Talk:2005 Logan Airport runway incursion

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

Notability[edit]

Removed delete proposal header. Runway incursions are tracked very closely by the authorities and widely published in newspapers when they occur. The 1977 Tenerife disaster article also links here and it is directly relevant to such events. Just because no disaster occurred doesn't mean "nothing happened". This is hardly a "frivolous" article. This is a stub account of a serious and rare aviation error and made even more notable by the actions of the pilot.Detroit.bus 07:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They happen more often then you think. If we make an article for everything that appears in the newspaper; wikipedia would be a mess. TripleH1976 18:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The high figures for runway incursions refer to baggage cars being on the runway when they shouldn't, and things like that. that's the common factor. Two jet airliners missing each other by a few feet is not common, especially when all commercial aircraft require systems to avert runway collisions. - Blood red sandman 18:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Common or not, why does it need an article???? Where do you draw the line? What is next? near car accidents??? attempted murder cases? TripleH1976 18:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I say it needs an article because playing chicken with 381 lives is an excedingly noteworthy occurence. Also, there will likely be a large number of very noteable safety recomendations related to this accident when the investigation is completed, regarding the design of airports, how Air Traffic Control works and why the automatic collision avoidence systems failed. - Blood red sandman 18:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I say an article regarding one such incident is unnecessary. Like you said, they occur more than one knows. Why does each one need its own private article? Fold it into a large article covering all known incursions. As for notable safety reccomendations, they will only lead to more reccomendations that domestic carriers will follow (slowly) and foreign carriers will ignore, and more will occur, leading to more wiki articles. The incident does not merit importance of its own article. Fold it in. - Neo16287 16:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is significant. 381 people could have died! You cannot compare this incident to an average runway incursion .... the potential loss of life was very large. If this article is deleted then the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot should also be deleted. Nobody was hurt, so why have an article on the "2006 transatlantic aircraft plot"? ;-) 88.108.39.156 18:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)AlesiFanatico[reply]
Horrible, horrible, comparison you are trying to make there. The 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot is notable because of the terrorist implications it had. It was a massive plot and a huge investigation is still happening. Major security changes had to occur in airports as result of it; that is notable. Furthermore, we live in a society where we have to be vigilant of terrorism. The incident in Boston is not notable. Is it news worthy? Yes, but not in an encyclopedia. It is not going to make it in the history books, while the 2006 plot most likely will. It was minor news at best. TripleH1976 21:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TripleH, I couldnt agree with you more. While both situations represent a "could have occured" situation, one was deliberate, whilst the other was human error. Also, 88.108, what defines a "average runway incursion"? Does it have to be 2 Cessenas to be an average incursion? The possible body count is insignificant in terms of possabilities. Think about this. Neo16287 02:21, 2 September, 2006 (UTC)
In the average runway incursion, there was never any realistic danger of the planes hitting each other (unlike here), so the potential body count is among a range of important factors present here, since it usually comes in as zero, not 381. Anyway, if no-one objects, I'm wrapping up this discusion, it's obsolete since all this can and should be discussed on the AfD page. - Blood red sandman 20:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Before wrapping this up, I just want to know if anybody has any links to articles regarding this (other than listed on the page please). I work at BOS and mever heard about it. Thanks

Infobox[edit]

I have created an infobox for this article, but when I filled in the operators as US Airways and Aer Lingus, the infobox came up as seen on the article now. Can someone with a little more knowledge of the site fix this? - Blood red sandman 20:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see it has been fixed. Many thanks! - Blood red sandman 20:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Title[edit]

Is there any way we can get together and work on the title of the article, it seems so long winded. I'm sure there's an easier way to describe this... it'll be difficult for users to ever find this article with such precise wording, it needs something easier to say. What do you think? -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 20:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but couldn't think of anything better when I wrote the article - Blood red sandman 20:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, June 2005 Boston Near-Miss, or... Aer Lingus/US Airways Boston Near-miss, or June 9, 2005 near collision at Boston Airport? -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 21:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


How about, US Airways/Aer Lingus Logan Airport Near-Collision... damn, still seems long. June 9, 2005 Logan Airport near-Collision? too ambiguous.... I dunno. Anyone reading this have a suggestion? -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs
After some more thought on the subject the best I can come up with is 2005 Boston Airport runway incursion. Anyone got any better ideas? - Blood red sandman 20:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think that one works great. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 20:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Call it Logan Airport Runway Incursion. Nobody calls BOS "Boston Airport", and it creates undue confusion. Neo16287 23:31, 26 September, 2006 (UTC)
Seems quite reasonable, actually. I'm going ahead and moving it to the new title. - Blood red sandman 06:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone comes along in a month or two and wonders what the problem was, and can't find out in the edit history, then it is worth making a note here that the original title for this article was Runway incursion between US Airways flight 1170 and Aer Lingus flight 132. - Blood red sandman 06:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--- This part of the preliminary NTSB report has this great segment, quoting the US Airways co-pilot:

"The Airbus passed overhead our aircraft with very little separation, and once clear of the intersection, the captain rotated, and we lifted off towards the end of the runway. I reported to departure control that we had a near miss at which time Aer Lingus reported 'we concur.'"

Is this worth adding? I don't want to wreck the flow of the article you've been building. Matt Clare

Why pushing the control column forward keeps an airliner from taking off[edit]

This passage describing the actions of the US Airways first officer has been trimmed back considerably: "...he pushed down hard on the aircraft's control column. This caused the position of the horizontal stabilizer to change, so that it was forcing the nose of the aircraft down against the natural lift that occurs when an aircraft exceeds certain speeds. In this way he was able to keep US Airways 1170 from lifting off the runway..." The source cited only states that "he pushed the control column forward." The technical description of how this intervention kept the plane from taking off was not accurate. Lift is the result not only of exceeding certain speeds but also of the angle of attack of the wing relative to the air stream. During takeoff, the wing will not have a sufficient angle of attack to lift the plane at any speed unless and until the nose is lifted, increasing the angle of attack. Pushing the control column forward does cause the horizontal stabilizer to force the nose down, but it does not have to oppose any "natural lift" of the wing in this situation, and it would not be necessary to push "hard" in order to keep the plane on the ground. Piperh 16:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. You're forgetting about pitch trim. With trim set for takeoff, many planes will fly themselves off the runway upon reaching a certain speed. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 15:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the US Air flight crew chose to take off[edit]

A few days ago, I added that the US Air crew had no choice but to attempt to take off because they had achieved V1 speed. Upon further reflection, maybe a better analysis of the situation would be that (1) they had the option of taking off because they had reached V1, and (2) they had no choice but to attempt a takeoff after the near-collision because they were too far down the runway to be able to achieve a stop from V1 speed within the remaining runway distance. Certainly, by being forced to delay their takeoff on account of the evasive action, they were in danger of running out of runway no matter what they tried to do next. Any thoughts? Richwales 06:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you know about aviation, V1 is when an aircraft must depart, even if all the engines failed(VERY unlikely), so the pilot kept it down to let it depart a bit after V1 so that they don't hit the other plane, as it states 'The first officer noticed that both aircraft would be airborne', so they just took off after the intersection, even though it wasn't required. Hope this helps. Ilikepie2221 (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

article name[edit]

surely there must be a better name than this? There has to have been numerous incursions in 2005 at Logan... 70.29.208.129 (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:2005 Logan Airport runway incursion/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article seems good, but based upon the discussion of notability, one major criterion that the article fails is sources being cited. An editor looking to improve this page, or those who are currently looking at it, please add sources to back up the claims in the article. Otherwise, it looks good ! --Nenyedi TalkDeeds@ 20:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 20:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 05:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2005_Logan_Airport_runway_incursion&oldid=1196470320"