Talk:American Airlines Flight 331

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

METAR[edit]

There seems to be a discrepancy in the METAR between [Wunderground and NOAA. The Wunderground METARS consistently show visibility in the tens of thousands of metres. AFAIK, Wunderground is a RS, not sure who NOAA are or their provenance. Mjroots (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOAA are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a US government agency. They are an authoritative weather source for flight operations. I don't know why the Wunderground site states RVRs in the tens of thousands, but it is incorrect. RVRs are never that high. Britney1973 (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems for whatever reason, METARs from MKJP (regardless of source) have the first digit of certain groups repeated. HkCaGu (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

METAR data may be usefull, but it makes the article hard to read and it violated wikis standards Psychocadet (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and that's why I did what I did. I see full translation as unnecessary, especially repeating the full name of the airport twice. Temp, DP and QNH are not too relevant. Saying 320 degrees and not northwest is too cryptic. HkCaGu (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However I do not agree of wiping out everything. That they landed in rain and tail wind (because only Runway 12 has ILS, and the weather wasn't VFR) is and will definitely be determined relevant. The basic elements should be included with a reference to original undecoded METARs. We just can't "explain" and "analyze" the info due to WP:OR. HkCaGu (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't METAR data itseld be considiered a primary source? Also, the raw data is useles to the average reader. As to "explaining and analyzing", it's better to cite a reliable source such as this one, or a similar one, that does the "explaining and analyzing" for us. - BilCat (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Wunderground and NOAA sites are not primary sources. The actual METARs are issued by the airport authorities, they are the primary source. I agree that a METAR without translation would not add much to the article for readers who don't understand the code, hence the translation. This is not synthesis as the source quoted shows the translation of each part of a METAR. In this case, it points towards the runway being wet as there had been recent rain (a contributory factor). I've heard on Pprune that the aircraft was landed hot and long, but this has not been added to the article as it is not from a source which Wikipedia deems reliable enough. Personally, I think that the METAR does add to the article. Perhaps it could be in a (sub)section of its own? Mjroots (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Primary source or not (and I'm not conviced it isn't), the METAR data is really just a distraction, and the info provided is available in better sources, as above. I've not seen it used in other accident articles, but it may not have been relevant in most of them. The editied information in a previous version is certainly better than having the raw data there now, explained or not. WP is a genreal encylopedia; if nothing, place the raw data in a foot note, where it won't distract from te article, but is there for the few people who would understand it. - BilCat (talk) 21:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative method of dealing with the METAR is to be found in the British Airways Flight 38 article - see ref#23. I'm happy to adopt that method here if it is the only way of keeping the info. Mjroots (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of it, not just the raw METAR data? That's even better than my suggestion! - BilCat (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The METAR data makes it hard to read the article... the info should be summarized and the full metar should be cited as a source. The METAR should be removed right away. Psychocadet (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no immediate rush. Due to the holidays I'm not doing as much on here at the moment. You have the example of how the METAR was handled on BA038 and I'll not mind if someone else does the honours. Both the METAR and SPECI can go on a sub-page of the article - American Airlines Flight 331/METAR rather than a sub-page of the talk page on BA038. Mjroots (talk) 20:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well I for one like the METAR info and I have seen it in other articles too. I didn't think it took up much space or was unencyclopedic... more to the point all this fussing over its usage has led to a current page where there is NO mention of weather except to briefly quote survivors. This page needs to explain the weather in one sense or another because it was a factor. I also think NOAA is an RS at least. And also considering that there is an established and universal method for translating METARs, then I don't think putting a translated verion on the page is OR at all. 66.220.124.56 (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a brief mention of the METAR to the article, with the actual METAR / SPECI quoted in the ref, with a translation on the dedicated subpage. Mjroots (talk) 07:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flight number retired??[edit]

After such an incident, shouldn't AA reired the flight number? Also, I still see AA331 still scheduled to operate between MIA and KIN today and tomorrow per AA flight stats. So, shouldn't still be "is" instead of "was"? Snoozlepet (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if no one dies I doubt they worry about it. 66.220.124.56 (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And flight number retirement usually takes a few months. HkCaGu (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AA doesn't always retire flight numbers anyway- I've taken American Airlines Flight 1 several times, though I wasn't yet born in '62. Courcelles (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, AA uses the flight number 331 but not on the Washington-Miami-Kingston route. It is now a New York-LaGuardia-Chicago-O'Hare route. Mr786 (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hull loss[edit]

just look at the pics... but what is the proceedure for announcing a hull loss on wp? 66.220.124.56 (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same as everything else on Wikipedia. Verified by a reliable source, which I've done. Mjroots (talk) 06:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just say broke up, since from the pics it's what is shown. 76.66.193.225 (talk) 09:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a quote from the source:

DAMAGE TO AIRCRAFT: damaged beyond repair On landing runway 12 at Norman Manley International Airport, the 737 ran beyond the end of the paved sur....The aft fuselage folded and the right engine seprated (sic) resulting in irrepairable (sic)damage.

That is just as good as saying, "Hull Loss".--Hourick (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{coord}} in infobox is not displaying[edit]

In fact, I have not found a single instance of an air crash article with this infobox where this works. Any help appreciated. --Mareklug talk 00:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed it. Please check some of the other articles and make sure there were no unintended consequences. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Airport location[edit]

Normany Manley Airport is located on the Palisadoes, a thin strip of sand that separates Kingston Harbour for the Caribbean Sea. The first few miles of the road leading from Kingston proper to the airport runs along a very thin portion of the strip, like a natural causeway, where one can sea both the harbor and the Caribbean. The strip widens at the point where the airport is loscated, then narrows again for a few miles till it ends at Port Royal. As of twenty years age, the road runs along the Caribbean side of the Palisadoes past the airport on the right. Thus, unless they've re-routed the road since then, which I doubt, the airport is entirely on the harbor side of the Palisadoes. I've clarified this in the text, with a cite from the airport's website re: the airport being adjacent to the harbor. - BilCat (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were mistaken in your clarification. As is clear from any satellite mapping service, the airport's RWY 12 ends towards oceanside, and that is where the aircraft came to rest. The aircraft, according to ASN, landed on RWY 12, which is the only one with ILS, then broke the perimeter fence and crossed the Norman Manley Highway, ending up on the rocky beach. This could only mean oceanside. Plus I saw the lighthouse like structure in the background of the crash photos, which on Wikimapia is identified as an animal quarantine station, and further confirms the oceanside location of the wreckage. --Mareklug talk 22:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks, there was no previous mention in the article that the plane had crossed the highway, and I didn't read all the reports. Everything else I stated is correct, as the airport itself is on the harbor side, such as that is. And technically, it's the sea, not ocean. - BilCat (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hello i'm the one who orginally wrote "kingston's harbour" and I did that mostly for ease of wl and clarity of explanation. Beleive me I knew even then that the site was on the sea side of the airport and not the harborside. I chose to mention the harbor because I felt it gave a better local and intimate accuracy to the article and made for a more topical wl. Like people already know Jamaicia is in the carribbean but they are more likely to not know there is a Kingston Harbor and it has a decent wp of it own. So anyways I also think that harbor can be considered a regional term for a large city like kingston and basically, if one side of a sandbar is in the harbor I think the other side can also be included in the larger definition of a metro harbor! I'm sure the harbor patrol and everything else is the same for both sides of the ithmus... so I will try to find langauge to satify both ends of the deal. 66.220.124.56 (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crash image[edit]

I'm not sure whether or not the rationale holds up for using the fuzzy night time Associated Press image, but if we must use a copyright image, there are much better ones around, taken in daylight.--Lester 06:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Year[edit]

No where in the article do you say the date of the crash, this should be in the summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.39.214 (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the Infobox at the top right, but you are correct it should also be inthe Lead. I'll add it. - BilCat (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish news releases[edit]

For an article in Spanish, here are some news releases:

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Tag[edit]

This crash fails the Wikipedia is not a newspaper policy in that there is no enduring notability event. The relevant guideline is WP:EVENT and that says the event should be a "precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance", none is apparent from the article or sources; that they usually have "significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group" again none is apparent from the article or sources. and also "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle." all of the sources are from the month of the incident so no on going coverage. LGA talkedits 00:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is the possibility that airworthiness directives etc. will come out of this. The Jamaicans have not seemed to have yet released their final report on this accident. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American Airlines Flight 331. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines Flight 331/METAR[edit]

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.

"American Airlines Flight 331/METAR" was deleted

The naming and existence of the article American Airlines Flight 331/METAR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:American Airlines Flight 331/METAR

  • Nominated for deletion
  • Nominated for merger
  • Nominated for renaming

{{tb|talk:American Airlines Flight 331/METAR}} -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2016 (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.

Links in See also section[edit]

@Santamoly:, following our discussion, please do not re-add links Turkish Airlines Flight 1951 and AIRES Flight 8250 unless you can provide RS justifying such addition. None of the accident reports make such connection. Some speculation in an Al Jazeera documentary is not enough. However, I notice the whole Boeing/Ducommun dispute is already mentioned in the Boeing 737 NG article, and that could be expanded with also a link to the full documentary. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Airlines_Flight_331&oldid=1204794925"