Talk:Spanair Flight 5022: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:51, 21 August 2008

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Disaster management

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Aviation: Accidents

	Aviation portal 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 is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Spain

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain 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.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Medicine: Emergency Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Emergency medicine and EMS task force.

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 August 2008. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

WARNING, Times online is WRONG!!

They have misunderstood the death toll number! it is only 45 confirmed by now, watching it live on Spanish TV...David (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turn out they were right afterward. Dead count is now 153 and probably will raise as there are many injured with serious burns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.9.165.184 (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fix history

Can an admin fix the history? We have two occurrences of this article. This article was redirected to Spanair Flight 22 after an edit history had been established. I don't care where the article lives, but we have two histories now. --Elliskev 15:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The admon neds to fix the page to be on Spanair Flight 22 to be inline with other articles eg United airlines flight 93 American Airlines Flight 11 and Pan Am Flight 103--Somali123 (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAS Confirms

SAS has confirmed 166 passengers were on board and that 27 have survived 19 injured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.163.135 (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

El Mundo

El Mundo are saying at least 140 dead. The Spanish Emergency services are saying 28 survived the crash but one of the survivors died on the way to hospital, there were 164 passengers aboard and nine crew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.25.58 (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanair confirms

Spanair confirms 164 passengers and 9 crew were on board —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.147.147 (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Spanair Flight 5022

This article should be moved to Spanair Flight 5022, but only an administrator can do so. – Zntrip 16:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please move. The wrong title is being aped on other Wikiepdias, so we're not helping... --Mareklug ^talk 19:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be quite happy to clear up this issue if I knew what was wrong with the current title. Please explain this. Adambro (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The aviation accident project guide says it should be <<airline>> Flight <<flight number>>, without the ICAO or IATA designator, please also refer to all the other accidents with a flight number. MilborneOne (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

citation needed

The Regional Authority in Madrid has so far confirmed that more than 100 people have been killed as a result of the crash. In addition, it has also been confirmed that there were 166 passengers - including two babies, and 6 crew members on board.

Can anyone provide the official statement from the Regional Authority or a news article to confirm this?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.116.60 (talk • contribs) 16:29, August 20, 2008 (UTC)

BBC news eyewitness

BBC 24 News report eyewitness account that the plain was airborne pas decision speed, rolled due to a left engine failure. The tail snapped on the ground and set a 1 Km2 patch of a ground a light. This prevented the emergency services to reach the plane for 15 to 20 minutes. reported at 17:42 Scubafish (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great journalism... if it was airborne by the laws of physics it would have to be past decision speed... but erhh.. rool due to engine failure?? Not likely, engine out on an md-80 does not cause excessive roll, nothing that is not coutnered byu rudder input. Lets not jump to conclusions on the causes of the crash but I doubt that engine out had much to do with the actual crashing, roll would have to be caused by other failures. Noserider (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

166 (164 plus two babies), not 164 passengers

There were 166 passengers, not 164, according to spanish media. ^[1]. The airplane had 15 years old (nine of them operating with Spanair). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jicosa (talk • contribs)

Airport history section not a good fit?

Seems like the 'airport history' stuff should be moved into the article on the airport itself instead of being a part of this article. This article is regarding a specific aircraft/incident/crash, so unrelated stuff like past crashes at the airport seems out of place here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.209.16.204 (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.. who added this? What good does add a history about how many planes crashed in Barajas ? I have reviewd many other crashes wikis and non has a "Airport fatalities" section. I think should be removed.. and/or moved to complement the wiki of Barajas international airport. If anyone wants to know about airplane accidents in Barajas then he/she should visit its wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.9.165.184 (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the section to give a home to an existing piece of info about one of the 1983 accidents. Then I expanded it. Feel free to remove the section if you think it doesn't belong. --Elliskev 18:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue whether it fits or not, but it's wrong. The collision in 1983 occured while one plane was departing and another turned onto the runway. They weren't both landing at the same time (neither was landing.) Iberia 350 Boeing 727 and Aviaco 134 McDonell Douglas DC-9 Titaniumlegs (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

I know nothing about image use. Can we use this? If so, what needs to be done? --Elliskev 18:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nevermind. It's in the article now. --Elliskev 19:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section needed on emergency response

I think we could make a separate section on the emergency response for this article. Do any of the news articles cover this angle adequately? __meco (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top image

Presumably that's not the specific plane. Shouldn't there be a note? zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly, it is the same plane... --Hapsala (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The aircraft was wearing the Star Alliance livery. http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6269382&nseq=3 //\\ AirbusA346 //\\ (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines Air

What's the relevance of the link to the Philippines Air crash? Bruxism (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a particular relevance between any of the 'See Also' section, the cause of the crash is unconfirmed (while runway overrun is a possibility, it has not been confirmed yet), the planes listed weren't even of the same type (They were Airbuses, this plane, although similar, was not) 84.45.134.188 (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but it appears to have crashed way before the end of the runway after getting airborne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.249.161 (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move... again

Could someone move the article back to Spanair Flight 5022? – Zntrip 21:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Arwel (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plane history

This airplane, registered EC-HFP was originally delivered to Korean Air in 1993 and it was registered HL7204 and HL7548. It was leased to Spanair in 1999. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.96.104.219 (talk) 01:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survivors between rows 14 and 17

Is it too soon to post to say that the survivors were between rows 14 and 17?

http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2008/graficos/ago/s3/t4_spanair.html

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ [1], [2]

[1] [1], [2]

[1]

@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
 BBC <s>24</s> News report eyewitness account that the plain was airborne pas decision speed, rolled due to a left engine failure. The tail snapped on the ground and set a 1 Km2 patch of a ground a light. This prevented the emergency services to reach the plane for 15 to 20 minutes. reported at 17:42 [[User:Scubafish|Scubafish]] ([[User talk:Scubafish|talk]]) 16:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
+Great journalism... if it was airborne by the laws of physics it would have to be past decision speed... but erhh.. rool due to engine failure?? Not likely, engine out on an md-80 does not cause excessive roll, nothing that is not coutnered byu rudder input. Lets not jump to conclusions on the causes of the crash but I doubt that engine out had much to do with the actual crashing, roll would have to be caused by other failures. [[User:Noserider|Noserider]] ([[User talk:Noserider|talk]]) 09:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 == 166 (164 plus two babies), not 164 passengers ==