Talk:2010 Alaska DHC-3 Otter crash/Archive 1

Archive 1

Kudos

Kudos to those who have been working on this article. IMHO you guys are doing a commendable job of adding what information is available while eschewing speculation. - 189.60.73.240 (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Editors please take more care

Please take care when making large edits to this article, and please use edit summaries to explain what your changes are. -84user (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong origin and destination of flight?

According to the source used in the Ted Stevens article, and the map contained therein, the aircraft was on a route diametrically opposed from the one stated now in the article. It was not flying to Dillingham, Alaska, but away from it, to Agulowak lodge on lake Nerka, NNW of Dillingham. The quote is even more confusing: "Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Mike Fergus said the plane took off at 2 p.m. Monday from a GCI corporate site on Lake Nerka, heading to the Agulowak Lodge on Lake Aleknagik. He didn't know if that was the final destination or a refueling stop." --Mareklug ^talk 21:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Early sources unfamiliar with the area and the nature of the flight reported a number of things inaccurately. The flight left from GCI's "Agulowok retreat" on Lake Nerka - so named due to its location at the upper end of the Agulowok River which runs between Nerka Lake and Lake Aleknagik. The group was headed off for an afternoon of silver salmon (coho) fishing in the vicinity of HRM Sports, a fish camp some twenty miles away on the lower Nushagak River. The flight did in fact take off at approximately 2PM and the crash occurred shortly thereafter. A good, and accurate explanation of the flight and the events of the afternoon is provided by GCI executive Ron Duncan, who was involved in both the search and rescue efforts.

Investigation

Federal regulations require operators to notify the NTSB immediately of aviation accidents and certain incidents. An accident is defined as an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft that takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage. An incident is an occurrence other than an accident that affects or could affect the safety of operations. (See 49 CFR 830.)

Article refers to a board member from washington dc not the whole team DBerend (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I see now. The NYT source on the second page has the following:

The N.T.S.B. said it was sending a team of investigators to the crash site, even though it said it did not know the identity of those on board. The agency does not ordinarily send a board member from Washington to the crashes of private or corporate planes.

Board member not same as team, check. I must re-read my own advice above. -84user (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

In case anyone wishes to add a cite from the NTSB themselves, here is a possible wording (the second sentence may be overkill):

The National Transportation Safety Board has sent a team of investigators including NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman. The New York Times commented that the "agency does not ordinarily send a board member from Washington to the crashes of private or corporate planes."

References

-84user (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Another source

Here. I think it has some more information we can use. Like info on O'Keefe and his son. Silverseren^C 23:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Title

Hopefully there won't be any other 2010 alaska plane crashes... otherwise we'll be in trouble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.192.38 (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The likelihood is that there will be other crashes this year. The title is way too general and needs to be changed; mentioning the company and/or location would be better, something like 2010 Aleknagik General Communication DHC-3 Otter crash. YSSYguy (talk) 00:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, before it was moved, the page was previously at 2010 de Havilland Canada DHC-3 Otter crash, which seems much more appropriate. Silverseren^C 00:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I was the person who moved it. Per policy, we do not move articles on the basis of predictions of future events, and I will gladly wager with anyone here that there will not be another Alaskan aircrash this year that will be allowed a Wikipedia article. In terms of being recognisable, or even decipherable, the previous title was crap frankly. It looked like someone had attempted to follow the aircrash naming guidelines, but this is a small private plane crash, on which we only have articles if they have famous deaths or other similar rare reasons, and which the guideline was not written to cater for, seeing as those incidents don't generally happen often, or involve recognisable airlines or aircraft types. Therefore, a more general and easily recognisable title is appropriate. I cannot see how any more specific term will help anybody. Should there be another 'Alaska plane crash' this year, then we can decide what differentiates them - probably location. But right now, seeing as there aren't any others, and seeing as qualifiers like "Aleknagik" will mean the sum total of sod all to 99% of readers, there's no point in using them. MickMacNee (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

And if there is another bush plane crash with another famous person on it in Alaska in 2010, what is actually more likely anyway, that it will involve the same aircraft type, or occur in the same location? Something to think about, if people insist on not following WP:DAB and disambiguating where disambiguation is not required. MickMacNee (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

N.B. Apparently someone came up with the following arbitrary rule: For articles on air accidents without a flight number, the title should be <<year>> <<place>> <<event>>. Some flexibility can be exercised. I guess we can just change it later if a conflict arises. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.192.38 (talk • contribs)

Actually, the relevant aviation style guide for cases with no flight numbers is (year) (place) (airline) (aircraft) crash. But as said above, as a guideline targetted to more recognisable incidents/airlines/aircraft, and with no competing crashes, it is more appropriate to revert to the generic event style, which is as you outline, (year) (place) (event), per an actual guideline, WP:NCE. Still, based on experience, I'm sure very soon that an Aviation Wikiproject member will insist that their style guide trumps all generic policies and guidelines, and we will have to move it to 2010 Aleknagik GCI Communication Corp de Havilland Canada DH-C3 Otter crash or some other useless title. And I bet one of them even suggest that 2010 Aleknagik GCI DH-C3 crash might be better simply because it's shorter! MickMacNee (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an absolutely terrible name, way to generic. Crystal does not apply because there have already been other plane crashes in Alaska this year, so a name like "2010 Alaska plane crash" is completely elementary and generic. Its like if I named Hurricane Katrina, "The hurricane that hit New Orleans" nobody does that... I suggest using the aircraft model in the title and/or the nearest town to the crash. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

There have been several plane crashes in Alaska this year. Just two weeks ago a c-17 globemaster III crashed and killed four members of our military. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilaska (talk • contribs) 08:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear enough the first time. Yes, of course there have been other air crashes in Alaska this year. But none of them, as far as I can seen, have, or will ever have, a Wikipedia article. And in that case, DAB and CRYSTAL are pretty, well, crystal clear - you do not disambiguate for future events, or for past events that do not have articles. We have so few articles infact, I cannot even find a category of air crashes in Alaska, let alone sub-categorised by year. What I have found, such as Category:Disasters in Alaska, or List of accidents and incidents involving airliners in the United States#Alaska, certainly does not suggest we are even close to having a problem here. Therefore, in terms of Wikipedia disambiguation, the title is fine. If you were looking for the incident and are now already here, and are then questioning the appropriateness of the title - that kind of misses the point of disamiguation doesn't it? If anyone arrives here and they were actually looking for something else, then maybe we can reconsider. But I don't think that has happened, or ever will happen infact. MickMacNee (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Need I mention the fact that the use of "plane" to refer to an aircraft is depreciated in WP? I think 2010 Alaska DHC-3 Otter crash crash would be an appropriate compromise. - BilCat (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not depreciated where it still has meaning. Using the aviation-porn term "DHC-3 Otter" instead of the simple "plane" is not a compromise, it is idiotic bureaucratic wonkery, and worse than that, it is project specific wonkery that flies in the face of WP:TITLE and WP:NCE (and right on cue, this is the part where you reveal your status as a fully paid up Aviation Project member). MickMacNee (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Citing of List of accidents and incidents involving airliners in the United States#Alaska really has limited meaning to this article considering this was a private aircraft and not an airliner. I agree with BilCat's solution, the name at least gives the incident more detail and makes it less generic. -Marcusmax(speak) 16:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

So what? You give me one realistic scenario where using "DHC-3 Otter" instead of plane helps anybody find this article better. Give me any scenario you like. I will accept any reasoning that actually takes into account how titles are used, and not some irrelevant idea that titles should be named so that aviation enthusiasts can catalogue their articles by title. MickMacNee (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe 2010 Aleknagik, Alaska plane crash or 2010 Aleknagik plane crash? Mauler90 _talk 16:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What's an "Aleknagik", and whose likely to be looking for the crash under that name? Another option might be Ted Stevens crash, as people might actually look for that. - BilCat (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The crash happened near Aleknagik, Alaska. Mauler90 _talk 1:46 pm, Today (UTC−7)

This article explains just how common Alaskan aircraft crashes are, Stevens wife even died in one. -Marcusmax(speak) 18:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

There was a crash this month in Alaska of the C-123 Provider used in the movie Con Air. It's probably not notable enough for its own article, but I don't know. - BilCat (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As BilCat has pointed out, "plane" has depreciated in use. 2010 Alaska DHC-3 Otter crash would be a better place, or possibly even Ted Stevens crash. See John F. Kennedy, Jr. plane crash as a prior example. (Although "plane" should probably be removed from the title.) -SidewinderX (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You, he, or anybody else from the Aviation Project is free to actually give some actual reasons why 'plane' cannot be used in this case, and explain exactly why this title must be turned into something 95% of readers will not recognise. I am frankly not interested in anybody just saying 'it should'. That is frankly not good enough, not when the current name is supported by actual policy. MickMacNee (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Mick, it's your opinion that the current name is supported by policy, but you're the only one here supporting that opinion. The consensus is for a different name, and though one hasn't been settled on as yet, it's leaning toward 2010 Alaska DHC-3 Otter crash. It will be moved eventually, as your approval isn't requiered to from a consensus. It might be required to declare the new name title-porn, however. - BilCat (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Make that the 2010 Alaska DHC-3T Otter crash, because it was the turbo Otter, and I agree. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Adding the "T" is fine, though probably less intuitive to those who don't realize it's a turbo version. Anyway, redirects can take care of that. - BilCat (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Jesus H Titty Christ. Fine, if you cannot be bothered to contradict my position, or justify your own, w.r.t to actual policy (just a link would do, if actual explanations are beyond your intellect), and your sole justification is an ignorant invocation of mob rule, citing the opinions of people who patently have no clue what they are talking about, and don't even understand basic, and I mean totally basic, things like WP:DAB, then fuck it, rename the article whatever you like. I am sure this is a strategy that will suit the pedia well in the future. Maybe we will be able to delete the policies as redundant in future even, as this strategy you outline for dispute resolution sounds so brilliantly well thought out. What utter repugnant garbage frankly. I won't bore you by explaining that per CONSENSUS, a consensus of people without reference to policy is not actually a consensus at all, because I'm sure it would just fly right over your Aviation Project head. I'm off to go and copyedit those hundreds of 2010 alaskan plane crash articles we have. Busy busy busy. MickMacNee (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The current naming guideline for accident article says the first choice is flight number and if that is not available then the format should be <<year>> <<place>> <<event>>, bit like 2010 Alaska Turbo Otter accident. MilborneOne (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem with this title. I could agree with this as well. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of supporting "aircraft-porn", that is fine with me too. - BilCat (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

2010 Alaska Turbo Otter crash seems reasonable per WP:AVIATION. If we dont agree with this naming style, it needs to be discussed on the project's talk page, not here. While I agree that it's not the most easily discernable title, that's what redirects are for. The project's naming convention provides consistency which needs to be maintained here.--RadioFan (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I was ready to propose "crash" instead of "accident". Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, a lot of brain cells and pixels wasted on this topic, but I do support the compromise title. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't have a problem with either "crash" or "accident". The AATF guideline gives several examples using "crash". - BilCat (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Including 2006 New York City plane crash. So, let's hear the sensible explanations as to how 'Cirrus SR20' is not relevant to that title, but 'Turbo Otter' is relevant to this one? Nobody speak all at once now. MickMacNee (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Except that New York City is a city, so you're saying that 2010 Aleknagik plane crash is the correct title? Silverseren^C 20:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I didn't say that at all. MickMacNee (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, either way, you've proven yourself that the current title is not correct. Silverseren^C 20:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

In NYC there were no other accidents in 2006. See Talk:2006_New_York_City_plane_crash#Rename_to_2006_New_York_City_plane_crash_or_Cory_Lidle_plane_crash. But in Alaska in 2010 there are multiple accidents. Some editors were also thinking about changing "NYC" to "Manhattan". Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

We have to come to terms with the fact that Alaska is a pretty big place. We can't treat it like a city, even a great one such as NYC. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 1:45 pm, Today (UTC−7)

This point has been done to death. Per WP:DAB, this is totally, completely, and utterly, irrelevant. MickMacNee (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

DAB cannot overrule intuition. Naming this crash "2010 Alaska plane crash" is counter-intuitive since it implies that there were no other crashes in Alaska in 2010. This is obviously misleading. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

And where did you pull that reasoning from? I half think that intuition was very much on everybody's mind when they wrote DAB. So, is your assertion here written in any policy or guidline that I might be able to read for myself, or is it just your opinion? Were there no other plane crashes in New York in 2006 to make that title misleading? I'm pretty sure there were. And is including the type of plane that nobody is likely to recognise or remember in a few weeks time the best disambiguator to differentiate between all these Alaskan aircrashes that people are going to confuse with this one, even though they will never have their own articles? Should we now delete the resulting redirect resulting from this newly introduced over-precision, or is it somehow still logical to keep it, even though it is asserted by you that it is meaningless as a search term? I could go on, but you seem to have cut short this pesky discussion phase. MickMacNee (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I would be pretty sure that it was the only place crash in New York City in 2006, since I would consider such things rather rare. But, Alaska, on the other hand, has a significant amount of crashes every year, considering it's an entire state and all. Silverseren^C 21:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Correct. I also provided the link to the discussion page of the NYC crash which asserts the same fact. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The current title follows that format. It is only aviation nuts who would have a clue what a 'Turbo Otter' is, and thus, what one having an 'accident' would involve. To everybody else on the planet, the 'event' is a 'plane crash'. Consistency is irrelevant for accidents of this nature, there are few if any comparable articles here. MickMacNee (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The consensus runs against the current title, nuts included. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC).

And don't forget, a "plane" is a woodworking tool! - BilCat (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought you left, Mick? Didn't you make enough WP:CIVIL uncivil remarks already? - BilCat (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

My incivility is inversly proportionate to the levels of pure bollocks being offered as 'discussion' in any given debate. I can't help it, I'm normal. If you prefer polite but nonsensical debate, then I'm not your man. MickMacNee (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Mick, I've seen your idea of a "discussion" before, so I don't buy it. Learn to "help it", or you might want to have a new hobby ready. - BilCat (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, discussions on WP are about forming consensuses, not having debates. You're coming to a pillow fight armed with a gun! - BilCat (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I come to discussions with a clue about policy. I do help discussions along, I explain my reasoning, I point to the policies and guidelines I am using to defend my position, and I politely listen and discuss with anybody who has a policy backed counterpoint to bring to the party. I above all go out of my way never to assert I say is true simply based on the fact that I think it is true, because that is simply stupid. I cannot and will not apologise to anybody who gets their nose bent out of shape if they cannot do me the common courtesy of doing the same as part of a discussion, and instead, wants to assert that their POV is fact, or that they don't have to follow policies or guidelines or even explain their reasoning when challenged, or that consensus is defined as just the majority opinion of generally clueless and lazy people, and that overall, being nice but clueless is more important than forceful but cluefull. MickMacNee (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"I politely listen and discuss with anybody who has a policy backed counterpoint to bring to the party." That's your problem: you're only polite to people who satisfy your criteria, and that's no-one, because you've already settled that your position is right! You want a debate, and that's not the goal here; it's building a consensus. I never hold a postion I believe is false, and I doubt you do either. It's not about right or wrong, or true or false. It's about how we interpret the policiers and guideliens, and we all do that differently. What is important on these pages is building a consenss, which often means compromising. It really diesn't matter one bit what the title of the article is, as thre is no one perfect title everyone will accept. So while you're sitting on your high horse proclaiming how right your are and how wrong everyone else is, we just make proposals and build a consesnus to support them. In this debate, you summarily dismissed all arguments based on WP:AVIATION guidleines, but no one else has. They've acccepted that it's a good solution, if not perfect. - BilCat (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Precisely my point BilCat. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Please pay attention. The previous title does actually meet AVIATION as it is written. If people turned up here and decided it means something different, or that they really think nobody in the real world is going to object to the idea that a 'Turbo Otter crash' is an comprehensible 'event' per TITLE/DAB/NC/ANOTHER, that's really not my problem, and it's not a valid consensus. I am quite happy on that high horse frankly, because it's the right horse. And please, I really don't hold any truck with this flawed perception that coming to a consenus is all about picking the compromise choice, it really isn't. Compromising between a good title and a bad title, simply produces a half assed title. In the half-baked discussion style you describe, all we see is what happened here, someone chooses the option that most people seem to have 'liked'. Sure, that like may or may not be based on their interpretations of policy, but if they cannot be bothered to explain themselves with actual reference to policies, and want to simply declare that this is the consensus, then I'm happy to assume it doesn't, and my doubts are backed by some of the rather glaring basic errors of fact which people have littered this section with. This is what is normal. This is the standard people are held to in the more serious talk pages on this pedia. It's just a shame it isn't a universal standard. MickMacNee (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Civility is what is normal on WP, Mick. Start there, and perhaps people will bother to even listen. - BilCat (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, I really am not interested. If you want to chat to people about the theory that demanding civility before you feel the need to justify positions or defend arguments is remotely conducive to taking discussions to a higher intellectual plane or achieving a defensible outcome, then go and have a chat with Giano or one of his hangers-on, they love debunking that sort of tosh. I have absolutely no problem with people 'winning' the argument by simply playing deaf and dumb and trying to play the civility card. It's no skin off my nose, and the permanent record always tells the real story for any interested researcher of how decisions were arrived at, and shows who engaged and who evaded, who had a solid point and who was merely winging it. MickMacNee (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No amount of insults will make anyone listen to you more than they would if you didn't insult them. The goal of a civil discussion on WP is to persuade people that you are right. Simply declaring it and daring people to debate you and prove you wrong does nothing to convince others that you're right. More often, it convinces them that you're wrong. Have all the higher intellectual discussions you want that call people nuts, and their beliefs half-assed. If no one listens, you've lost anyway. - BilCat (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Mick, A lot of people, at least Alaskans know what an Otter is. People who don't will figure it out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilaska (talk • contribs) 20:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point. That's why we have the redirects. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not a good point at all. Nobody wrote TITLE with the expectation that the only people reading about an Alaskan aircrash would be people from Alaska. And as ever, this whole 'redirects can take care of everything', is, as usual, just a paradox. Any title anyone else wants this renamed to can also be a redirect, it's not an argument for anything. 20:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Moved

Well, dear reader, Dr K has moved it to 2010 Alaska Turbo Otter crash. [1] I am sorry that this has been done without any justification in policy or guideline, or even any attempt to explain how the move helps readers or the general pedia at all, but sadly on aviation articles, that's just what seems to happen. I am truly sorry that you might waste your entire life trying to find what policy or guideline backs this move, but again, that's just not apparently important. All that is important is that a few people think they know best, feel like they can just ignore anyone they don't agree with, let alone answer them, and come up with titles that suit the perceptions of people who have already found the article!. Hey, I didn't say it was logical, it's just what happens. The general consensus seems to be, if you don't know what a Turbo Otter is, you are a stupid moron. Congrats all round for a job well done. MickMacNee (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC) MickMacNee (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you stop with the incivility in every other comment you make? Silverseren^C 21:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it going to make this debate look any less cluefull? I doubt it, so no, probably not. The fact is, my level of civility has no bearing on whether you or anyone else is likely to read things like TITLE, DAB, CRYSTAL, or any of the other policies and guidelines that seem to be written in invisible ink, before you chuck your oar in on what this article should be called. MickMacNee (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

DAB is a guideline and not a policy for a reason. You cannot package every eventuality into a neat little policy. That is why we have logic and consensus. The process is not perfect but it worked this time against the counter-intuitive and false notion that Alaska had a single plane crash in 2010. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Please don't even mention the word logic after what you've just done. The idea that this is such an amazingly odd situation or scenario that we can play the boring 'oh it's just a guideline game', as if the idea that counter-intuitiveness had never entered people's minds as they drafted DAB, is absurd. MickMacNee (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

And on the subject of your logic, what if the Otter Turbo was the type of plane in one of these many other common Alaskan crashes that apparently occured in 2010. I do hope you haven't just confused that mythical person who was looking for that non-existent crash article, rather than this one about the only notable Alaskan air crash this year. I am still waiting for the mythical reader who arrived at the previous title expecting another crash to own up. It's a tricky thing, assumption on behalf of others, but funnily enough that is also something that was considered when people drafted DAB. Shame it was all for nothing. MickMacNee (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You said: Please don't even mention the word logic after what you've just done. I haven't done anything that the overwhelming consensus has not advised me to do. I also never said that counter-intuitiveness had never entered people's minds as they drafted DAB, I only said this is a case where it happened and we have WP:CON to help us when it happens. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If you think consensus is about freely ignoring things like DAB in situations which are not even remotely difficult or out of the ordinary, you are totally wrong. Consensus is not CONSENSUS. Mind you, 'I think this...' is not 'TITLE advises this....'. But there we are. MickMacNee (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

We can keep arguing this for a very long time, but I will just tell you that the previous title was misleading and patronising to Alaska. DAB cannot replace editorial discretion in such cases. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It cannot. If you dispute this, then prove it with an actual policy wording. If this rename really has come down to not wanting to patronze Alaska, then w.t.f. is all I can say to that frankly. I thought I had seen some absurd positions in this discussion, but that just about tops it. I think I have new found respect for the 'Alaskans know what an Otter is' angle now. MickMacNee (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Mick we know your talking-point themes by now. No need to repeat them and add the requisite negative comments. I will reply just one last time: The policy wording is WP:CON. Other than that I am done here. Good bye. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with that. Case closed, and very much not proven. Anytime anybody else wants to have a go at defending this move the proper way, my talk page is always open. I am not holding my breath frankly, this simply looks like just another routine Aviation Project ignore all policies we didn't write and follow our own rules stitch up. As ever, the normal reader, let alone editor, is very much under-represented in the ultimate outcome. Still, Alaska's honour is preserved I guess, so that's something. MickMacNee (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

And here's a suggested starting point from the helpfully provided WP:CON: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope". So, with that in mind, how many editors do people think wrote the Aviation sort of style guide and then turned up here. And how many wrote TITLE or DAB or CRYSTAL? Which group represents the wider community and has the best interests of the actual reader at heart? Answers on a postcard please. MickMacNee (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That's fair. I respect your position . BTW I am not an Aviation project member, fwiw. Also Alaska's honour was never in doubt. I just used the "patronising to Alaska" argument more as additional emphasis in a series of arguments all of which did not persuade you, but it was not a central point in the arguments. I meant to convey the idea that a well-chosen, unambiguous title would also do justice to Alaska, but I will not belabour this admittedly outside-of-policy colourful point. So let's leave it at that. Also I never claimed that the current consensus present on this talkpage will never be overturned or that it represents the consensus of the wider community. Consensus can change as the relevant section WP:CCC reminds us. So the title may well change again. You make a good point. Thanks again. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm an 'actual reader,' with no idea or interest in what DAB and CRYSTAL stand for. I came to this discussion page solely because I was redirected from "2010 Alaskan Plane Crash," which I think is entirely too general in a state known for its plane crashes. Saying that this crash is the only one of note is akin to saying the 9/11 article should be listed under "September 11th" because it's the only important event to happen that day. From this discussion, it seems that the 'official' rules state that naming schemes should not consider previous events if they're not Wikipedia articles. That may be true, but calling this the "Alaskan plane crash" gives the false impression that there were no other plane crashes in Alaska this year. The current title may be "Airplane porn," and it's far from idea, but at least it's not misleading.

I don't support the name as is now, I don't think the type of plane is really notable enough to be in the title, I heard it and saw it reported a light plane crash and private plane crash Off2riorob (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think the new title is not very informing, I am sorry about the poor turbo otter though. Off2riorob (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Over 1 Turbo Otters are killed in Alaska every year. It's a national scandal. MickMacNee (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

And don't forget those who were killed by the crash all the trees and stuff and so many baby trees who will grow up without parent trees and the baby animals too! its so sad the animals are dead now because that mean old man chose to die there he hated trees cuase he was a republicran - BilCat (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

In actuality there was another notable crash only a few weeks ago, there is just no article on it yet. Ironically the pilot on this crash lost his son-in-law in the previous one:[2]. By the way, as an 11 year resident of Alaska I can assure that plane crashes are an all-too-common feature of life here, people I have personally known have been injured or killed in small airplanes. There are thousands of small airplanes here, thirteen mountain ranges, and lots and lots of very nasty weather. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That has to be difficult for that family. I don't know if that crash is notable enough for an article or not, but I'll see what I can find out. - BilCat (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

A quick googling [3] shows a plethora of sources. As this was a crash of a large military plane that was training for an appearance in an air show, it received fairly wide coverage. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggest name, 2010 Alaska Boeing CI7 military cargo plane crash Off2riorob (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if that was sarcasm or not, but that is now a redirect to the article on that crash. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There was also a Fairchild C-123 Provider crash in Alaska on 1 August. Mjroots (talk) 10:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh, somehow I didn't hear about that one. I find that very alarming because both the Air Force and the Coast Guard regularly use our local airport to practice "touch and go" landings with those things and they often fly right over my house while doing so. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here are details on that one:[4][5] not sure if there is enough there for an article, but it is odd that they crashed into a mountain in good weather in broad daylight. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft & Picture Innacuracy

The aircraft was a De Havilland Canada DHC-3T Texas Turbine Super Otter. The aircraft mentioned in the article is just a regular DHC-3 Otter, and the picture shows a radial-engined Otter. In contrast, the aircraft involved in the crash is registered as N455A, which is clearly a turbine-powered otter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyAir (talk • contribs) 03:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not use the actual NTSB pictures of crash site and aircraft? BB_Observer —Preceding undated comment added 23:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC).

Images

The owner of the images at this link has expressed willingness for the images to be used in Wikipedia. Any copyright gurus here that could suggest a copyright status that would be best to use here?--RadioFan (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It's up to him. As long as he is OK that any images he uploads here can be freely used or modified by anyone for any purpose, even commercially, then he is free to choose a range of licenses from Wikipedia:File copyright tags to suit his needs as the (presumably) original author. MickMacNee (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It is best is he emails the pictures and the licenses to OTRS himself and confirms the situation. There is a help page somewhere for contributors wanting to do that. Seems like a fair few are marked as copyright of John Olafson. Off2riorob (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Crew and Passenger Manifest

(please be gentle, I am extremely new to wikipedia)

Forbes is now reporting the manifest during the crash as follows (this is intended to be a "short quotation", per copy-paste rules):

"The victims were identified as Stevens; pilot Theron "Terry" Smith, 62, of Eagle River; William Bill Phillips Sr.; Dana Tindall, 48, an executive with GCI; and her 16-year-old daughter Corey Tindall. The four survivors were former NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe and his teenage son; William Willy Phillips Jr., 13; and Jim Morhard, of Alexandria, Va. They were taken to Providence Hospital in Anchorage with varying degrees of injuries, Alaska State Troopers said on Tuesday. Former NASA spokesman Glenn Mahone said O'Keefe, 54, and his son had broken bones and other injuries."

GCI confirms the identity of Ms. Tindall and her daughter.

I don't know how to (tactfully) insert this into the Article page, hence I'm sticking it here in Discussion, hoping that a more experienced user can help instead. I think the information is important and I don't know why it's not yet in the Article. Feedback/criticism are welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbliss (talk • contribs) 22:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This information is already in the article to a degree, though it could use some rewording. In short, the notable people are identified by name, those with a connection (family of notable people such as Stevens or O'Keefe or are employed by the owner of the plane) are identified by their connection. Everyone else is simply identified as injured, fatalities or survivors. This seems to be inline with the level of detail in similar articles on similarly scoped accidents.--RadioFan (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Earlier accident that Stevens survived

The ref supplied merely confirms that an accident occurred at Anchorage Intl in 1978, but there is nothing to verify that Stevens was involved. Mjroots (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This has been widely reported on. The ref has been improved.--RadioFan (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Accident images

As well as the one in the infobox, if you check my (meagre) contributions to Commons, you'll see I uploaded two other shots released by the NTSB as well. I'll leave it up to others what's used in the article, although I like the choice I used in the infobox as displaying both the wreck and the location fairly well. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Floatplane or Amphibian?

This image [6] of the plane has wheels clearly visible, meaning the plane was actually an amphibious aircraft. Right? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is the engine looks like a radial configuration not a turboprop. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

But this updated photo is identified as a turboprop. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Would "amphibious floatplane" be acceptable? Also, some float wheels are removable - do we know for creating the aircraft had the wheels installed when it crashed? I can't tell from the 3 photos provided above. - BilCat (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with "amphibious floatplane". I was editing my reply to Beeblebrox but you beat me to the punch. Please check my edit conflict reply below for my rationale. However the problem is that we don't know if the amphibian conversion kit was installed during the accident. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :As far as your original question, the wheels look somehow small and I don't see a robust suspension system so technically it is an amphibious plane but according to this website this kind of amphibious conversion kit has many drawbacks, including brake failures due to frequent water immersion and a bad suspension system. So it is a floatplane which has been converted to an amphibian by using a conversion kit. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Dr K The photo you linked to shows the aircraft before conversion to Turbo Otter. As for the Floatplane/ amphibian argument, I think you will find that ALL the Otter floatplanes were amphibious, and the wheels as shown are the correct size.188.65.183.53 (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you anon. I was thinking along these lines, based on the two pictures. It is clear that there was an installation of the turbo engine at a later date. As far as the amphibious status if we get a reliable source it would be even better. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 13:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Having said that, I wouldn't object to calling it an amphibian. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

“turbo” or “turbine”

I am no expert on planes and have no idea which is correct, but I do know that the article title and the article text should be consistent as to what type of plane was involved. There was some talk about this way back when, but it seems a bit inconclusive. Will ask aviation project for input. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The Aviation Safety Network calls it a DHC-3 Turbine Otter. Mjroots (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The FAA just call it a DHC-3! - perhaps keep it simple as 2010 Alaska DHC-3 Otter crash. MilborneOne (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

But it's a turboprop Otter, the aircraft's page, de Havilland Canada DHC-3 Otter calls it a Turbo Otter and Turbo-Otter, so I assume Turbo is correct. - ZLEA _Talk ^Contribs 23:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I think MilborneOne's suggestion works well as the title and first words of the article, but the "T" should be included after the "3". (Article would have to be renamed/moved.) I would also slightly revise the third sentence to read: "The aircraft, a DeHavilland Canada single-engine turboprop-driven DHC-3T Otter registered...." The article does not have to use "turbine" or "turbo" in the title, if multiple reliable sources don't unambiguously show one of those terms in an official designation. The NTSB, similar to ASN, does favor "turbine," but descriptively, not as official nomenclature:

"a single-engine, turbine-powered, amphibious float-equipped de Havilland DHC-3T airplane, N455A"

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/AAR1103.aspx

and,

"a single-engine de Havilland turbine Otter floatplane"

https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NTSB_cites_pilots_temporary_unresponsiveness_in_probable_cause_of_August_2010_Aleknagik_Alaska_accident.aspx

DonFB (talk) 07:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Best idea I've heard so far, I think we should go with that. - ZLEA _Talk ^Contribs 15:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Colloquial aviation speak uses "turbo" as short for a turbo-charged piston engine, at least in some regions. So if anything must be mentioned it should be turbine or perhaps turbo-prop. However, above all I think the title should be as generic as possible, I would not refer to the particular engine type or category at all. Jan olieslagers (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed and  Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)