when the window disintegrated. Not meaning to be crass or overly graphic, but one would expect to find all manner of bodily fluids in the area given the nature of those injuries, and I agree that the inclusion of this information is not necessary or helpful to readers, who can most likely visualize the horrific scene without this kind of "color commentary". Not everything that appears in media, even in multiple reliable sources, is encyclopedic. In any case, the consensus is clear in the discussion above. General Ization ^Talk 01:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Flight attendants

Advice issued to disruptive editor, hatting this
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Crying flight attendants is not relevant to the article. 1) Crying flight attendants are never mentioned on any wiki page related to aircraft incidents. 2) Passengers make stuff up as well, see the "blood all over" story that was proven false (see above on the talk page). 3) even if they did cry Wikipedia is not wiki gossip. These type of edits is considered DISRUPTIVE EDITING. I removed it once and it's back again. Please stop it Bohbye (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC) No, reports confirm blood all over. Today, there are reports of blood even outside the plane. The problem is one person took a photo of the passenger's seat and saw no blood but widely reported there was blood all over the floor. Southwest Boat (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC) If something is widely reported in the press, it's a notable part of the story. It's not disruptive to add it, although WP:WEIGHT may apply. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC) This is very important because we usually think the passengers are hysterical and the FA's have a professional sense of calm. This flight showed all the FA crying, one hysterically, but the fireman and medical personnel, who were passengers were cited by the fire commissioner for heroism. The airline is not all bonkers as the pilot was a hero, too. All supported by citations and notable. Southwest Boat (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict) Yes, this was a traumatic ordeal for those passengers and air crew to have to go through, but mentioning the fact that a flight attendant was traumatized and cried is not academically relevant to the accident itself. I tried to look for a source that mentioned a crying flight attendant, and the only source I could find was from this NY Times article. Reuters, AP, Bloomberg, Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal do not mention a crying flight attendant in their articles. OhKayeSierra (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC) I really don't care about Southwest employees, I am an aviation enthusiast. Your username "Southwest Boat" and the fact you registered on wiki yesterday right after the accident, and you insist on trashing southwest employees non stop with edits leaving out information that I keep adding to explain what it means (example the landing speed with an explanation that sounds bad without it, and outstanding performance with it), then your fight about blood everywhere yesterday tells me something is going on here beyond those "innocent edits" you do on this page. Can you tell why the negativity? Bohbye (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC) Based on my interaction with Southwest Boat with their "That's the way modern people talk, but middle aged and elderly don't" on my talkpage, and the "So I have made up alternate language that is very stiff and upper class" on their talkpage yesterday, I believe that this is a very young editor who hasn't quite gotten the hang of the encyclopedia. I've reminded them about BLP and the need to treat subjects soberly and conservatively. At 59 I like to think I'm still middle-aged. Acroterion (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I have seen the hatting (discussion collapsed and placed in a coloured box) multiple times, more commonly in ANI or AN. This can be abused. Even if not abused, it stifles discussion. I recommend using it very sparingly. Having the discussion open for less than an hour for a potentially valid matter is not in the spirit of Wikipedia.

In this case, I see merits on multiple sides. On one side, we try to make Wikipedia look very presentable. In doing so, we often use non-free use images and corporate logos in Wikipedia articles. If done honestly, this is tradition and acceptable. Splashing salacious info would be contrary to this side.

On the other hand, if the cabin crew is really hysterical and cannot do their job momentarily, this is both cause for concern and encyclopedic. In the Germanwings crash not that long ago, the pilot abandoned his duty and committed sabotage by locking the captain out of the cockpit and crashing the plane into a mountain. That's an example of Wikipedia not covering up for the company or trying to be corporate.

My suggestion is to keep this in the back of our thoughts and consider inclusion. If it is mentioned in the report of the investigation, even if not in a big way, it should definitely be included. If it is mentioned in several reliable references, then brief mention is called for. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

We're dealing with a very young, disruptive user in this thread, whom I have warned about BLP and gossip. The thread has served its purpose and is best archived. If you want to open a measured discussion concerning the actions of the flight crew, please do so in a new thread. This one is closed. Acroterion (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not dispute closure. My concern is that we tend to hat things way too quickly. The abuse of hatting is much more common in ANI but occasionally happens in articles. Let's be careful when doing so. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a separate meta-issue - my concern is that a very young user caused uneasiness among other editors with his conduct. Unless you're going to discuss that (which I don't recommend, out of respect for that editor and others), please make a new thread. Acroterion (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The garbage quality of edits keep coming. Intervension anyone? Bohbye (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

First things first

"WAS a regularly scheduled...flight..." ?? HUH? did they suspend it/retire the number since the incident?

moreover, does every single air route have its own wiki? i would think that the only thing notable about this particular one is that this incident occured. i would propose the article be changed to one specifically about same. 198.147.225.21 (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Flight number SWA1380 is completely scrubbed from all timetables for future flights on southwest.com. In a similar case, Southwest retired flight SWA1248 due to a single fatality [1], so its safe to say that flight number SWA1380 is retired. Bohbye (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I don’t get your question about air routes. Every air accident gets its own wiki page, especially one with a fatality. So I am not sure what you’re trying to say.Bohbye (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

indeed, the ACCIDENT should get a wiki; the route itself should not. as it currently stands, i'd expect a lot of history about this same route for days/months/years OTHER THAN THE ONE WITH THE INCIDENT.

propose moving to something more appropriate -- "2018 Engine Failure and Emergency Landing of SWA1380" or "2018 Fatal Incident Aboard SWA1380" or somesuch. like other such cases. 198.147.225.21 (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Please explain why this page should be titled differently than every other Wikipedia page concerning a commercial aviation accident. See my comment below. If you'd like to suggest that every other aviation accident page be retitled, please bring that up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force. General Ization ^Talk 02:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

ok, don't oversell it. i looked at the "list" and there are a whole lot there with "accident", "incident", "disaster", "crash", "collision", "explosion", "hijacking", "shootdown" [sic], "ditching", "disappearance", etc. in their titles. so it's certainly not "every" other such page.

HOWEVER, yes, i will concede they are in a small minority. how odd. i would think there would be some fundamental rule that wiki titles should match article subjects. it may be "pretty obvious" we're talking about the big/final use of flight numbers in all those other cases, but that's not how the English language works. a page about "KAL902", say, should really be about KAL902 writ large...not just one particular day in the life thereof.... 198.147.225.21 (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Titles for Wikipedia articles are constructed so as to be specific enough to avoid any reasonable confusion as to the notable subjects or events to which they refer, and not more specific. For example, see Orlando nightclub shooting. Was that 2016 event the only shooting ever at a nightclub in Orlando? Absolutely not. But it is the only shooting at an Orlando nightclub sufficiently notable to justify an article in the encyclopedia, and because of its use in media to refer to that event, the most likely and natural search term a reader will use to find it. We cannot predict what terms other than the carrier and flight number a reader might use to try to find this article, but we can be reasonably certain it will include the carrier and flight number. As already linked for your benefit below, please see Disambiguation. General Ization ^Talk 02:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

not exactly the same. at least you've got SOME sort of "shooting" in the title there; using flight numbers here is analogous to titling said article "Pulse Nightclub".

granted, people -- and the media -- do use the name loosely to refer to the shooting -- a la "Pearl Harbor", "Twin Towers", "Waterloo" -- but none of the articles in question are named as such. Heck, not even "Watergate" is used w/o an explicit "scandal" in the title!

so, yeah, the policy is misguided, but no, i'm not gonna contest it. i will grant you that UNDER THE CURRENT POLICY this page should, indeed, be just the flight number.198.147.225.21 (talk) 05:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

By the way, a minor point: this is a wiki page (or an article), not a wiki. Wikipedia (in its entirety) is a wiki. General Ization ^Talk 02:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

noted! thanks198.147.225.21 (talk) 05:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

To Bohbye's point, please see (e.g.) List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft. The documented convention here on Wikipedia is that articles concerning commercial aviation accidents and incidents (where there is a flight number) are titled using (just) the carrier name and flight number, not "2018 accident involving [carrier] flight [#]". As noted, very rarely are flight numbers not retired under such circumstances, so no disambiguation is needed. It's pretty obvious we aren't writing about every uneventful operation of that flight number. General Ization ^Talk 01:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

As the General said, There are many retired flight numbers due to accidents and none of them were named like you propose. You expect naming things differently, that is fine, but that’s not how the consensus is on Wikipedia for 100’s of such articles. Besides that there is absolutely no way of knowing flight number history and routes since inception, we just know when it is retired when an airline stops using a particular number. Bohbye (talk) 02:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• I note that our article September 11 attacks doesn't include that bar fight down the street from me on September 11, 2017. EEng 23:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Significant re-write of article has occurred

This incident is quite different from those of years past. This is probably due to the proliferation of smartphones and Facebook. As a result, the article was about 2,000 bytes, increased to 35,000 bytes and now significantly trimmed to 20,000 bytes. I am concerned that much information was lost and not subject to an adequate discussion. Possibly removed by one person to which the remedy could be edit warring or letting it go.

I recommend discussion before information is removed. Sometimes, there are cases that no discussion is needed (like if someone was removing vandalism) but we should err on the side of discussion. With Wikipedia, there is no deadline.

This article has the potential to be very good and more detailed than other incidents. American Airlines Flight 320 might be the old way that an article reads but, with more information available in the modern era, we can do better. Absent any input, I will follow what the undiscussed consensus is and make the article like AA 320. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Reformating an entire article to match an ancient event from 1959 us unacceptable. US Airways Flight 1549 is a bit more appropriate. Bohbye (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I take no prisoners with respect to overdetail, but many of Vanguard's removals seem pointy. EEng 05:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Blocking hole with body

There is at least this report that one passenger blocked the hole in the plane for up to 20 minutes with his body. I think if true this fact is worthy of inclusion but am reluctant to place it in the article yet without further details and sources which I expect will emerge if it is true. So just noting it here for the moment. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/17/us/southwest-airlines-explosion.html?action=click&module=Intentional&pgtype=Article Phil (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it says this: "Mr. Tranchin said that one of the passengers helping had at one point placed his lower back up against the opening in the plane, in an apparent effort to help with the compression. The man did this for the next 20 minutes, Mr. Tranchin said, adding that the man later told him that the pressure at his back had been extreme." I agree it could be added. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

If he felt pressure at his back then there was something serious strange going on. In any event the idea of blocking the window with his body was magnificently impossible. EEng 23:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The pressure he felt would have been pulling at his back. I think the notability arises from the effort not the physical success. But even a partial closure would have prevented other objects or people being sucked out? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

wrong use of oxygen masks

Many sources, at least 10, report this, some as the main point or title of the article. Very relevant. I did not write this except I did add some citations.

Southwest Boat (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Passenger photographs taken during the emergency showed that many passengers did not follow procedures how to wear an oxygen mask correctly, that is, covering both the mouth and nose, despite the mandatory pre-flight instructions demonstrated by the crew.

The fact that many passengers were not wearing their oxygen mask correctly was reported in many reliable sources. It is significant that many pax no longer listen to the safety instructions. One editor seems to have a difficulty with this issue, despite the multiple sources, describing the matter as "trivia" and repeatedly deleting it. I'm at 3RR on the matter, so I welcome the opinion of other editors. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

What we have is a picture, a lot of amateurs commenting, and a lot of sources noting that a lot of amateurs are commenting. When a serious source passes on that someone really in a position to know says that this is "wrong", then the article should mention it. I have little doubt such a source will appear in due course. In the meantime it's just breathless gee-whizzism. EEng 06:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

IMHO certain items cannot be ignored when the visuals are right in your face. The same as you can't ignore "uncontained engine failure" because its right in your face that this is what happened. Investigators are required not to make any conclusions at the early stages because they don't want to be sued, but we can't just ignore facts that anyone knowing basics of aviation knows. It's a disservice to the community on Wikipedia. Bohbye (talk) 07:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Nobody suffered any adverse effects from this. It's a minor detail worth a sentence, nothing more. Mjroots (talk) 07:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The cabin crew should have ensured correct use, but it sounds like the level of panic was so great that other matters seemed more important. It would have been far more notable if the oxygen masks had failed to deploy. But I agree with Mjroots. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Stop simplifying the page

Readers are NOT stupid, and having aviation terms within the page is perfectly fine as long they are linked to wiki articles. Also, stop deleting 50% of an article just because you can do that. Wiki is not a place to summarize everything, it is a place to provide useful data. Another project known as Simple English Wikipedia exists for that reason Bohbye (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I thik this simplification was 100% justifed. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Removing excessive sources is not simplifying an article and is definitely justified, but rewriting an article to make it stupid simple for 5-year-olds as Simple English Wikipedia does, is BAD. Bohbye (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you'd have to provide some examples here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC) p.s. Simple Wiki is read by many adults with reduced language skills and by non-native speakers. Please don't insult them.

This is just one example where STANDARD data on accident flights (just one example) has been removed for no reason. A summary box doesn't mean that all data must be stripped. I will add it back in a few moments Bohbye (talk) 11:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Well yes, that may be "standard data". But in this case I think it's quite misleading for the reader, as the flight never got that far? Plus the fact that it has nothing whatever to do with the accident. I think you should await consensus before adding anything back in. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

On April 20, 2018, it was revealed that Southwest Airlines gave a $5,000 to all passengers of the flight along with a $1,000 voucher for future travel on Southwest Airlines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southwest Boat (talk • contribs) 19:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Not relevant. W sure paid for meals and drinks for deplaned passengers at the airport after landing, relevant? no. Bohbye (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

US Airways Flight 1549 has the same mention of $5,000. Edit war there? No. Southwest Boat (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Quote from above section: Reformating an entire article to match an ancient event from 1959 us unacceptable. US Airways Flight 1549 is a bit more appropriate. Bohbye (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC) Of course, Bohbye could justify her protest by saying "but...but....but....that part of the article is baaaad. " Southwest Boat (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

References

NY to Dallas or NY to Dallas, New Orleans, Oakland, Reno, Las Vegas, San Francisco

See Alaska Airlines Flight 261.

That flight crashed on its first leg. That article shows all legs of the trip. Southwest Boat (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Already listed all the info under the summary box and under the flight section. No need to repeat on lead section. Bohbye (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Recently, it was not in the summary box but someone put it back. Southwest Boat (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. But that flight has one stopover, whereas this flight had four stopovers none of which ever happened? How does knowing about those stopovers help the reader understand this accident? Is there a firm policy written down somewhere that demands that all legs always be included? If there is, them I think perhaps it should be adjusted. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Those other stopovers did happen. Southwest got another plane to do the rest of flight 1380. Southwest Boat (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

So ok, another plane. Is that really so unusual? And that tells us what about the accident, exactly? Does that detail really need to be added as a sentence in the article? Is there's some desperately important standardisation that's been agreed for years, at WP:WikiProject Aviation, then so be it. To mind it's not just that it adds nothing, it might actually be confusing. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

No, flight 1380 never continued [2]. Southwest canceled the remainder of the flights and another flight number did those legs, so 1380 did not continue beyond the emergency diversion. And adding it on 3 sections of the page including the lead is too much. Bohbye (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

If that is so, then it's simply not true and should be removed wholesale, in my opinion. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The summary box and the slight section should keep it because that was the original schedule, the intro talks about the particular flight. so it should be kept. Bohbye (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

In my view it should be kept only if it's required by WP:WikiProject Aviation. I think it will confuse the reader into thinking those legs were all completed, possibly even by the same aircraft. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikiprojects prohibit things, not require things. Southwest Boat (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Style guides prohibit things as well, such as overlinking - including WLs to the names of stopover airports in the infobox, which do nothing at all to aid understanding of the subject. It is the same as including a WL to the United States somewhere in the article, or Texas, or California. Utterly unnecessary. YSSYguy (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

This is why the WP:AVIMOS Everything is listed there, is it so hard to folow? Bohbye (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'll repeat what I said in my edit summary [3]: If you had a contest for the stupidest, least relevant factoids you could think of to include in the infobox--the information that, more than anything else conceivable, is most completely removed from anything readers might care about -- this is it. The infobox is an at-a-glance summary of this accident, not some formal regurgitation of flight schedule information having absolutely nothing to do with what happened. It's almost self-parody. It would make more sense to include the inflight meal menus. Same goes, BTW, for putting the stupid aircraft registration numbers in the first few words of the first sentence of the lead [4].

Wikipedia articles are for normal, lay readers, not breathless airfans drooling over registration numbers and flight schedules. That stuff should be present in the article unobtrusively, for those who wish to seek it out -- not jammed into the face of people who came to learn what happened in this accident. Paging MapReader, IanB2. EEng 23:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:AVIMOS Anyone?

WP:AVIMOS exists for a reason, and there is no need to re-invent the wheel.

• SEE GUIDELINES [5] WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Accidents)
• SEE TEMPLATE [6] Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence

Don't edit just because you feel like how it should be, edit according to the guidelines. Bohbye (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Like it says: This page is an essay on style. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how to format and present article content within their area of interest. This WikiProject advice page is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Projects don't own or control articles. Consistency is nice, all other things being equal, but each articles is fashioned according to what will best serve the understanding of readers seeking information on that article's particular subject.

Same goes for the template you've linked. A template and its documenation are not a backdoor way by which some group of editors imposes its ideas of what a given class of articles should look like on everyone else. Again, each article is presented in the way most appropriate for its subject.

EEng 00:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Glad to know that your edits, are the only edits to be considers consensus, really?. I couldn’t care less how the article looks like, as an aviation enthusiast I know better sources than Wikipedia for my data, but I thought for a while that it’s a democratic process where ideas can be exchanged without ego edits and snarky comments to come to concensus and post accordingly to the benefit of the average person reading info on the internet. Your edits plus (a few more) actually proved to me why i should stop donating to Wikipedia from my personal funds and business projects and donate to better causes. This environment as it currently is, is held back by know it all ego edits and the readers don’t really get the data they deserve. In the meantime until I’m back, enjoy fighting each other with the boring editwars. Cheers Bohbye (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Subject-area enthusiasts often have trouble understanding what a general-interest article should look like. Also, know-it-all should be hyphenated. EEng 06:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Bohbye, you actually just said "I couldn’t care less how the article looks like", yes? I don't think that any one group of readers "deserves" anything. I think all readers deserve a generally clear and concise article about the subject. I know the article title is "Southwest Airlines Flight 1380", but the only reason it exists is the accident during the first leg. Readers really won't come here to check exactly where all the legs of that flight were. If they do, Wikipedia is not really doing its job properly. I'd suggest that the template is there to be used as appropriate, not slavishly followed in all cases - the infobox is meant to summarise the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Martinevans123 I will tell you what users deserve: An article on a recent event has lot's of moving parts and tons of sources. Cutting down on the sources because of over sourcing results on some info not having sources anymore. See the 41 bank issue? Now you might say the 41 bank should not be listed? this article is turning into a joke. At some point someone will decide that listing CFM engines shouldn't be listed either. Bohbye (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Why are you telling me that? This article is certainly not "turning into a joke." It just needs a bit more care. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Aircraft

The aircraft section seems to have disappeared again. Almost all aircrash articles have a separate section covering the aircraft, in which details such as registration, msn or c/n, age, history, engines etc are detailed. The BOAC Flight 712 article (rated GA) is a good example of how such a section should be handled. Mjroots (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Uniformity is fine, but only when there's nothing else to go on. Each article is laid out according to what's best for the topic it covers e.g. US_Airways_Flight_1549. In the present case, it's silly to have tiny sections of two sentences. As more facts come in and the article grows that might change, or it might not. EEng 05:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to that article, it is nothing but eye candy! straight out of aviation literature, written for serious aviation enthusiasts and professionals. Unfortunately, it has too many terms that needed WP:WIKILINKS for others not falling into those categories, AKA 99.999% of the population, and English Wikipedia is read by many and not just by English speaking folks. I added as many wikilinks I could to that article and I hope they won't revert it and add some more to help others not to get lost in an outstanding article. This article Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 is a recent event and still at the frequent edit stage, so it makes sense to wait a while before it can have more of a final look. I agree that "background" is not a good title for that heading, and personally tried a few times to change the heading from "Background" to "Route, aircraft, crew and passengers" the same as a more recent event US Airways Flight 1549, but editors kept changing it back many times. Bohbye (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

"... nothing but eye candy!"? Wow. Do you realise the amount of work that's been put into that article? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Work that I put into that article. Getting it to GA took a lot of effort, but was very rewarding. It complies with MOS:JARGON, which says that jargon can be used where unavoidable. Mjroots (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

See also flaw

There is a major flaw in SeeAlso which I am discussing on the WP:SEEALSO page. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Major_flaw_in_WP:NOTSEEALSO This flaw results in articles that are remotely related qualify for SeeAlso but the most important one doesn't, leading to sometimes hostile WP discussions.

In this case, there has been significant and even hostile debate whether to include the related Southwest fan blade incident in SeeAlso. We should try to make the Wikipedia processes better, not make the same old debates every time a big event occurs in life. Vanguard10 (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

If the article is already linked in the body of the article, then it is not repeated in the see also section. Mjroots (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Naming the deceased passenger

I noticed that this article does not provide the name of the deceased passenger. Is there a reason for this? I'm not aware of a policy that prevents us from naming the fatality. Edge3 (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Obviously sources give this information and I suspect that in the end it will become apparent that it's appropriate to include it, there's no hurry so we may as well err on the side of privacy for the time being. The reader suffers little for not having it. EEng 04:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Widely named, removed without explanation when it had been in the article for quite some time. Restored. WWGB (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

When it comes to the privacy of individuals (living or recently deceased) we are supposed to take a conservative approach. There was no hurry, and it would have been better to just let things lie for a bit. EEng 05:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The name is widely known and reported by several news outlets. There is no longer an expectation of privacy. Edge3 (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it was just edited out again by another editor. Wonder how long that will last. Bohbye (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, looks like it was just removed on a reference and not from the article itself. Bohbye (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The name is public. It is silly to edit it out. There is no doubt about the information. Jehochman ^Talk 00:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not silly, especially so soon after the event. Just as in copyright, fair-use, and plagiarism issues we consciously take an approach more conservative than the law requires, and in BLP matters we consciously take an approach more conservative than the law requires, in privacy matters we similarly take a more conservative approach than the law requires -- we don't usually name nonnotable minors where that can be avoided, for example, and we don't usually give full birthdates of most people, even though there's no legal reason we can't. Here, even though there's no "expectation of privacy" (actually, a completely irrelevant legalism having nothing to do with the present situation, but we'll let that pass...) that doesn't mean we should seize on that as the only criterion. EEng 02:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

That passenger is already listed under List of unusual deaths (I tried to talk them out of it on the talk page) and under Deaths in 2018. I wonder if the accident was worse and 20 people got partially sucked out of shattered windows and died, if the same editors would still insist on listing all 20 names on all the articles I mentioned here and on this page as well? Because it’s a single name, it’s easy to place her on lists on Wikipedia without caring much for the privacy and pain of the families involved? Also I have yet to see aircraft accident articles with 100% fatalities where all passenger names are listed, I guess the convenience of listing just a few names trumps the privacy of families? That being said, I am for not naming any passengers until there is a uniform rule that every single name is listed on every single air disaster (this does not include crew members or persons named on investigation reports. Bohbye (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

My governing criterion is "does this information aid a reader's understanding of the subject"; I do not see how mentioning the person's name does that. The important information is that a person was partially ejected through the window cutout, this can be conveyed just as well without mentioning a name. YSSYguy (talk) 07:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

On that basis, we should not be naming the pilot either. WWGB (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

In the case of the vast majority of air crash articles, I would remove the name/s of the crew and have done so many times. Given the recent AfD concerning the article about the captain and the attention here and in the general media, that would be impossible with this article - but I would remove it if I could. YSSYguy (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

"On that basis, we should not be naming the pilot either" No. 1) We name the pilot because it was her extensive experience in having military fighter and electronic warfare jet experience as a Naval Aviator and instructor that aided in her response and instincts, keeping a terrible tragedy from becoming a huge and complete tragedy. That information does assist the reader in better understanding the article subject; 2) The idea behind not naming the passenger has to do with sensitivity and decency following such a tragic death of a non-public individual, therefore, there's no comparison. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

All precisely right. See also WP:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_victimization. While that's really about crime victims, the same principles apply. And before anyone says anything, persons deceased in the last 6-12 months are considered LPs. EEng 16:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think that is "all precisely right". Her military fighter and electronic warfare jet experience need not have played any part at all. All commercial jet pilots should be fully type-trained to cope with emergencies like this. That's a requirement for the job. She obviously reacted as she was trained to. But this was certainly not a military jet. 86.187.161.134 (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, "due respect" is what this is about -- "sensitivity and decency", as Winklevi said. EEng 17:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Distance of location where airplane pieces were found

The article used as a reference reports two numbers in conflict with each other: the printed information says 'about 70 miles', and the video says 'more than 60 miles'. I used the Google map to determine which one of the two is correct, and since it turns out to be 60, I think it would be correct to use the number 60. Maps can be used in Wikipedia articles, as sources; see Wikipedia:Using_maps_and_similar_sources_in_Wikipedia_articles. The template is the following {{Google maps|url= https://www.google.com/maps/dir/PHL+Airport,+Essington+Ave.,+Philadelphia,+PA/Heidelberg+Country+Club,+1+Club+House+Dr,+Bernville,+PA+19506/@40.1839987,-76.0495246,10.08z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c6b6fb61a8460b:0x7e7141f06fb22d50!2m2!1d-75.2422499!2d39.8750232!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c60a8ef4e14899:0x6745dcae6446bfe4!2m2!1d-76.1201493!2d40.4289795!3e0?hl=en&authuser=0|title= |accessdate=10 April 2018}}. --Gciriani (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

What you're linking is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and not an essay with any significant uptake given the very small number of incoming links. What you're doing is classic WP:OR. If there's some minor conflict among sources just say "some 60 to 70 miles away". It's obviously an approximation no matter what. Sooner or later sources will clarify themselves or there will be some official report. EEng 18:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Obviously you are much better versed, and a more experienced Wikipedia contributor than me. Thank you for taking the time to explain policies to me. However, because you mentioned WP:OR, it says: "... (OR) refer to material for which no reliable, published sources...". In fact there is a reliable source, the article that mentions Heidelberg Country Club in North Heidelberg Township, and Christmas Village, in Jefferson Township. Google maps directly supports the distance, as explained in the guideline for OR. So I'm not challenging you but just following where you lead me to.--Gciriani (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

From what you say, the sources give the names of those two places: then those names-of-places are what you have sources for. Putting those names into Googlemaps and asking how far apart they are is OR. The same goes for looking up things in databases and so on. The reason is that there are just too many ways for such queries to go wrong. For example, apparently Koziar's Christmas Village is some commercial establishment. Has it always been at the same location? Did it move in the last year? Do the maps show the current location? Is that the location the source is talking about? EEng 21:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree. There is no need to try to clarify this approximate number through WP:OR, and throwing these locations into Google Maps or Earth and attempting to measure them is just that. Exact measurements will eventually come out—probably in 12–15 months when the NTSB report is released. It can wait. Darkest Tree Talk 18:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Accident location should say over West Berks County, PA

The summary box says Over Bernville, PA, I’d suggest using “Over West Berks County, PA instead.
The argument to use Bernville comes from these articles and similar ones. The locations that come up are: 1) State Game Lands No. 280. 2) golf course at the Heidelberg Country Club. 3) Recovery near the Christmas Village, in Jefferson Township (near, doesn’t say where there is a long road named Christmas Village) 4) Umbrella Hill (nowhere to be found must be a local nickname). What is clear: Trooper David Beohm said he did not know of any other spottings of debris but said they were all in the same general area near Route 183 near Bernville.
According to FlightAware (a reliable source) the aircraft was at the altitude of 32,500 at 11: 03:48 am GPS 40.4486-76.2197 and was at a lower altitude of 29,300 at 11: 04:50 am GPS 40.3611-76.3317, so the accident happened between those locations (the extreme drop in altitude from that point is evidence of the timeline). The flight direction between those points is south-west, and the aircraft turned later south-east and back east to land in Philadelphia. Bernville is the exact opposite of the flying direction at the time of the accident. Yes, debris has been found in the vicinity of Bernville, but it doesn’t mean it happened there as the flight path clearly shows the aircraft was more northwest of that town and debris dropping from 32,500 feet could easily be swept away by the winds southeast to land near Bernville. I am sure the final accident location will be released once the report is released, but we shouldn't mark a location based on debris falling from 32,500 feet when GPS data shows that was not the location. Here is a google map I created to support my argument. --Bohbye (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, if the sources you mention are all we have on this then we shouldn't be saying the location of the accident at all. All these sources say is that things were found on the ground in such-and-such places. That's not a statement of the "site of the accident". We don't WP:SYNTHesize sources to figure our the answer the way Bohbye is trying to. I have little doubt, though, that if we look around there will be a secondary source giving something we can use. In the meantime I'm changing the site to "Over Pennsylvania" (because that's common-sense reasonable) with a . EEng 00:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Bohbye The accident was not between the location at 32,500 and the next location reported by FlightAware. If you look at the rate (of climb) column, at 32,500 the airplane had a slight negative (descent) rate. That means that the airplane had already lost power. Therefore the engine was lost sometime between 11:01:43 AM and 11:03:48 AM. However, as User:EENG#s pointed out in the previous discussion, that would be OR.--Gciriani (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Nice illustration of why SYNTH/OR/PRIMARY forbids our trying to draw conclusions from such raw information. EEng 15:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

What Flight Level was the pilot aiming at when the aircraft passed 32,500? Was it already leveling off? Is the Flight Plan in the public domain? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

No, no, and no. This is all WP:OR. Do not WP:SYNTH or otherwise try to draw conclusions on these kinds of specifics from unconfirmed, non-QA/QC'd third-party internet app data. It is literally worthless for establishing facts here. The facts on parameters this specific will only come from the NTSB's accident report, drawn from data in the aircraft's flight data recorder and the FAA's raw radar data, neither of which we have access to, or would know how to correctly use, interpret, and QC. FlightAware is good for saying that the flight in question existed, and that it took off from Airport A with a planned destination of Airport B, and at what times approximately, and that's about it. Darkest Tree Talk 18:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

So, how is "at 32,500 ft" an acceptable fact, but e.g. "in the climb" or "leveling off" forbidden as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH? I guess you'd say that any mention of aircraft airspeed was also forbidden unless the eventual report concluded that it was a factor in the accident? We now have to remove "to its assigned altitude of 38,000 feet (11,575m)" as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm just saying we shouldn't be using FlightAware data and Google Earth/Maps to challenge reported facts, or to infer at exactly what location and altitude the accident sequence began. Darkest Tree Talk 19:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

We're using The New York Times to support the planned Flight Level. Perhaps their source is NTSB? So I'm assuming you'd be happy to add the airspeed if NYT, or indeed NTSB, had reported it? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

"Under investigation"

Trying to avoid the ongoing unexplained tit-for-tat edit war.... Should the Summary section of the infobox say "Accident under investigation£" or just "Under investigation"? (or perhaps something else?) Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Or you could just go and change it completely without any discussion at all, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we add back all the technical information about flaps, speed, uncommanded, what the regular speed would have been, what the regular flaps would have been, since it has been reported by the NTSB as preliminary findings from the flight recorder? By the way almost all newspaper and magazine information come from the NTSB, so we could delete most of the references.--Gciriani (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Personally I agree with User:Bohbye that it was too much. Happy with the way it is now. But open to other views. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

This issue has come up several times on air crash article Talk pages. Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence says "Brief factual summary of the occurrence - Example [[Mid-air collision]]". The Air France Flight 447 article, where this was a big bone of contention and still gets changed from time-to-time, has "Entered high-altitude stall, impacted ocean" as its summary. There was a big bunfight over the summary in the MH370 article as well. In my opinion, "Uncontained engine failure, under investigation " would be ample; I'm not losing sleep over "caused by metal fatigue" being in the summary, but I think it's premature, as there is no official cause yet. There is evidence of fatigue, but maybe the proximate cause is something else. YSSYguy (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I don’t know why that IP editor insists on sticking in metal fatigue as a cause for uncontained engine failure. Might as well stick in the entire investigation summary in the summary box + the root cause of the accident which is flying the aircraft. Had the aircraft stayed on the ground the accident wouldn’t have happened. Bohbye (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the summary in the info box; I'm referring to the information that should appear in the incident description. NTSB's Sumwalt described in the 2nd press conference a sequence of events describing the modality of the accident, and which are solid, indisputable facts they obtained from the flight recorder. In particular: at engine vibration increasing; then cabin pressure warning horn, pressure dropping to 14,000 ft; rapid uncommanded left roll to 41 deg; typical bank angles are 20-25 deg; pilot leveled wings; fair amount of vibration till landing; the pilots landed with flap 5 deg instead of typical 30 or 40 deg, because were concerned with aircraft controllability; touch down speed at 165 kts instead of typical 135 kts; weather station saw the debris falling down and estimated location; they were found in the area that had been indicated.--Gciriani (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Gciriani, you aren't talking about the infobox, but everyone else in this Section is.... in your first message in this Section you say "add back all the technical information" etc., unless I have missed something I can't see when this was added for the first time for it to be added back. Anyway, add information by all means, with solid references though - preferably not like this edit of yours, which had the summary "reporting both distances and direction from various sources", but you didn't include said sources. YSSYguy (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

YSSYguy, the edit you reported above, didn't need additional references, because they were already there; perhaps my wording should have said summarizing information already in quoted reference. Sorry for misleading you with an incomplete summary.--Gciriani (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

My apologies; however there is but one source stating a distance that was in the article then, it is still there now and I have made a change to reflect what that source says. YSSYguy (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Gciriani, I’d suggest that you revert your recent edit and write that info under the investigation section. It does not fit in the accident story section as it is written now Bohbye (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Bohbye, what criteria do you suggest for inclusion in accident, and for inclusion in investigation?--Gciriani (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Gciriani, I’d say anything that is data that was shared by investigators does fall under the investigation section at this point, including the 41 degree bank part that was initially part of the accident section. Once the investigation is concluded in 12-15 months the accident data and the investigation data might be combined because at that point we will have a clear story and official timeline what and when it happened. So it’s not a revert really, more like separating the accident story and the investigation data as it will become a mess once more pieces of info are released by investigators until a final report is released. --Bohbye (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Bohbye, it seems to me most other details fit that suggestion, like altitude, time elapsed, fan blade separation etc. I looked at the Air France Flight 447 that YSSYguy brought up, but in that article too detail that were learned during the investigation are part in the accident section and part in the investigation section.--Gciriani (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

41 degrees bank

The article says "the aircraft banked 41 degrees to the left and descended rapidly" but I don't see that mentioned in the nbcphiladelphia source currently given. While the immediate banking was very likely an aerodynamic effect, it's not clear if the rapid descent was also controlled or was a deliberate manoeuvre by the pilot (or some of each). I realise we might have to wait for the official investigation report. That source does says 32,000 feet, however, which I think should certainly be added if it can be corroborated. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: it is in the Aviation Herald source, which I'm pretty sure I quoted when I put that in. Of course, people will insist on "removing unneeded references" and it all goes to pot. Pretty soon it will be time to tag half the article with {{fv}}. Mjroots (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hoorah! Then we can all start again. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

It's also in the press conference by Sumwalt, if you listen to it, and which is linked by several of the articles referenced. It's obvious that when the thrust of one engine goes to zero all of the sudden, the asymmetric thrust will cause the airplane to yaw to the left; after that happens the lift of the right wing will cause all of the sudden, and in turn will cause the extreme bank angle. The flight log which is also referenced in this article, shows climb up to 32,500 ft, and then rapid descent, at roughly twice the climb rate. The rapid descent is necessary to bring the pressure in the cabin to a physiologically sustainable pressure.--Gciriani (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you claiming that Sumwalt clarified in the press conference that the rapid descent was all deliberate? If so, I think that should be clarified and supported by that source. Perhaps the extreme bank could also be explained in the note? While video sources are sometimes, I think written sources may usually be preferred for a number of reasons. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

What ginuesses drink

-EEng

Note: many brands over 41° proof

With all the ginuesses removing many sources from the article, one of them that had the info is gone. I know it was there! This is the end result of ignorant editing by the “know it all” editors. Well done! Now tag the entire article “citation needed” and afterwards nominate for deletion for good measure. Ego editors should be thrown off this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bohbye (talk • contribs) 16:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Bohbye, WP:NPA, WP:TPG, and WP:FOC. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I shall not say anything.Bohbye (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

-@EEng: Thanks for the image and caption reminding me of my dyslexia and other disabilities, I really needed it, I might have forgotten for a moment, it definitely made my day. Thank you. Bohbye (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Always glad to help. EEng 18:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

EEng, thanks for the image and caption reminding me of my AA problem. And I had thought this place was a real desert. Anyone fancy a quick AVCAT? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Reinstated ° sign and reference. Mjroots (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

EEng, thanks for the image reminding me of my Arthritis, IBS and Fibromyalgia, and that I can't go to stores anymore. I needed the reminder. - BilCat (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure we could get you something dropped in? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Gatorade would be fine, thanks! :) - BilCat (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey all, this looks to be heading into a perfect example of WP:Experts are scum. We appear to have a group of aviation enthusiasts here, probably several pilots included, who know what the sources are saying and know what happens when an aircraft loses an engine and what the pilots have to do to recover and land safely. On the other hand, we have some other editors who don't understand these things, and in defense of a "general interest article" are seemingly attempting to sensationalize events (contrary to WP:SENSATION I would add) and remove more detailed and expert edits by claiming that the information is not in the sources. This is bad for the article and the encyclopedia. I went and edited the 41-degrees-of-bank wording before stumbling across this argument, so forgive me for being WP:BOLD, but I agree with the editors saying that we don't need to dumb down this article. Darkest Tree Talk 19:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Talking of dumbing down, what on earth is wrong with "41°"? Mjroots (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Quite agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC) p.s. but I think you'll find that only male experts are scum.

MOS:UNITNAMES: "In prose, unit names should be given in full if used only a few times". EEng 21:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, ok! Calm down, EEng. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

But I disagree with this revert as "classic WP:OR". It's a simple fact, reported by an existing RS source, that puts the sequence of events onto some kind of perspective. If the aircraft is banking at nearly 45° it's obvious that passengers are going to move towards that side of the cabin. This makes the effect of the explosive decompression much more severe - any passenger next to a failed window will be helped out by gravity. It also begs a further question which reveals a bit of a glaring omission in the narrative presented here so far - were passengers still wearing their seatbelts? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

That edit, plus what you said, are both classic WP:OR. I don't want to come across as flaming you here, but if you were knowledgeable about about aviation, then you would know that a bank angle does not have to cause passengers or objects to move or tumble from one side or one end of the aircraft to another. Plus, a general WP:RS that does not get basic facts about aviation and aerospace science correct (basically, any mainstream news media like USA Today or CNN) is not necessarily a reliable source on this particular subject or incident, to the extent that they get specifics wrong. A classic example is a pilot or NTSB investigator will report the occurrence of a stall (aerodynamic), and "eyewitnesses" and news media, not understanding, will report this as a stall (engine). Aviation and aerospace science require specialized knowledge to understand, like many other subjects. Darkest Tree Talk 18:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries. You obviously agree with EEng. I added the note: "Commercial aircraft typically limit bank angle to 20–25 degrees during standard maneuvering", because I believed that to be a non-controversial fact, source by a WP:RS, that would aid the reader's understanding of what 45° meant. No more and no less. I must admit I'm now rather more interested to learn if passengers had seat belts fastened or not. But I don't intend to add anything, as I expect it would be quickly removed as WP:OR. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC) p.s. I really wouldn't expect high bank angle to cause anything to "tumble from one end of the aircraft to another." You think 45° would really just go unnoticed?

Fair enough. I think we have all the facts that can be supported by WP:RS on the bank angle and rapid descent at this point in time. More specifics are going to have to wait until we get at least an interim update report out from the NTSB. I and other pilots can tell you that the bank angle was caused by asymmetrical aerodynamic and thrust forces caused by the engine failure, and that the pilots recovered from it as quickly as they could, and that a rapid emergency descent is urgently in order after loss of cabin pressure at 32,500 feet to keep the pax from asphyxiating (especially since they all wore their oxygen masks wrong)—but these things aren't being reported by RS, because the audience isn't pilots. Darkest Tree Talk 18:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and we can't add what "you and other pilots" tell us into the article unless it's properly sourced somewhere. (I think the oxygen mask problem is being reported, isn't it?) At the risk of WP:FORUM, could you and other pilots tell us if the passengers were wearing their seatbelts? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't read the NY Times articles (this one: [7] and this one [8]). Any of the details (altitude, etc.) in those article should be fair game. Reference to FlightAware data is general enough not to be a problem. No word on seat belts—inferences can be drawn, sounds like it was a mix, before and during the incident—but specifics aren't stated. To be clear, though, the victim didn't fall out of the window because of the bank angle. She was blown out by explosive decompression. You couldn't fall out of one of those windows if the bank angle was 90 degrees and you were trying. I haven't seen any sources stating whether or not she was wearing her seat belt, but based on the fact that she remained partially in the aircraft, I would guess she was. It's only a guess, though, don't hold me to it. Darkest Tree Talk 20:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I haven't read whether sources say the 41-degree bank angle was intentional or not, but in light and heavy aircraft (large airliner) that I qualified in (Navy training, same as the SWA captain), a 45-degree bank angle was recommended or directed for an intentional emergency descent. It significantly increases the rate of descent, and I suspect part of the reason is to add some g force to compensate for the reduced g from pitching down (though the reduced g would only persist while pitch was changing) and the added g force would reduce the discomfort from the large negative pitch angle. Also, from experience, even an instantaneous loss of thrust in one engine doesn't induce any appreciable angle of bank that a pilot can't compensate for easily. Holy (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. That puts quite a different slant on things, as they say. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC) p.s. I'd like to clarify that I didn't think anyone would fall out of a window because of bank angle.

Except that the NTSB supports "a rapid uncommanded left roll to a 41-degree bank angle"? So that seems to be a remarkable coincidence. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Martinevans123, what coincidence are you writing about?--Gciriani (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The one between the 45 degrees in Holy's Navy training and the uncommanded 45 degrees i this accident? Not an exact coincidence, but a surprisingly close one, for me at least. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Martinevans123, the NTSB can tell apart commanded from uncommanded because the flight data recorder records both the command entered by the pilot and the flight angles. Therefore they must have seen in the flight data recorder the bank angle change without input command from the pilot, then they saw the pilot countering that with an opposite steering of the wheel (or stick, I don't know what type of transducer they have nowadays on the 737), then they saw the bank angle going back to zero.--Gciriani (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I wasn't disputing that in any way? I was just rather thrown by HolyT's claim. Perhaps User:Darkest tree (or the "other pilots") can comment on that. Boeing 737 Next Generation doesn't tell us much the flight deck, although it does have this image of a 737-8ZS flightdeck. So it looks like they have a conventional yoke? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Holy, I'm curious about your statement that from experience, even an instantaneous loss of thrust in one engine doesn't induce any appreciable angle of bank that a pilot can't compensate for easily. With what airplane did you experience that, and were you climbing, or flying horizontally without accelerating?--Gciriani (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Gciriani In the T-44A Pegasus (twin turboprop) and different types of 707 (TC-18F and E-6A). We practiced many engine-out situations, normally initiated when an instructor pilot (I was an IP in the T-44A) would simply pull the throttle, without notice, all the way back to idle quickly. Never would even a novice pilot or student pilot let the plane roll to any appreciable angle of bank. I can't say if I experienced this under all flight conditions. More often, we would be straight and level, but I probably experienced it in other flight conditions at times. We would also do it, at altitude, during simulated takeoff runs (same power settings and reduced speeds). Some yawing occurs fairly quickly, but it's easily countered with a rudder input. The induced roll is slower to take effect. If you counter the yaw, the induced roll goes away almost entirely. At any rate, as has been pointed out since I wrote, sources say that the NTSB called it an uncommanded angle of bank. Holy (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You said above "a 45-degree bank angle was recommended or directed"? So all of your students failed? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Martinevans123, stop badgering the witness. I don't understand the continuing pursuit of this subject. 1) There are different ways of making emergency descents that are appropriate to varying aircraft types and emergency situations, not to mention the pilot's discretion. 2) Reading one line of the FARs and visiting the Boeing website for the 737NG is not going to properly inform you of all the factors that could be involved in this accident—frankly, no amount of research at the University of Google is going to help. 3) Why the aircraft rolled 41 degrees left is officially unknown at this point, but will come out in the NTSB report and possibly interviews with the flight crew, if they give any. My own personal speculation is that the sudden increase in drag caused by the destruction of the engine, and especially its aerodynamically-important cowling, caused a major induced roll as the left wing decelerated/right wing accelerated, producing sudden asymmetric lift. Unfortunately, I doubt even the NTSB report will go into this level of detail, and discussion of how this happened will be limited to future aerospace engineering textbooks. Darkest Tree Talk 16:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I was trying to understand what HolyT meant. Apologies if that's oot seen as constructive. None of us are "witnesses" to anything here, of course, we're just discussing an event at a Talk page to (hopefully) improve the article. I had thought NTSB had said the bank angle was "uncontrolled", even if they have not officially published that in any written report. Haven't they? I would have thought that would be exactly the level of detail NTSB would want to go to. We'll just have to wait and see. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Martinevans123 I don't understand your statement "So all of your students failed?" I don't understand how you infer that (even sarcastically) from what I wrote. Perhaps you can ask a more specific, straightforward question. If you are questioning the "or": It's been many years since I flew those aircraft and read the manuals. The procedures may have said that the bank angle was optional (pilot's discretion), or they may have said that it was part of the procedure, or they may have given different direction for different aircraft. So the "or" is appropriate and conveys this. Cheers! Holy (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh I see, so it was all a bit optional. It's just that you said Never would even a novice pilot or student pilot let the plane roll to any appreciable angle of bank. I couldn't quite reconcile those two things. Sorry if that came across as in any way sarcastic. I'm really not sure it matters, as I don't see how it will affect the article content here. But it is good to try and understand what people mean. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Martinevans123, I think you have conflated two unrelated issues (which are both separately related to the original issue): (1) I thought that the large angle of bank did not necessarily have to happen as a result of the engine loss, because, in training scenarios, a novice pilot can handle a loss of engine power and easily prevent the aircraft from rolling significantly. (2) If the pilot deliberately initiated an emergency descent, then she might have deliberately rolled the aircraft; I speculated this because the procedures for aircraft that I have flown have included (up to) a 45-degree angle of bank as part of the maneuver. I think you are trying to reconcile two unrelated things that, thus, don't need to be reconciled. An emergency descent is not the response to an engine loss. The response to an engine loss is to fly the aircraft safely (which includes not allowing it to roll out of your control). An emergency descent is the response to a loss of cabin pressure at high altitude. Holy (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That all seems very clear and I agree with all you say. Very sorry if I conflated. The only issue that I really wanted to clarify was whether the 41 degrees was deliberate i.e. commanded by the pilot, or not. It seems it was not. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Very interesting reading in this section. My comments, for whatever they might be worth:

a) The normal SOP limit for bank angle is 30 degrees. That rule is designed to prevent passenger concerns since the very slight increase in G-force would not be discernible by most passengers.

b) The 41 degree angle might indicate the asymmetrical thrust and drag after the engine came apart, caused the plane to roll so rapidly that the flying pilot was caught by surprise and he was not able to stop that roll quickly enough. It also could mean the pilot was deliberately turning off course by 90 degrees, as a means of avoiding any planes below on the same airway and it momentarily rolled more than he intended. In any event, the FDR will be able to tell the NTSB how much of that bank was induced by the sudden damage and how much was intentional by pilot input to the roll axis controls.

c) "If the aircraft is banking at nearly 45° it's obvious that passengers are going to move towards that side of the cabin."

Not true, if the turn was coordinated as the plane banked to the left. The increased G-forces would push the passengers down more into their seats, and would not cause anyone's body to move to the left.

d) The recurrent simulator training for the emergency descent, that is required after a high altitude depressurization, does not allow for "pilot discretion" in how it is to be done. Each plane has specific steps to that emergency procedure, which is required to be memorized and followed, without reading it from any checklist, in the proper sequence. Only if some unforeseen factor intervenes, will the pilot be expected to use discretion which varies from those emergency procedural steps in the plane's FOM. EditorASC (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Maybe she was not able to stop that roll quickly enough? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

In the paragraphs above, the line after point c) confuses cause and effect. In a coordinated turn, it is the combination of centrifugal force and gravity, that cause nobody to move in their seat, and the resultant force push the passenger down more.--Gciriani (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I had assumed that this wasn't a planned turn at all. Just a rapid drop of the left wing. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

"Maybe she was not able to stop that roll quickly enough?" LOL! The stories I read said the FO was flying the plane when the engine let go. Another, said the FO initiated the high dive; but I don't know for sure when the Capt took over the controls, so your guess is as good as mine. EditorASC (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

During the 2nd press conference given by Sumwalt, he clearly describes that the sequence of events, which came from the flight data recorder, is FO flying the plane while still climbing, vibrations increasing, engine readings going to zero, cabin pressure warning horn activated, uncommanded roll, captain taking control reestablishing normal flight attitudes (bank etc.) and starting rapid descent.--Gciriani (talk) 06:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe this statement in the article should be changed, then? "They donned their oxygen masks, and the first officer began a descent." EditorASC (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Certainly seems that way. But exact moment of change of control, back to Capt, is still not clear? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe that should be added, although it's pretty standard procedure. I see that this existing source just says "Both Ellisor’s brother Lance and father, Earl, told Newsweek that the man was in the cockpit at the time of the incident." Martinevans123 (talk) 07:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Not an uncontained engine failure

This is not established as an uncontained engine failure. There is no evidence that the Stage 1 fan blade exited the engine from either the front, or side of the engine. The inlet and fan cowl separation is the only evidence we currently have, and this is not considered uncontained failure, but structural failure resulting from the fan blade damage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.217.214.194 (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

We have the NTSB saying that preliminary results are showing an engine fan blade failure, and that is how they are treating the investigation. There is not a more reliable source than that. Consensus so far has been to leave this in the article. There is no cause to change it or to hedge using "allegedly" or like wording at this point. Darkest Tree Talk 19:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Leave it as uncontained engine failure for now as I think the NTSB report will reflect that. Based on the fact that something struck the window with enough force to crack/break it, can't really see how it could be referred to as "contained". - Samf4u (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

If the fan blade went out the front, it wasn't an uncontained failure. In the previous Southwest Airlines engine failure accident in 2016, the engine inlet was broken off by the fan being out of balance, not by the fan blade going through it. I don't expect the article to be changed - there were several attempts to remove the word before anyone that knew what they were talking about said the word "uncontained", and every time it was reverted. YSSYguy (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

We can learn how it is classified as of now in the two emergency airworthiness directives:

EASA: "Reason: An occurrence was reported of fan blade failure on a CFM56-7B engine. The released fan blade was initially contained by the engine case, but there was subsequent uncontained forward release of debris and separation of the inlet cowl. Preliminary investigation determined that the event was due to a fracture in the blade, which had initiated from the fan blade dovetail. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to fan blade failure, possibly resulting in uncontained forward release of debris, with consequent damage to the engine and the aeroplane"

FAA: "This emergency AD was prompted by a recent event in which a Boeing Model 737-700 airplane powered by CFM56-7B model engines experienced an engine failure due to a fractured fan blade, resulting in the engine inlet cowl disintegrating. Debris penetrated the fuselage causing a loss of pressurization and prompting an emergency descent. Although the airplane landed safely, there was one passenger fatality. Fan blade failure due to cracking, if not addressed, could result in an engine in-flight shutdown (IFSD), uncontained release of debris, damage to the engine, damage to the airplane, and possible airplane decompression."

Definitions of contained or uncontained:

Engine failures may be described as "contained" or "uncontained". A contained engine failure is one in which components might separate inside the engine but either remain within the engine's cases or exit the engine through the tail pipe. An uncontained engine failure is more serious because pieces often exit the sides of the engine, posing potential danger to the aircraft structure and those within the plane.

So how do you classify this one? it's obvious that all of it happened because of uncontained debris hit the wings, fuselage etc. due to a blade failure. Will be very interesting how it will be classified once the NTSB concludes the investigation. Bohbye (talk) 05:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

This is clearly an uncontained failure and the sources back it. It should stay that way in the article. -- Dane ^talk 05:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I am curious as to your background- I am a SME for the CFM series of engines, and can state emphatically that an inlet separation is not an uncontained failure. Axial Airfoil penetration is the defacto and accepted requirement for uncontained failure. Unless there is evidence of airfoils leaving the engine, it can not be classified as such. The missing blade in the Fan is not evidence of an uncontained failure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.217.214.194 (talk) 05:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the last entry by the unnamed SME. The NTSB doesn't say uncontained failure. For all we know at this point in the investigation it could even be the other way around, like a cowling portion breaking off and causing the fan blade to separate. There are no pictures around of a portion of the containment ring that is broken off or penetrated by the fan blade.--Gciriani (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

After the NTSB issued the investigative update today, it's clear they call it an engine failure based on facts and not an uncontained engine failure. Updated the article accordingly --Bohbye (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Relevant excerpt from WP:RS:

"Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred."

FAA definition of "uncontained" engine failure:

"Uncontained Failure. For the purpose of airplane evaluations in accordance with this AC, uncontained failure of a turbine engine is any failure which results in the escape of rotor fragments from the engine or APU that could result in a hazard. Rotor failures which are of concern are those where released fragments have sufficient energy to create a hazard to the airplane." [9]

These WP:RS sources have used the word "uncontained" in their reports. It therefore is quite proper for Wikipedia to use that same nomenclature, even though the NTSB has not yet used that word in their initial statements about SWA Flt 1380. [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], "apparent uncontained" engine failure:[17], "unconfined" engine failure: [18].

I think the phrase "apparent uncontained engine failure" would be a good compromise, especially since WP:RS idicates we should rely primarily upon secondary sources.EditorASC (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree that "apparent uncontained engine failure" is a good compromise. But I really don't see how using any secondary source is to be preferred to using a NTSB report. That seems quite bizarre to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

That is a fair question. My answer is the WP:RS has that requirement because the NTSB investigation is ongoing and they can and sometimes do change their conclusions as additional evidence comes in. To rely on what their latest NTSB press release says (OR, does NOT say), is kinda asking to get zapped.

For now, as long as the usual MSM RS sources don't say something that is obviously stupid, I would do as WP:RS advises: Report what WP:RS sources are saying; secondary sources are preferred by Wikipedia. I would also note that the FAA and the NTSB don't always agree on facts and/or definitions. In fact, it isn't all that unusual to see different NTSB members disagree about what conclusions should be drawn from the facts that were collected during their investigation.

To insist right now that it was NOT and uncontained engine failure, flies in the face of the damage done to the wings and fuselage. All because ONE MAN, Sumwalt, has not yet used that word! I remember reading many different NTSB reports over the years where the members were divided as to what the proper conclusions were, based on the investigation evidence collected. That happened in the Colgan Crash; they disagreed about what part pilot fatigue might have played in that accident.

In view of the fact that many RS publications ARE saying it was an "uncontained" engine failure, AND because the evidence which we can see for ourselves, matches the FAA definition of "uncontained failure," I think it pretty hazardous to ignore all of them simply because Sumwalt hasn't seen fit to say that YET... EditorASC (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

For what it may be worth, ANOTHER highly esteemed aviation publication has used the dreaded "uncontained" word, in the first part of the article. It then says:

The NTSB continues to investigate the accident, which was Southwest’s first fatality. The airplane was en route from New York to Dallas when a blade in the left CFM56-7B engine fan departed, essentially destroying the fragment containment systems meant to prevent debris from damaging the aircraft structure. [19]

I would love to hear arguments from other editors, as to why we should continue to ignore the Wiki RS rule that secondary sources are to be preferred, when it comes to what we should report about what other recognized sources are saying. If it is proper for us to refuse to comply with that Wiki rule, then upon what basis can the same reasoning be properly applied to any of the other Wiki rules for what editors do? We have already long ago dispensed with the rule that all statements must be supported with inline citations. So, why not just ignore all the other rules too? EditorASC (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

That looks like a perfectly good source. I wouldn't recommend ignoring rules just for the sake of it. I would put most of my faith in a final NTSB report, but of course we'll have to wait for that. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, Wiki editors are not told by our rule book to post according to who or what we have a lot of faith in. To the contrary, WP:RS says very clearly that we should rely primarily on SECONDARY WP:RS sources. Once highly respected aviation sources have reported that accident as an "UNCONTAINED" engine failure, then that is what we should say in the article, supported with the appropriate inline citations. I have listed many such sources above, so if I go ahead and report what they say in the article, will I get immediately reverted? If so, then what will be the arguments for reverting my decision to comply with the WP:RS rules? THAT is what I am asking, in a sincere effort to avoid starting another editing war. EditorASC (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, I was agreeing with you? I'm not sure I've been in any edit wars over this topic, or in fact over any topic at all here. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it should be considered "uncontained" just from common sense. The engine produced debris that escaped the crawling. That is the definition of an uncontained engine failure. Just because sources haven't specifically referred to the failure as "uncontained" shouldn't matter. Funplussmart (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

"Common sense" has nothing to do with it; how do you know that debris escaped the cowling? The fan blade broke off - I haven't seen any statement as to whether the blade went through the engine or was ejected outwards - and the gross imbalance of the fan assembly tore the inlet off the front of the engine. The investigation has found that it was part of the cowling that hit the window. The event does not meet the definition of an uncontained engine failure unless the investigation says that it does. Anything else is speculation or mis-speaking in the media. YSSYguy (talk) 06:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I decided to use "apparent uncontained engine failure" as a compromise. I'm shocked that we are having a dispute over something like this. There is absolutely no need for an edit war over this. Funplussmart (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with you Funplussmart. This was not an uncontained engine failure. A compressor or turbine blade would have to penetrate the containment shield or cowling in order to be classified as "uncontained". - Samf4u (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe the NTSB will classify this as uncontained. I guess I'll leave it as you guys want it until they actually say "uncontained". Funplussmart (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment - Primary sources in this case are Southwest Airlines, and CFM, the engine manufacturer. The NTSB, as an independent investigation agency, is NOT a primary source. Mjroots (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I just wanted to add to be sure we all understand that according to the NTSB "An uncontained engine event occurs when an engine failure results in fragments of rotating engine parts penetrating and exiting through the engine case." - Samf4u (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Reactions

Does this section contribute to our understanding of the accident, or is it just political grandstanding? 80.2.41.198 (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I support removal of the whole section. After a loss of cabin pressure they landed the plane, is that really such a big deal? All pat each other on the back feel good horseshit. - Samf4u (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Noone seems to disagree, so I deleted it. 80.2.41.198 (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. I have reverted. The topic of the article is an air incident. The United States Secretary of Transportation and the President of the United States reacted to that incident. This is on-topic and reliably-sourced. Bus stop (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with deletion of the section. The article is about an aircraft engine failure incident not politicians thoughts or actions. Lets see if we can get more input from other editors and reach a consensus on this. - Samf4u (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

You are tearing down the article for no reason that I can comprehend. You say that something is "good horseshit". It is not clear what that means. And you say "after a loss of cabin pressure they landed the plane, is that really such a big deal?" Do you think your opinion on the magnitude of the incident has bearing on what content goes into the article? In this edit, Samf4u, you are removing reliably-sourced information that is within the scope of the article. Bus stop (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Samf4u—you are removing reliably sourced and entirely on-topic information that has been in the article almost since its inception. Why should the "Reactions" section be removed? Bus stop (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I restored section and did a minor edit to it. Two wanting it out and now two wanting it in does not equal consensus. David notMD (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Merging of the paragraphs is an improvement, therefore I approve of this edit and this edit. Bus stop (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

A Reactions section is almost always present in all major air accident articles. Personally, I hardly ever read them, but they don't seem inappropriate, especially if they involve high-profile events such a reception with the President of the US. The section in this article, however, could do with a fair bit of trimming, such as dropping the full list of attendees at the Oval Office. --Deeday-UK (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The reactions section as it stands now does not strike me as at all inappropriate. CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Is this source helpful or even an RS?

[20] discusses the full report. It addresses, among other things, whether or not it was an uncontained engine failure (conclusion is "no" with explanation), the implications of loss of seating as a result of the incident on a full flight, the correct decision to cut short the extensive checklists for this incident, the remedial action recommended as a result of the findings.

I don't know if you feel this youtube site is an RS, but even if not, the points raised are important and can surely be verified from the full report anyway.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Why "preliminary findings" when final report was issued a while ago

This article needs some updating based on the final report. Having such a large section headed "Preliminary findings" is not really appropriate so long after the final report being released. I have already removed reference to an "uncontained" engine failure, as the final report does not describe the incident as such an event.

It if probably worth including the findings of the report that damage to passenger seating in a full aircraft presents problems. The concerns about flight attendants not being in their jump seats on landing is also an issue. The need for redesign of the cowl and its associated components is also a key piece of learning from the report.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Naming the deceased passenger 2

I read all the arguments from Talk:Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1380/Archive_1#Naming_the_deceased_passenger and can see there exists a redirect to this article that names the victim. Furthermore sufficient time has passed for any initial caution to no longer apply.

I agree there is no need for Wikipedia to add to the visibility of this name, but there is no reason to pretend the identity has not been disclosed. There are good reliable sources for the identity, I added merely two.

CapnZapp (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)