Talk:Atlas Air Flight 3591

Regarding image caption and summary

Until more information about the accident is published, the summary will remain as it is. The image caption depite one minor undo, again will remain as it is, as the way it is layered out is the same with most air accident info boxes. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

OrbitalEnd48401, are you sure - as it is? with your FebURary and your fantasy KMIA Airport, while the photographer lives in Seattle, WA? --Лушников Владимир Александрович (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh my god, look, just because he lives there doesn’t mean that he can’t travel down to Miami on holiday or to go plane spotting, I’ve done t myself countless times. And not only you’ve removed the date as well. Serisouly come on. Not even I’d remove all that if I though the location was ‘flase’. Why don’t you check the planes flight plane 9 days ago? OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

See WP:NOR. --Лушников Владимир Александрович (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Stop sourcing planespotters and the like per WP:UGC - Bohbye (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Maps

Maps
800km 500miles Crash site George Bush Intercontinental Airport Miami International Airport    Map A 45km 30miles Crash site George Bush Intercontinental Airport Miami International Airport    Map B

Which Map (Map A or Map B) will work better for this page? (or can anyone make a better map?) Thanks. OkayKenji (talk) 01:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I would say Map B is preferable -- tight enough to show the water, and its context is established by including Galveston and Houston.

BMJ-pdx (talk) 09:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

OkayKenji, I agree with BMJ-pdx. The detail map of the crash site seems more relevant than the departure airport location. —DoRD (talk)​ 16:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Will make the change now. OkayKenji (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Deadheading Passenger

One of the occupants was deadheading, which would make him a non-revenue passenger. Should the infobox therefore be changed to say 2 crew and 1 passenger, rather than 3 crew? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterfire (talk • contribs) 06:08, 25 Februa:::ry 2019 (UTC)

Deadheading is only an option for crew members of an airline. So it’s still crew and not passenger. Bohbye (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

According sources on social media, the deadheading pilot was not an employee of Atlas Air. He was a pilot for Mesa Airlines so I question if you can say he was a member of the crew. - Omega13a (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I haven't seen any sources calling him a passenger, so we shouldn't assume otherwise. —DoRD (talk)​ 15:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@DoRD: I believe "crew" is understood to be employees of the company operating that flight. It's impossible for the third man to be have been a crew of that flight since he worked for a different company and AFAIK was not "loaned" for the purpose of being a flightcrew. IMO it's not necessary to get an explicit source on the third passenger (though I will check and see if there is one). The question is how to count off-duty crew/flight attendants of the same company (one of the Japan Airlines Flight 123 survivors was a Japan Airlines flight attendant who was off-duty; she was treated as a passenger in statistics; also in Tuninter Flight 1153 there was a Tuninter engineer traveling as a passenger who assisted the on-duty crew when the emergency happened; he was also counted as a passenger) WhisperToMe (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I have little doubt that you're correct that Archuleta will eventually be listed as a passenger, but as of yesterday, officials and media were still listing him as "crew". —DoRD (talk)​ 12:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I have seen some of those reports. This CBS News article called him a "jump seat passenger" https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazon-plane-crash-near-houston-body-recovered-trinity-bay-latest-updates-today-2019-02-26/ - Hoping further articles from the NTSB clarify this. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: Looks like the NTSB recently released an article about the accident. https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/mr20190305.aspx There it says that "Three people (the two pilots for the flight and a non-revenue jump-seat pilot) died when Atlas Air Flight 3591". So it sounds like they are all "pilots" but I'm not sure if a "jump-seat pilot" is a passenger or considered crew. 173.52.238.41 (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is, effectively that flight had two crew for the purposes of the flight. Some air crew use jump seats from other airlines to travel around, so the third guy is effectively a passenger. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I can see it both ways. He was crew but for a different company, just in the plane riding. Therefore he can be considered both crew and passenger depending on how you view it Bucky winter soldier (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Image of N1217A day of accident

Jason Rabinowitz (@AirlineFlyer) was at MIA the day of the accident photographing planes, and possibly captured an image of N1217A on the ground, at the airport. It is possibly the last normal photo of plane, and was posted on Twitter. Should this be included on this wiki page? Jmanroc (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Not unless there is a copyright-free version of it available. —DoRD (talk)​ 03:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

K. He is giving permission to select media. I’ll ask him via twitter. Jmanroc (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Also see this page for information about how the photographer can release the image. —DoRD (talk)​ 03:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, this is @AirlineFlyer. I hereby give permission to use my image in this article. If it's more complex than that, please send an email to the address in my Twitter bio. Proof that it's me: https://twitter.com/AirlineFlyer/status/1101521989410480129 --Yankees368 (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Yankees368. Please see this page for the form you can use to give permission. —DoRD (talk)​ 17:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I have already added the photo buddy. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

What time did the plane take off from MIA? This photo must have been taken just minutes before that.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Well the photo was taken at 9:40 EST am. So I am not sure, someone made a video of the plane taxing on MIA the sane day as well, it’s incredibly sad. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Did the permission not go through properly? I recall seeing confirmation of the correct permissions being received, but now the file has been deleted. Waterfire (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Image being used on Article

I am probable ovethinking this or being silly. But after looking at the plane I can't help but notice the bulge on the paintwork by the tail / elevator. Is that normal? I mean I've been on a lot of 757's and a few 787's but where the elevator and tail meets, it doesnt look right in that area of the photo. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Not really the place for such a question, but there is always some skin flexing and that's normal. The B-52, for example, is noticeably "wrinkled" on the ground, but expands at altitude. Buffs (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Why thanks for the information, kinda scary that the NTSB says there was a 49 degree pitch down from there current findings. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Using photo of the aircraft on the day of the accident in the infobox?

Can we have this image: File:N1217A seen on Feburary 23rd 2019.png

In the infobox as it was captured on the day of the accident, and then move the other image into the aircraft section. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

NO the previous image is much better, there is no real value in the “day of” image. I would put the previous one back. Andrewgprout (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

And if you take the trouble to ask a question on the talk page which in this case is absolutely yhe correct thing to do. It is polite to leave a sensible amount of time for people to contribute before making the suggested change.Andrewgprout (talk) 04:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I prefer the day-of image - what's the policy on this? SportingFlyer T·C 05:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: policy would be too grand a word - but generally particularly for the info box on aviation articles clean clear photographs of aircraft are preferred, this is more a style thing rather than anything else. For crash articles obviously it is somewhat important to get as good a representation of the actual aircraft (or crash site) as possible. In this case the flying aircraft is clearly the better photo composition wise. The benefit of the "day of crash" one is really only that it is the day of the crash which does not really change the validity of the photo much. The flying photo represents the actual aircraft, in the Amazon liverly a few weeks before the crash. To my thinking that is not enough to put a tail on view against a terminal building before the clean and clear example. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The "day of" photo is interesting and perhaps newsworthy, but in every measurable quality, it a poorer image, and I can see no reason to use it in place of the current image. —DoRD (talk)​ 13:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, I don’t think the photos should be swapped. But there are instances such as the Redwings Tu-204 crash In 2012 in which the aircraft was photographed on its accident flight. In this case regarding the 767 I think everything regarding the photos should be kept as they are. The day of the accident photo with the date and time is perfectly normal adding the interesting side as noted by DoRD. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Primary flight computer virus

This plane was brought down by a computer virus that had infected the Primary flight computer via a maintenance upload. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:1:813:0:0:0:C5 (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

What is the source of this information? I can't find any official statements by the investigators, or even any published speculations that link the crash to a computer virus. Specter Koen (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

A similar theory was put forward around the time of the USSS Fitzgerald and McCain collisions: that maybe the Chinese caused them, testing cyberattack ideas aiming at the ships’ embedded control software. But these ideas are nothing, for our purposes, without reliable sources mentioning them.

-SquisherDa (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended content

@Andrewgprout, in your last edit you hid (collapsed) this section; and your edit summary said This content is NOT here to add to the value of the encyclopaedia. Thank you for providing the summary. But in it you state an assumption (about a contributor’s intent). That may be what you think; it may be what I think too: but we are required to assume good faith. If you have contrary evidence let’s have it, of course. Otherwise, WP:AGF is a requirement not a recommendation. And alongside that principle, the more specific rules about hacking around with other people’s Talk-page contributions are reasonably clear. The recommendation not to bite the newbies is also relevant; again, if you have evidence tht the original contributor is not a newbie, let’s have it . . and then we can consider the block-warning protocol. Not, again not, hacking the Talk-page. That is such a bad look for a community encyclopaedia. Yes, endlessly resurgent baseless speculations are pretty disenchanting - especially, somehow, in relation to air accidents. But the body of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines - ie following lede + contents - opens with the words "There is reasonable allowance for speculation". And it’s a community encyclopaedia. Not all those likely to think about articles are experts. Leaving these contributions in-place and clear-to-see has benefits, too. Next time someone wants to contribute a similar idea, s/he can be referred to this section - with its useful emphasis on sources. Or s/he might even spot the section before starting to type!! So, there’s lots of aspects. Of all the different principles, rules etc against what you have been doing (@Begoon too here) the one I’d single out to take time thinking about is Assume Good Faith. It’s a community encyclopaedia! - SquisherDa (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC) —— @DorD, I recognise the move to hide / collapse the discussion as a creative and productive compromise. But as first applied here, masking the whole section, it has the drawback of masking Specter Koen's call for sources (and mine!) - so making them ineffective in guiding future contributors. And I’m puzzled by Ur reference to the Talk page guidelines. The guidelines seem pretty clear that "[t]here is reasonable allowance for speculation". They also state that the purpose must always be to improve the article, yes: and 2600:387:1:813:0:0:0:C5's style certainly leaves room for doubt about that. But if we must fill the gap with assumptions, they have to be assumptions of good faith. Beyond that, it’s maybe a bit discourteous (arrogant?) of 2600:387:1:813:0:0:0:C5 to state a view without explanation - or sources! - or even signature!! (though that last can easily be unintentional). And judging by his talk-page and contributions he’s not the newest of newbies. Still, though, if we’re going to push back against discourtesy and arrogance there are other places to start. (I’m feeling that quite strongly myself, at this moment.) Bad example is as powerful as good. We’re missing opportunity here! - SquisherDa (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC) @SquisherDa: No, this is an irresponsible conspiracy theory added in a drive-by fashion by a random mobile user. Being completely unsupported by facts, it has no place here. —DoRD (talk)​ 00:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC) Ah! Drive-by! I’d forgotten that! Yes, the original comment’s positioning on the Talk-page was negligent and disruptive. And - this is the break-through point - it is evidence as to good faith! As evidence, it can potentially displace the mandatory assumption. I guess my own view is tht that some degree of arrogance and negligence is consistent with good-faith intention to improve the encyclopaedia. But I can see it might well be felt tht dumping a brief unsourced allegation in an unhelpful place is sufficient evidence tht there’s no real concern to cooperate: a lack of good-enough faith! To me, that’s the only real consideration. Yes, an irresponsible theory (unless there’s some worthwhile source suggesting it); yes, totally unsourced; yes, conspiracy tumbleweed: for practical purposes an intrusive irrelevance. I recognise the value of quick waste-disposal! But for a community effort, intent seems to me absolutely central. With that resolved now, it still feel a bit silly to squish Specter Koen’s contribution - and my first effort, which mentioned similar facile theories about USN collisions. Those contributions clarify to any future 2600:387:1:813:0:0:0:C5-type editors tht unsourced speculations go nowhere. Why suppress that clarification? - SquisherDa (talk) 11:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Weather information?

There is no information about the visibility at the time of the loss of control. No weather, no METAR, no TAF, whether they were operating in Visual Flight Rules or Instrument Flight Rules? DouglasHeld (talk) 10:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I fix it. Carguychris (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed removal of Lawsuits

I propose to strike the entire Lawsuits section per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Although I find it novel to try to hold an airline liable for a pilot's lack of proficiency, there have been no significant news updates since 2019, and I think the topic is now well past its expiration date. Any objections or comments? Carguychris (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Personally I would delete it. I mostly find the lawsuit detail distateful. I would only keep it if there was considerable ongoing interest which here I think here there is not.Andrewgprout (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as how there have been no objections, I have deleted the section. Carguychris (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)