Talk:List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Death Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Aviation: Accidents

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contents of this List article, including standardized format and style, are controlled by a dedicated guideline, with comments in related discussion area.

Number of page views in the past 30 days

Table?

This would be easier to extract information if it was a sortable table. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by sortable table; could you elaborate a little? [ Dinosaurs are cool 03:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC) ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinosaur330 (talk • contribs)

I think like the one here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population SqueakSquawk4 (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I too want a table for easy sorting. Any objections?SqueakSquawk4 (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

2019 Saha Airlines Boeing 707 crash 03.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bold face

There is no need for every link in the article to be in bold face. MOS:BOLD describes the cases where bold face should be used. None of them apply here. It has no obvious significance and it looks horrendously ugly. So, I removed it all. 80.189.156.156 (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no, it's been replaced. The significance is that in each sentence, the main target article is in bold, just like the Main Page. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Separate Article

I think this article should be separated by year like this. -- Si Gam (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What would be your reasoning for that? Is it because this article is getting unfeasibly long these days? There might be an argument for separating by decade, that would at least break it into about ten separate subarticles. Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joy, 10 or more subarticles for me to put on watchlist so as to revert entries of accidents without articles....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of accidents and incidents on commerical airliners grouped by year listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of accidents and incidents on commerical airliners grouped by year. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Colonies Chris (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Explicit inclusion criteria

It's not obvious to all users that the page Wikipedia:List of accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format exists. There is a link to this page above the edit box when editing with a conventional computer, but mobile edits don't see this notice. The MOS suggests adding direct statements about list criteria in the lede (WP:SALLEAD), and so I have proposed changing the lede to This list of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft includes relevant events that have a corresponding Wikipedia article, and conform to the inclusion criteria. The list is grouped by the year in which the accident or incident occurred.. But now I seem to be finding myself in an edit war. I think a summary of the inclusion criteria in the lede would reduce ineligible entries, and help to communicate that this list is not all-inclusive of every aviation mishap. Hadron137 (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody have a justifiable reason to support or oppose the inclusion of a link to the list criteria page in the lede, as stated above? Hadron137 (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE: I've asked twice that you please discuss this matter. I'm going to go ahead and make the change I've described above, following the guidance in WP:DISCUSSFAIL. If you revert without responding here, then I'm going to have to file a complaint against you at ANI for disruptive editing by reverting without discussing.— Hadron137 (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Oppose per MOS:LINKSTYLE, Do not create links to user, WikiProject, essay or draft pages in articles, except in articles about Wikipedia itself. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 10:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts, BillHPike. Do you know of a better way for an editor on a mobile device (cell phone, tablet) to know this page's inclusion criteria? These editors never see an edit box or the notice above this article's edit box. Hadron137 (talk) 02:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose List criteria aren't explained in the lede part of articles....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE Please read WP:SALLEAD. It states A stand-alone list should begin with a lead section that summarizes its content and ... makes direct statements about the list criteria... Hadron137 (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the point of contention is the use of a wikilink to the project page. I have updated the lede with inclusion criteria, but omitted this link. Hadron137 (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For about the fifth time, you have no consensus for this. What you're doing isn't done around here....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, WilliamJE, but I disagree. What I'm doing is supported by WP:SALLEAD and MOS:BOLDAVOID. Adding inclusion criteria to the lede is very common on many Wikipedia lists. Including this information will communicate to readers that this list isn't alll- inclusive of every aviation mishap. And it will likely reduce the number of ineligible entries submitted - especially by users of mobile devices, who cannot see the notice above the edit box. Hadron137 (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC inclusion criteria

There is a clear consensus that the inclusion criteria should be defined in the article's lead and that it should not be dependent on projectspace for context.
Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

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.

This list has its inclusion criteria in a separate project page. For editors using conventional computers, a notice appears above the edit box with a link to the project page. But for mobile editors, there is no edit box, so they never see this notice. How should the inclusion criteria be referenced in a way that is accessable to all readers, and editors who are using mobile devices? Hadron137 (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could comments not be used at the top of each year (so users editing a section see them) using , or placed where a commonly misinserted item would be inserted, with something like -  ~~ OxonAlex - talk 06:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria are more than just having a WP article. Aircraft size and that it is a commercial flight are also criteria. Notable people sections (of town or city articles) have  at the top but editors routinely ignore them, don't read it etc....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Summoned by bot. Yes, the inclusion criteria should definitely be explained in the lead. No article should be dependent on projectspace for context. No problem with the stylistic instructions there, or for an edit notice to emphasize certain practical elements (e.g. it has an article), but the context to understand what's in the article should be in the article. It's not like there's a big lead here already. If it takes a couple paragraphs to explain (preferably with an explanation of why), that seems ok to me. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Summoned by bot. I agree with what Rhododendrites said, and can't improve on how they said it. Thryduulf (talk) 09:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everybody for the feedback. I have (for the fifth time) added the inclusion criteria to the lede. I think we have consensus from this discussion and from WP:SALLEAD that the inclusion criteria should indeed be in the lead. Hadron137 (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your close is improper per WP:RFCCLOSE. You're an involved editor....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WilliamJE. I have restored the RfC tag. Hadron137 (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Invited by the bot) I agree with Rhododendrites & Thryduulf including Rhododendrites's comments. I would add that projects don't own articles and can only influence, not dictate anything regarding articles. North8000 (talk) 12:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Photo of McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30 LN-RK, Feb 1984.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The rules in this list is mismatched with the Portuguese list

If you have a look of the Portuguese list, you will notice that the rules are different and this can cause confusion, I think this is terrible for Wikipedia since the lists are translation but conceptually different and if so, must be renamed. Please have a look: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_de_acidentes_aéreos

...William Could you please have a look? I don't think it makes sense.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pp.amorim (talk • contribs) 20:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The rules here are quite clear. A aircraft must be able to seat 10 to be included on this list. You know something? The criteria, which have been in place over a decade, weren't even drawn up by me. Save your time for something else....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy your list. Pp.amorim (talk • contribs) 20:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese Wikipedia and English Wikipedia operate independtly from each other. There is zero need for the Portuguese and English lists to have the same criteria. SSSB (talk) 10:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Wreckage of the ill-fated Dana Flight 992 on the 3rd of June 2012.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

inclusion criteria

While the requirement for modern accidents to have their own standalone article makes sense due to the media intense environment that surrounded those incidents, this doesn't make any sense whatsoever for accidents prior to WW2, where the amount of detail, both for the aircraft itself (to justify splitting the page), and the media coverage available is significantly less, and isn't in the least way indicative of the significance of the accident. That has given this page an enormous bias toward modern accidents, belying the reality that 95% of all the significant accidents are missing, being deliberately excluded from here, but only because they fail to meet an incredibly pointless and artificial threshold. Perhaps for older aircraft it should be possible to link to a section of a page devoted to said accident? Alternatively, we split this page at 1945, and have less onerous criteria for incidents prior to then. Indeed, looking through most of the earlier accidents - most of those pages are barely even stubs, and should never have been made into separate articles, especially given the small size of almost all of the parent pages. - NiD.29 (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What changes to the inclusion criteria do you propose? More specifically, you write that ...the media coverage available [for these accidents] is significantly less, and isn't in the least way indicative of the significance of the accident.. In the absence of media coverage, how do you propose to gauge the significance of such an accident? (For what it's worth, media coverage often exists, it's just harder to find on the Internet without access to academic databases.) Lastly, perhaps Wikipedia talk:List of accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format would be a better forum for discussion of this topic. Cheers. Carguychris (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trust that the discussion isn't even on the page it applies to - thank you for the link.

Your unnecessarily condescending reply that completely ignored what I wrote suggests a lack of reading comprehension. I already made suggestions as to what to do, above, and I also did NOT say there was no media coverage, or that there wasn't enough to determine significance, or that I had difficulty in finding it, but rather that there isn't enough to justify more than a paragraph, and thus an entire stand alone page for the accident, and yes, I do know where to look. Massive difference.

As I said, in many cases, there isn't sufficient detail for both the accident and the aircraft type to justify a stand-alone page, least of all for aircraft whose entire entry won't EVER be much longer than a stub (and I know because I have expanded or written dozens of such pages), regardless of the actual importance of the event. You can see this in almost every accident listed prior to the 1930s - the accident should never have been split on any of them, except perhaps of the Fokker F.VII losing its wings. - NiD.29 (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raleigh-Durham Airport CASA C-212 fatal incident

This one seems to be missing. I would add it, with a source citation, but the article meta editing text says not to do it without a full blown Wiki article in place. "Raleigh-Durham International Airport and the pilot of a stricken CASA C-212 twin-engine turboprop light cargo plane involved in a fatal incident on July 29" Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR - parse out and reduce length suggestions

We have articles which will pare down this "too-long" listing. See List of aircraft hijackings and List of airliner shootdown incidents. Every “incident” need not include the hijackings or war-time events. Hat-notes can direct the readers to the pertinent lists. – S. Rich (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more crashes to 2023

There are more than a few more plane crashes in 2023 that yall have missed, so I am adding them. The entries are based on Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2023. 113.210.92.159 (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Past tense needed for past events

This article is full of present tense statements, as if these accidents and incidents are ongoing. MOS:TENSE says, "Generally, use past tense only for past events..." Present tense is generally favored in articles (e.g., "Obama and Trump are former US presidents," not "Obama and Trump were US presidents"), but not when describing events that have already happened. In the case of air crash articles, they are always in the past. (We don't learn about them until they've happened. If they haven't happened, we don't know that they will happen, so it's a WP:Crystal ball issue.) This article needs a bit of fixing. I've done 2022-present. Dcs002 (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 had a mix of items in past and present tense, but the farther back I look, the more uniform the present tense becomes. Why is that? Historical events are in the past, not the present, and writing about them in the present tense affects readability and goes against the MOS. Am I missing something? I know some history buffs like to write in the present tense about battles and such, and that's fine, but we have a standardized Manual of Style here. I've changed 2022-now, and I'm going to pause here. If someone can justify this deviation from the MOS, I'll revert my own tense edits. Dcs002 (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dhc-8 and Cessna 172 mid air collision in Kenya

add 2001:B07:A3B:23C1:B4AC:DB68:316D:43CB (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add 727 safe air crash in South Sudan

https://avherald.com/h?article=516d7275&opt=1

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/378591 SignorPignolini (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Cetraca Aviation Service March 17 2024 Disaster.

Okay Guys, you completely forgot a passenger plane crashed in March 17th, so guys, if you are reading this, make a new article about this plane, this plane overran a runway. Type of the plane is a Let L-410UVP. CarterCart (talk) 08:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

71.114.103.105 (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found another plane accident/incident you guys forgot to add.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Left guide (talk) 23:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal

There is no consensus for the split at this point in time. Mjroots (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I propose that this list is split. Suggest by century, so that the List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft in the 20th Century would cover 1919-2000, and the List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft in the 21st Century would cover 2001-2100. Mjroots (talk) 06:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - while the article is long, there are plenty of other articles of similar lenght. The main problem presented by some is the article being difficult to ring, it is not a good argument because the context table was created specifically to make the reading experience easier and more enjoyable. While I can support certain actions like removal of excessive amounts of photos, this is taking it too far and would make the reading experience annoying for those who would like to read about the accidents and incidents in a single, confined article. Nagito Komaeda the Second (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The article is long yes, but it is easily navigated as you can jump to any year. Having all crashes on the same page makes things easier. Plane'n Boom1 (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Agreed with @Nagito Komaeda the Second. Splitting the article is too far. Having all the accidents in one article make it a bit easier regardless of the excess byte size.

Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - yeah, going against the consensus. I agree that the list is getting rather unwieldy, and the century mark is an easily understood and intuitive split point. Carguychris (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that, however the navigation table makes the article easy to read. In addition, what do you mean by 'unwieldy"? Nagito Komaeda the Second (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

1959 Washington Boeing 707 crash

The 1959 Washington Boeing 707 crash was added to this list. I don't dispute that it involves a commercial airliner, but the inclusion criteria for this list specify that the aircraft must be "carrying paying passengers" or "carrying cargo for hire", and the accident occurred during a demonstration and acceptance flight that, as I understand it, was carrying only Boeing and Braniff employees. Pinging user @Plane'n Boom1. Carguychris (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case, we'll have to remove atleast a dozen ferry and test flights Plane'n Boom1 (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps those entries should be removed as well. Many older entries aren't being policed closely. Alternately, maybe a new discussion on Wikipedia talk:List of accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format is in order. Carguychris (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed removal of test and ferry flights

In the previous discussion of the 1959 Washington Boeing 707 crash above, it came to my attention that numerous preexisting entries appear to violate the inclusion criteria stating that the aircraft must be "carrying paying passengers" or "carrying cargo for hire". This excludes test flights and ferry or repositioning flights, including flights carrying deadheading airline employees, airline mechanics, government inspectors, aircraft company engineers, or other non-revenue personnel.

Here's a list of entries I've found. In most cases, I have not done any independent research on the incidents; I'm only working from the entry itself or the target article. If a listed entry DOES meet the inclusion criteria, please present an argument why it should be retained. Additionally, if I have missed any non-qualifying flights, feel free to chime in.

1928 Imperial Airways Vickers Vulcan crash
~~Swissair Flight 306 (1963)~~ 1963 BAC One-Eleven test crash
1966 Felthorpe Trident crash
Overseas National Airways Flight 032 (1975) [I've edited this one. Although the flight was carrying 129 passengers, all were deadheading ONA employees; see the citations in the article.]
Airbus Industrie Flight 129 (1994)
1995 Borodianka mid-air collision
Airborne Express Flight 827 (1996)
2011 Garbuzovo Antonov An-148 crash
2018 Pretoria Convair 340 crash
Gazpromavia Flight 9608 (2024)

If anyone objects to the inclusion criteria, I suggest starting a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:List of accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format. Carguychris (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other than Swissair Flight 306, I support the removal of the above entries from this list per the inclusion criteria. The rationale for keeping Flight 306 is the fact that the flight was performing a regularly scheduled international flight and was carrying paying passengers, so no reason in my opinion to remove it. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aviationwikiflight, that was a cut-and-paste error! The entry I meant to grab was the 1963 BAC One-Eleven test crash, which was a test flight carrying only BAC employees according to the target article. Carguychris (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other crashes that fit that category: Pinnacle Airlines 3701, the Saurya Airlines crash, 2012 sukhoi superjet 100 crash (i think)

If removed I propose to create a list of accidents involving ferry/test flights to still make those articles more easy to find SignorPignolini (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SignorPignolini: ...I propose to create a list of accidents involving ferry/test flights to still make those articles more easy to find[.] That seems reasonable, although I wouldn't list them together in the same place, as the concepts aren't closely related aside from not being commercial revenue flights. Suggest creating an "Accidents and incidents" section in ferry flying, as the article isn't very long to begin with, and there seem to be very few notable ferry flight accidents. Carguychris (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we not just vote to change the criteria? People come here to find crashes involving airliners, I doubt they care if it was for revenue. Plane'n Boom1 (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, criteria should be updtated since people have been adding to the list test, ferry, and non revenue passenger flights for a while SignorPignolini (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion started here. Carguychris (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]