Talk:Colgan Air Flight 3407/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was  Done: Move to Colgan Air Flight 3407. — Aitias // discussion 02:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Per precident, the title of the article should probably be Colgan Air Flight 3407; see, for example Comair Flight 191. There's no rush to move the article there, but I will likely do so tomorrow ... unless there are strenuous objections. -- Flyguy649 talk 06:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

All of the media (including CNN live right now) are referring to it as a Continental Flight. I don't see why we wouldn't just use the formula Continental Airlines Flight 3407, operated by Colgan... Joshdboz (talk) 06:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The Continental website doesn't even call it Colgan Air Flight 3407. They call it Continental Connection Flight 3407. The news reports call it Continental. So Colgan is a 3rd and worse choice.

[1] Read Seanwarner: Good night and good luck (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
And the medias wrong and so are you two. It was operated by Colgan Air, per policy it should be referred to as Colgan flight whatever —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanwarner86 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject naming guidelines don't trump general Wikipedia guidelines, which instruct us to use the most common and recognizable name in English. Joshdboz (talk) 06:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I did a search under "Continental Express Flight 3407" and nothing came up so I started an article by that name only to find this one later. Why wasn't this one called by the correct title? Continental Express/Colgan is a separate airline from Continental. The two articles need to be merged now. Cla68 (talk) 06:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Because it is not a Continental Express flight. It is a Continental Connection flight. 24.247.120.89 (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The Associated Press got it wrong. Cla68 (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
This article needs to be called Colgan Air Flight 3407. Lets set this straight right now. This is not continental express. this airlie is not owned by continental airlines. this is a colgan air problem. Please call it properly. dont let the media dictate what an encyclopedic entry should be.--75.157.210.26 (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The only part they got wrong is stating that Continental is Dallas-based. Continental is Houston-based. Colgan Air was the airline involved in this accident and is a regional carrier that is contracted by Continental Airlines to fly flights under the banner of Continental Connection. Additionally, I think the "Continental Express Flight 3407" article should be removed...as the only carriers who fly under the banner of Continental Express are ExpressJet and Chautauqua and neither of them were involved in the crash. 24.247.120.89 (talk) 06:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The Continental Express Flight 3407 article cited the Associated Press and MSNBC and I've cited those refs in this article. --Pixelface (talk) 07:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. An move war over the name of this? Ridiculous! Both names redirect to the correct article. Make the article as good as it can be; the final name of it can be determined/decided later. -- Flyguy649 talk 06:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "Continental Connection Flight 3407" would be more appropriate then, as official airline sources use this name. --Resplendent (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps.... I made it as a redirect here for now. All will be sorted out. -- Flyguy649 talk 07:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Please no name war now, it will be decided later thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 07:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The bottom line is WP:V. What the majority of reliable sources call the flight, we call the flight. Since they call it Continental and not Colgan, it's not that complicated. The flight was "owned" by Continental. Colgan was just a subsidiary provider. Steven Walling (talk) 07:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:V does not mean majority. Press reports are not necessarily reliable sources. And reliable sources (from those who know the difference) call it Colgan. HkCaGu (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
This article's name should be changed to Colgan Air Flight 3407...Basicly the flight works like a codeshare and it just happens to be that the flight is painted in Continental Connection livery. Just like how CO codeshares with Delta and if a flight were to crash the article should not be called Continental Flight XXXX. Spikydan1 (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it should be Colgan Air Flight 3407. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) According to WP:COMMONNAME, article title is correct as it is. Mjroots (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but the news media itself has proven itself unreliable in aviation terminology. Just like all those tsunamis before the December 2004--everyone would call them "tidal waves" but they were tsunamis. In this case, nobody would even call the flight "Continental Airlines Flight 3407" at the airport or in the aircraft. It would be called "Continental Connection Flight 3407", or in the pilot/ATC world, "Colgan 3407". We're not talking about common versus technical here.HkCaGu (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
It appears to have been using the callsign "Colgan 3407" (or CJC3407) which actually makes it in wikipedia terms Colgan Air Flight 3407. MilborneOne (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Just to add although the name should be changed it would create more problems at the moment with all the edits and links be created. We have a redirect from Colgan Air 3407 so I would suggest leave alone for the time being. MilborneOne (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Calling this a "Continental Airlines" flight is not only against what the more recent and corrected reliable sources are calling the operator ("Continental Connection", NBC now reports, for example), but it's simply a matter of being inaccurate.--Oakshade (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This flight was officially operated as CJC3407 and identified to Air Traffic Control as Colgan 3407. Calling it Continental Airlines Flight 3407, as this wikipedia article does is completely inaccurate, and as such, must be remedied.... Continental Connection Flight 3407 is an acceptable compromise until this gets settled.... but calling it Continental Airlines Flight 4307 is wrong as it's not a continental flight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.252.240 (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It's silly that this is being called a Continental Airlines Flight, which makes it look as though a Continental Airlines plane in the mainstream fleet crashed. This flight was operated by Colgan Air, which is it's own entity. Just because a news organization who doesn't know the difference between a Mainline Continental Flight and a flight operated by a regional carrier doesn't mean we have to follow in their footsteps. So, I move we rename this to Continental Connection Flight 3407 or Colgan Air Flight 3407. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
As I commented last night, I am for moving this to Continental Connection Flight 3407. Colloquially people seem to not be referring to this as "Colgan Air Flight 3407" so naming it as such makes little sense. In the case of Comair 5191, the media and most everyone else was calling it that from the start, so it's quite different from changing this article's name to something literally no one has been referring to it as. --Resplendent (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The fact is, Continental Connection does not exist as a carrier itself. It's more accurate than Continental Airlines, thats for sure, but this is a Colgan Air flight... all official documentation (FAA, NTSB) will recognize it as such. Calling it anything else is grossly inaccurate... Comair 5191 is the precedent we need to follow... the media was calling it Delta for the first few days anyways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.252.235 (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the Comair precedent, we also have precedent with another Colgan Flight... see Colgan Air Flight 9446 which operated for US Airways Express. --CorSter (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody really is disagreeing with the name change just that it should be kept in abeyance until the interest in the article dies down. This article is going to be here a long time no real rush and all the alternates are redirected here. MilborneOne (talk) 10:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on this topic, but I definitely agree the news media is often a very questionable source when it comes to technical terminology. Checking some of the more authoritative sites: The NTSB's press release calls it "Continental Connection flight 3407",[2][3] Colgan Air calls it both "Colgan Air, Inc. Flight 3407" and "Continental Flight 3407" on the front page[4] Pinnacle calls it "Continental Connection flight 3407", and "Continental Connection flight number 3407",[5][6] and Continental Airlines calls it "Continental Connection Flight 3407".[7] Aside from the inconsistent capitalization of "flight", it's fairly consistent, and "flight 3407" always seems to be capitalized when it's referred to without the "Continental Connection" prefix. Now, these are press releases, not technical documents. I can't find a press release from the FAA, but a search of their website shows "COLGAN AIR FLIGHT 3407",[8][9] (more technical sources). Based on a very limited sample, the technical usage seems to be "Colgan Air" while the common usage (even in the industry) seems to be "Continental Connection". I'm not familiar enough with the topic to weigh it on which is the better choice. However, "Continental Airlines" should clearly be changed. Pat (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that the FAA is saying Colgan Air: http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/preliminary_data/media/B_0213_N.txt I would say that the FAA is a better source than what the media is calling it...The media can call it whatever they want to get better ratings. Spikydan1 (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I provided the same link in the paragraph above yours. However, the NTSB, Continental, Pinnacle, and Colgan all use "Continental Connection" and none of them can be considered "media". Pat (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The current title is a serious error, The main page of Wikipedia calls it a Continental Airlines Flight, in a way we are harming the reputation of one of America's safest airlines. I move as a temporary thing we rename it Continental Connection Flight 3407, and then we can discuss whether Colgan Air is appropriate or not. The media has been harsh to Wikipedia lately, and we don't want them catching sight of this mistake. I would make the move right now, but know it would cause great controversy, so lets get a consensus here first. -Marcusmax(speak) 20:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Although I agree that the title should Colgan Flight 3407 just want to point out that it isnt really a serious error, if Continental did not want harm to its reputation then it should not have licensed or franchised the Continental name as Continental Connection. MilborneOne (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know it seems pretty serious to me, a codeshare partner should not take the blame for the other airlines incident. And it is just blatant misinformation, -Marcusmax(speak) 20:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
You have the right to your opinion but an aircraft painted in Continental colours and using a Continental flight number and marketed as Continental Connection is/has been related to Continental in the media whoever the operator is. I dont thing a wikipedia articles name is going to make much difference to Continentals reputation. MilborneOne (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
But the current name is not only confusing, but just plain wrong. As someone who did not hear about the accident, I was confused when I saw the current title because it states that it is a Continental mainline flight when it was not. This article should be moved to "Colgan Air Flight 3404," and there's plenty of precedent for making it such a title. (In fact, I can't think of any precedent for not renaming it as Colgan Air. ⇒Bayerischermann - 20:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay I think this should be moved to Continental Connection Flight 3407, for a short time until we sort this out. I don't have a problem with it being painted as crash involving a Continental plane, but when the article makes it look like we are referring to a mainline flight, we are being innacurate. And considering this article has been viewed roughly 146,000 times in the past 2 days, we should correct this obvious error. I am curious what you guys think. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that that's the smallest change that would address most of the issues (I was even going to propose it myself), but playing devil's advocate: If I go to Continental's website and find a similar flight (like 3411), the ticket is sold as "Flight: CO3411" with a note at the bottom saying: "Continental flight 3411 operated by Colgan Air as Continental Connection". Continental calls it a "Continental flight" and uses the Continental Airlines airline code, not the Colgan Air code (and there's no such thing as a Continental Connection code). I imagine most customers only know they're flying the Continental brand, regardless of the actual airline providing fulfillment. To reflect everything, a title similar to Continental's blurb above or the bolded text currently at the start of the article would be necessary, though that's a bit wordy. Pat (talk) 04:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay then at this time I will be bold, and make the name change, I do not mind if someone reverts me just leave a relevant reason on this page. I will be changing it to a Continental Connection Flight, a short term fix until we can correct long term issues. -Marcusmax(speak) 14:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This name will work as long as the flight is front and centre in the media- as soon as this dies down, we NEED to change it to Colgan Air Flight 3407. That would follow all wikipedia precedent as well as the FAA's official name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.244.136 (talk) 02:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the title needs to be changed to reflect the operating airline's name. Continental Connection is a marketing name, and not the name of any airline. Additionally, another point to consider is that in the first line of the article, it states that it was marketed as a Continental Flight. With a redirect from all of the Continental names, and the first line, I doubt there will be any confusion, and it will be "correct" in terms of the name of the airline. Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 02:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. There is not a single case on wikipedia where a incident involving a regional flight is referred to by the parent banner rather than the operating airline. This needs to be remedied ASAP. --CorSter (talk) 06:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This flight was refered to as "Continental Connection Flight 3407" before it crashed and after it crashed. Any other names are either incorrect or in the wrong form. The logic behind calling the flight by its RADIO CALLSIGN "colgan 3407" would be like calling a US Airways flight "cactus 1549." Radio callsigns are used with ATC only. No one booked a reservation for "Colgan 3407," The correct title in its complete form is "CONTINENTAL CONNECTION FLIGHT 3407 OPERATED BY COLGAN AIR" or simply "Continental Connection Flight 3407."Editoreast (talk) 08:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, your comparison is invalid. "Colgan" is the callsign for "Colgan Air" and that is what it is. The 1549 article is called "US Airways Flight 1549", "not Cactus 1549". By law, everyone who booked this flight was informed that it was operated by Colgan Air. HkCaGu (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I decided to look at the CO website to see how similar flights are listed. They include information like 'Continental flight 3411 operated by Colgan Air as Continental Connection' for CO3411. Pinnacle Airlines which owns Colgan has used 'Continental Connection flight number 3407'.[10] They have also used 'Colgan Flight 3407', [11], and 'Colgan Air, Inc. Flight 3407' and 'Continental Connection flight 3407'.[12] They do not appear to have used 'Colgan Air Flight 3407' in the press releases. So it would seem that the decision here needs to be based on common name. While the flight have have been know as CO3407. it's call sign during the flight was COLGAN 3407 and it was operated by Colgan Air. Since Continental sells the seats and assigns the flight number and since Colgan air does not sell seats, WP:COMMONNAME and the websites would seem to say the article should be at Continental Flight 3407. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This link has already been posted in this thread, but i will post it once more. http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/preliminary_data/media/I_0213_N.txt proves that the Federal Aviation Administration recognizes this flight as Colgan Air Flight 3407. Any other title is simply innacurate, and will just further reduce the public's confidence in the information on Wikipedia. --CorSter (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, the lack of a naming convention for this is being addressed by WP:AVIATION. Based on the discussion so far, it would appear that the common name will be the way that project leans in terms of a standard naming convention. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we hold discussions in one place?? It makes it really hard to reach a consensus if multiple discussions in multiple places are taking place at the same time on the same issue…. Spikydan1 (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Dan, they are two different dscussion. This one only concerns this airline, while the other is regarding what WPAVIATION and it's naming conventions as a whole. Both are necessary, but they are separate conversations. - BillCJ (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Survey to Rename to Colgan Air Flight 3407

  • Rename - to Colgan Air Flight 3407 per official government records and papers. This Document never once mentions Continental Airlines but only Colgan and the Connection partnership. It is also widely known the flight used the Colgan Callsign as well. As I have said before, this is not a Continental Airlines Flight. Finally I believe we are having a hard time choosing between two controversial names, the only policy I can think of that covers this is WP:NCON. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename. According to WP:NCON: "If the name is that of an inanimate or non-human entity, ...., use the official designation applied by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which the entity is predominately found." The Federal Aviation Administration recognizes this as Colgan Air Flight 3407. That is the name that should apply to this article. In addition, Continental Connection does not exist as an airline (it does not have an operating certificate), and as such, it is impossible for this flight to be legally recognized as Continental Connection Flight 3407. --CorSter (talk) 07:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename. Consistency with other similar articles. HkCaGu (talk) 07:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename to Colgan Air Flight 3407 per Marcusmax and CorSter. FAA and other docs use Colgan. The call sign was Colgan, the plane was owned by Colgan Air, the pilots and crew worked for Colgan Air and the Chairman of Colgan Air was the one who appeared at the press conference to offer support to families. Mfield (talk) 07:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename to Colgan Air Flight 3407 to follow the pattern already set on Wikipedia… Also, what was mentioned above the name that the FAA refers to it as Colgan Air. Spikydan1 (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename to Colgan Air Flight 3407 per CorSter and HkCaGu. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename to Colgan Air Flight 3407 ASAP. I dont even know why this is such an issue--75.157.210.26 (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Survey to Rename to Continental Flight 3407

  • Rename to Continental Flight 3407. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Do Not Rename. That title is woefully inaccurate. This was not a Continental fight, it was a Continental Codeshare. Even the current title, while unsuitable, is better than this proposal. Although it was codeshared as Continental flight 3407, that does not change the legal operator... Calling this a Continental flight would be like calling a Air Canada flight from Toronto to Chicago a United Airlines flight simply because it carries a UA flight number. - --CorSter (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename to Continental Flight 3407, per Vegasw. - BillCJ (talk) 07:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

N200WQ

N200WQ should redirect here. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No need for the redirect. Aircraft registrations can be, and often are reissued. The unique identity of an individual aircraft is its construction number (c/n) or manufacturers serial number (msn). Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
It is highly unlikely that any other aircraft would be notable enough for an article so it is unlikely that another aircraft would appear here. And uniqueness isn't necessary for article names, which is why so many are disambiguated. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I've done it before; see for example PK-KKW. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 07:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
It's not the aircraft that is notable, it's the crash. If you were to follow this logic, the license plate of Pricess Diana's limo would have its own redirect.--76.216.9.107 (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Was Princess Diana's limo a $25,000,000 vehicle, and had a production run around 1000? Note that the current article name is also not unique and frequently reassigned since it's just a flight number, not especially related to a specific route or plane, and definitely not specifically referring to this particular combination of route, plane and date. However, the notable instance of this flight number is this particular instance. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
(unindent a bit) The fact is, often within the aviation community they identify a crash or other occurence by the aircraft involved - always named by the tail number. Quite why I don't honestly know, but that is fairly regular if rare when compared to talking of a flight number. The aircraft is not notable beyond the accident it was involved in, but people also often look up individual aircraft, and the way this is done is by tail number. It therefore stands to reason we should redirect to the notable information linked to that aircraft. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Crash

I changed the word "incident" to "crash." The word "incident" should be used only when referring to situations where there is no serious damage to the plane, nor any significant injuries to passengers, crew or bystanders. That is a rather common nomenclature error in Wikipedia, in articles about aircraft accidents. EditorASC (talk) 10:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the FARs specifically define and differentiate between "accident" and "incident". An occurrence where the aircraft is destroyed and there are fatalities and/or serious injuries is not an incident, properly speaking.  JGHowes  talk 17:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Map

A map of the crash site would be nice. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Google Street View Map was added by me and later removed by a mod? Dividends (talk) 08:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
We can't use non-free images. -- Flyguy649 talk 08:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct address

Which address is correct? 6038 or 6050 Long Street? TouLouse (talk) 10:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, the only ref in the article that mentions an address is Buffalo News. But I don't think the address belongs in the article. --Pixelface (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Photo found latest

[13]Need to check the License.User:Yousaf465 Contacted photographer waiting for permission.User:Yousaf465 Crash site photos [14]

Google earth can it be used

Can I use google earth for the map ?User:Yousaf465 Aviation Maps can be found here.[15] User:Yousaf465

Crew

  • 1stOfficer - Rebecca Shaw (sp?) from MSNBC circa EST 8:11am 13 Feb 2009 Fri 76.66.196.229 (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • 50 people, 49 +1 non-crew pilot on transfer - from HLN 76.66.196.229 (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • 50 people = 4 crew (2 pilots + 2 flight attendants) + 1 non-crew employee pilot on transfer + 43 passengers + 1 ground casualty -- from NewsNet 76.66.196.229 (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I've added a list of crew members to the Flight Details section. Bloo (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Tower tapes?

Should some info from the tower tape be added? [16] Like Delta 1452 seeing where Colgan 3407 crashed? 76.66.196.229 (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is already a paragraph about it under 'Crash,' but I'm sure a little more won't hurt. Bloo (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Information about Colgan flight (operating as Continental 3407) Feb 12, 2009

FlightAware > Live Flight Tracker > Colgan Air #3407:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/CJC3407

Route COATE V126 LHY ULW BENEE V164 (Decode) Date Thursday, Feb 12, 2009 Duration 52 minutes Status Unknown (track log)

Error: Unable to decode route (COATE V126 LHY ULW BENEE V164)

FlightAware > Live Flight Tracker > Track Log > CJC3407 > 12-Feb-2009 > KEWR-KBUF:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/C.../KBUF/tracklog

flightaware.com/live/flight/CJC3407/history/20090213/0220Z/KEWR/KBUF/tracklog

Time Position Ground speed Altitude Facility Eastern TZ Latitude Longitude kts Feet Location/Type

10:00PM 42.33 -77.73 297 14400 descending Cleveland Center

10:01PM 42.36 -77.84 292 13800 descending Cleveland Center

10:02PM 42.39 -77.93 287 13100 descending Cleveland Center

10:03PM 42.42 -78.03 287 12400 descending Cleveland Center

10:04PM 42.45 -78.13 287 11800 descending Cleveland Center

10:05PM 42.48 -78.22 287 11200 descending Cleveland Center

10:06PM 42.55 -78.27 256 10300 descending Cleveland Center

10:07PM 42.61 -78.30 256 9400 descending Cleveland Center

10:08PM 42.67 -78.33 249 8400 descending Cleveland Center

10:09PM 42.73 -78.36 236 7400 descending Cleveland Center

10:10PM 42.79 -78.40 231 6400 descending Cleveland Center

10:11PM 42.84 -78.42 207 5300 descending Cleveland Center


http://www.flytecomm.com/cgi-bin/trackflight

Airline Colgan Air Flight Number 3407 Departure City (Airport) Newark, NJ (EWR) Departure Time 02/12/2009 09:20 PM Arrival City (Airport) Buffalo, NY (BUF) Arrival Time 02/12/2009 10:12 PM Remaining Flight Time 00:00 Aircraft Type Dehavilland Dash 8 + DHC8-400 Current Altitude 0 feet Current Groundspeed 0 mph Flight Status Arrived

http://www.flightstats.com/go/Flight...ghtNumber=3407

Arrival Status Details Airport: (BUF) Buffalo Niagara International Airport Buffalo, NY, US Scheduled: 8:48 PM - Thu Feb 12, 2009 Actual: 10:45 PM - Thu Feb 12, 2009 Arrived at gate 117 min later than scheduled Gate: 26

Flight Events

This section shows the various changes that were made to the information about the flight including the time the source was changed as well as the data source that caused the change. The date and time of the event are displayed in UTC time.


Feb 13 3:02 AM FAA Time Adjustment 

   * Estimated Runway Arrival Changed From 02/12/09 10:06 PM To 02/12/09 10:21 PM

Feb 13 3:12 AM ATCSCC Linked Airport Delay(s) 

   * Link(s) created using departure date 02/12/09 19:10

Feb 13 3:23 AM ATCSCC Linked Airport Deicings(s) 

   * Link(s) created using arrival date 02/12/09 20:48

Feb 13 3:23 AM FAA Time Adjustment 

   * Estimated Runway Arrival Changed From 02/12/09 10:21 PM To 02/12/09 10:12 PM

Feb 13 3:24 AM FAA STATUS-Wheels Down 

   * Actual Runway Arrival Changed To 02/12/09 10:16 PM
   * Status Changed From Active To Landed

Feb 13 4:42 AM Airline Time Adjustment 

   * Actual Gate Arrival Changed To 02/12/09 10:45 PM

Feb 13 7:05 AM FlightHistory STATUS-Unknown 

   * Actual Runway Departure Changed From 02/12/09 09:19 PM To 02/12/09 09:19 PM
   * Actual Runway Arrival Changed From 02/12/09 10:16 PM To 02/12/09 10:16 PM
   * Status Changed From Landed To Scheduled

Feb 13 7:05 AM FlightHistory STATUS-Landed 

   * Status Changed From Scheduled To Landed

Feb 13 7:07 AM FlightHistory STATUS-Unknown 

   * Status Changed From Landed To Scheduled

Feb 13 7:07 AM FlightHistory STATUS-Landed 

   * Status Changed From Scheduled To Landed

Feb 13 11:50 AM FlightHistory STATUS-Unknown 

   * Status Changed From Landed To Scheduled

Feb 13 12:21 PM Airline STATUS-Active 

   * Actual Runway Departure Changed From 02/12/09 09:19 PM To 02/12/09 09:18 PM
   * Status Changed From Scheduled To Active  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.52.95 (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

F/O flight time

"First Officer Rebecca Shaw, hired by Colgan on January 16, 2008, had flown 2,244 hours with the carrier." This statement from the article is unsourced and most likely completely incorrect! If correct, she would have flown more than 170 hours a month since hireing. That would be a gross violation to FAA rules about duty time for flight crew and breaking news by itself!--Towpilot (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Saw this same note on a pilot's discussion forum. Consensus is that Colgan reported her total hours, not hours with the carrier.BK DC (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

First officer flight time and hire date

With the hire date of January 2009, that is only 13 months, with 2 months minimum of training for a SIC type certificate in the Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 leaves 11 months or less of line flying. The maximum amount you can fly per month as an airline pilot is 100 hours, waivable by FAA to 120 hours per month under certain rules. I do not know if Colgan operates with the 100hr limit or the 120hr limit, but either one only allows a total of 1000-1200 hours per year of total commercial flying.

The wiki states that the First Officer was hired in 13 months before the crash, and accumlated 2000+ hours in that 13 months. This is not plausable. as it so obviously in inplausable gross violation of CFR14 parts 121 Air Carrier Operations and part 61 Certification of Airmen. It is also is not practically plausable.

Someone with more time and experience with wiki, please get the info corrected.72.183.54.153 (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Both the CBS and WIVB stories state that she has flown 2,244 hours, so we have to go with what the references say. Dukemmm (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Dukemmm, no one is in doubt that she may have had 2,244 hours as total time since first lesson to become a private pilot. It was the now removed statement here that she would have accumulated this time with Colgan only in slightly more than a year that by common sence had to be incorrect, no matter what CBS, WIVB or any other completely unreliable media source may say! --Towpilot (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Very well then. Dukemmm (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Buffalo News also getting this point wrong and is not responding to email. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.88.143.1 (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The FARs prohibit more than 1000 hours in any 12 calendar months, for Part 121 pilots. Pilots would lose their license and the airline would be hit with very large punitive fines, if they operated beyond that limit. It is pretty much par-for-the-course for the news media to make an awful lot of errors, in reporting airliner accident stories. Most of those reporters don't know a flap from a spoiler. EditorASC (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Natural Gas Explosion?

Latest news this morning is that a major reason the fire was so hot and burned so long was due to a natural gas leak at the site. For example, see ABC News report here: http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/Business/story?id=6870612&page=1. Note that says 5000 lbs of fuel, too, which is undoubtedly a gross overstatement, but all the news outlets have seized upon that number for some reason.BK DC (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

5000lbs of fuel is very plausable. Dash8Q400 has a stated capacity of 1724 gallons. JP5 has a weight of roughly 6.84lbs per gallon which works out to 11792lbs at full capacity. Jasgrider (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, with two alternate airports (a minimum of one was required, and most dispatchers would probably give a second) for the flight last night, the aircraft would have been planning to land with about 3000-4000 pounds of fuel on board anyway. Five thousand pounds seems quite plausible, if perhaps slightly high. I don't know typical fuel burn numbers for a Q400, so I don't know how high it might be, nor do I know what airports they might have been given as alternates (which would also affect how much fuel they'd have had). 66.251.50.6 (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Not on Final Approach

I've purged a few statements that the flight was on final from other articles, but wanted to make a note of that here. Transcripts [17] show that the plane was turning right up until the crash. See the Airfield traffic pattern and final approach articles for more details on landing patterns. Jelloman (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

ATC transcripts don't show the position which the pilots and controllers both know. The primary proof that it is on final is that the crash site lines up with Runway 23. HkCaGu (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The plane had been cleared for the ILS and switched to the tower frequency. That usually happens moments before turning inbound on the localizer. Also, when the controller is trying to point out the aircraft to other flights, he refers to it as being at "the marker". The marker is the Final Approach Fix, so the plane was either on final approach or seconds before it. Ptomblin (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

A plane is already on its final approach segment to the airport, even if it is a "circling" approach, when it drops the landing gear and/or begins to extend the flaps. EditorASC (talk) 10:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
No, technically an aircraft is on the final approach segment when they cross the final approach fix. It has nothing to do with gear or flaps. If you want, I can dig up the section of the FAA's Instrument Flying Handbook or the Aeronautical Information Manual that define it. 67.240.156.15 (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
My apology. It was very late at night and I copied and pasted from previous, and then adjusted it for my own comments, but failed to catch and replace the word "segment" with "approach." I meant to say that the plane was on final approach, rather than it was on the final segment. I was responding to the title to this talk section, which said it was "Not on Final Approach."
It is very common for Approach Control to vector a plane to the "final approach course," and then to immediately say something like "This will be vectors to final," or "Intercept the final approach course and fly it inbound," or "heading xxx to intercept (the ILS course), cleared for the approach, contact the tower at xxx."
If the approach controller did not clear for the approach, but instead directed the pilot to intercept the final approach course, then the pilot cannot descend from the last assigned altitude, but he must fly the final approach course inbound, until cleared for the approach. When he is cleared for the approach, he will also intercept and descend on the glide slope. Depending on how ATC has directed him as to previous altitude clearances, that may occur at a higher altitude than that depicted at the FAF.
It is standard Airline SOP to get the plane slowed down and "dirty," when beginning to fly the ILS course and glide slope, with all checklists complete, prior to the FAF. When doing that, the plane is flying its Final Approach Course, even though it has not yet passed over the FAF (which usually is the OM).
You are correct, that the final "segment" of the final approach course is between the OM and the runway threshold. I didn't intend to challenge that. But, I do say that the plane is on its final approach when it has slowed down with its flaps and gear extended and is tracking the ILS course line. That usually happens well outside of the OM (which is the FAF the vast majority of the time). It is usually the tower that controls the plane during its final approach. Approach control has left the scene when it instructs the pilot to "intercept the final and contact the tower."
This boils down to how the nomenclature is commonly and properly used, both by ATC and in the Airline Flight Opps manuals. ATC uses the term "final" or "final approach" everyday when directing planes to fly such, well outside of the OM. The definition of "FAF" that you refer to, simply depicts where the last segment of the final approach begins. That has an important legalism attached to that point on the map, because a plane cannot legally continue to descend on the glideslope beyond that FAF if the last reported weather was below the minimums specified for that aircraft or pilot. However, prior to that FAF, the plane may continue to descend on the final course and glideslope, even if the last RVR is below minimums. If a newer report is not issued by the tower prior to reaching the FAF, which is above the minimums for the plane or pilot, then he must begin a missed approach at the FAF. Pilots are no longer permitted to "Look see" (descend to the minimums) before executing the MAP procedure, as they were in the old days. EditorASC (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The restriction against having a "look see" only applies to Part 121 (scheduled service) and Part 135 (charter and on-demand air taxi). We Part 91 (General Aviation) pilots are allowed to try an approach even if it's reporting below minimums. Also, possibly it's different with bigger planes, but I was always taught to drop the gear when I make glide slope intercept as the extra drag will help establish the descent. Actually, with my plane, that's usually the only change I need to make - no power or trim changes required. On the other hand, my instructor always said never to use flaps on an ILS with potential ice, and maybe if this crew had heard that advice they'd be alive today. Ptomblin (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have utilized the "look see" in my own plane, when the fog was thick at my base airport (had to go around and land elsewhere). Airliners are required to use flaps when landing----that is SOP and I know of no irregular or emergency procedure where no-flap landings are to be made, unless there is a problem with the flaps themselves (like asymmetrical extension, etc.). Airline pilots are required to fly according to the book and the only justification for trying to land without flaps, would be in a situation where using the flaps suddenly leads to control problems. Until that actually happens, SOP is to use the flaps as required for landing.

It is my view that these types of turbo-prop airliners still do not have de-icing systems that are capable of handling anything but mild icing, especially on the tail. The ADs that were issued by the FAA, after the crash of AMR 4184, did not require the de-icing boots to go back far enough to cover all possible icing, especially with the much larger micron drops of water that can be encountered. Link I hold that the autopilot should not be engaged on any turbo-prop airliner, during icing conditions. That became very obvious after the investigations into the crashes of 4184, and Comair 3272. ADs were issued to that effect, for those models. Not sure if pilots of the Dash-8 had that in their Flight Opps manual too, but I think that SOP should be required for virtually any straight-wing turbo-prop that relies on de-icing boots. EditorASC (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Icing

Everything points to icing as the reason why the accident occurred. Can I get confirmation on that please? Thanks--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation from who exactly? The FAA and NTSB will have an investigation to determine what caused the crash. Anything issued before their reports is speculation. Wikipedia is not the place for speculation. Jasgrider (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
What Jasgrider said. Based on the ATC tapes, it does not sound like icing could possibly have been the primary cause of the crash. 66.251.50.6 (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If reliable media sources report that icing is the speculated cause for the accident it can be added to the article, but I have yet to see a reliable source say so. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In an article by the Baker City Herald No trouble call from Colgan to air traffic control, where the transmissions by the Buffalo's Terminal Radar Approach Control center (TRACON) and a controller in the Buffalo tower between the aircraft in the area, it can be seen that there was a big amount of icing in that particular area as reported, thus icing is the most possibl cause at this time.Gunner0095 (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The sudden loss of pitch control, when the flaps are extended, is a classic symptom of stalling of the tail plane, because of ice buildup on the tail. The same thing happened to a CAL Vickers Viscount on January 29, 1963, at the MKC airport. All on board died in that crash too. And again, the same happened to a Slick Airways DC-4, on March 10, 1964 at BOS, and to a United Express BA-3101 turboprop on December 26, 1989, at Pasco, WA.
See http://www.airlinesafety.com/letters/atr.htm for greater detail on the design problems of turboprop airliners, when it comes to their ability to handle inflight icing. EditorASC (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It was the first deadly crash ...

"It was the first deadly crash of a commercial airliner in the United States in two and half years"

Does that mean no one has died in a commercial airliner in the US in 2.5 years? OR should it says "It was the most deadly crash of a commercial airliner in the United States in two and half years" ? Kingturtle (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It means that there hasn't been a crash resulting in fatalities in the US since Delta 5191 in August 2006. Yes, it was the "most deadly" in two and a half years because no one died since the aforementioned flight. (Two previous crashes - the Continental flight in Denver and USAir in New York had no fatalities.) CNN.com said this was the most deadly US air crash since the American flight that crashed in Queens in November 2001, which I suppose it is, just barely (the Comair crash had 49 victims and 1 survivor). Then again, I don't know if I trust CNN.com, which had originally reported this crash as flight 3107, which landed safely in Grand Rapids, Michigan. 71.234.109.192 (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The exact quote from MSNBC was "It was the first fatal crash of a commercial airliner in the United States in 2 1/2 years." I'm sure an editor just changed fatal to deadly to rewrite it a bit. It looks like the current article doesn't mention it. I'll re-add it to the Crash section. --Pixelface (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Rank as far as "deadliest" locally and regionally

I used to live in the town of Clarence, a few miles from the crash site, and while no one's pointed it out, this is not only probably the deadliest plane crash in Western New York but maybe all of upstate New York. And maybe even the deadliest transportation disaster in upstate New York ... I don't know enough about New York's rail history to say whether there were worse rail accidents in the past, but I'll bet 50 dead is up there with them.

I didn't find anything on this while using Google, but if someone keeps an eye out for something like this it would be worth putting in. Daniel Case (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I read something today about a previous crash in the sixties in the Rochester area, but now I can't find it. Powers T 00:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't strike me as a particularly notable fact, but it's one of those subjective things, as I don't hail from there. --Resplendent (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
You're probably thinking of Mohawk Air Flight 121 which only killed 7. Ptomblin (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC).
This article in the New York Times (probably a source for something in the article already) does suggest the death toll is probably the deadliest single incident in Buffalo-area history, even considering the 1977 blizzard:

The decades here are marked by legendary storms: the St. Patrick’s Day blizzard of 1936; 28 people dead in a 1977 blizzard; the wind-driven gusts off Lake Erie that buried the city in white in 1985. ...Until Thursday, the Buffalo airport had never had an airline crash, weather-related or otherwise, said Don Paul, the chief meteorologist for WIVB-TV, the CBS affiliate in Buffalo ... "The blizzard of ’77 is probably the next biggest catastrophe that we had, if it’s weather-related," said Bob Weaver, 59, the owner of Bob Weaver Motorsports and Marine, a store in North Tonawanda, N.Y., that sells snowmobiles.

I would think the deadliest air crash in an area larger than quite a few states (upstate New York) would be a notable fact if it were reported in a reliable source. Daniel Case (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Not Memorial

We appear to be gaining a list of passengers/victims nearly all appear to be non-notable in wikipedia terms and this is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. MilborneOne (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Victims secion

This section strikes me as a violation of WP:IINFO and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I just agreed with you with the comment above. MilborneOne (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Probably best to link out to an official list of passengers when available. MilborneOne (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm removing the victims section per WP:IINFO and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Should have a breakdown by nationality... IIRC I heard there was one Canadian, and all the others were American. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
No there were at least two Israelis on the flight —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.22.112.202 (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
So... two Israelis, one Canadian, the rest American? We can write that into the lede, next to the number of dead. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone famous die? 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody you would know.--Spellage (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Three other victims: These three females are getting a bit of press, probably because their photogenic photos are available and the relatives are talking:

  • Matilda Quintero - flight attendant
  • Ellyce Kausner - second-year apprentice at Florida Coastal Academy of Law in Jacksonville
  • Lorin Maurer - Princeton University Department of Athletics

They probably do not belong in the article; it is more just a comment on the Press.--Spellage (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Still not sure that the nationality of the victims is notable ? MilborneOne (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
It's a commonly disseminated fact when there's an airliner crash... so why not have it? It would not be a memorial. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 07:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I know its been done before but part from showing lots of flags it does not really have any bearing on the accident at all. MilborneOne (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Why would you need flags? Only state it in prose. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 07:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Cites

Do you really need a cite for every single sentence? I like that this article is well sourced, but there are way too many cites, making the article basically unreadable. For example, do you really need to cite a source to say that it took off from Newark and was attempting to land in Buffalo? Virtually every single article talks about that fact, you don't need to cite it, do you? -75.6.246.39 (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sir, it is better to over-cite than to under cite. Yes, we need lots of citations. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I attempted to sort out the paragraphs and consolidate refs at the end of some of the paragraphs.--Spellage (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
If two or more sentences have the same reference, then one reference is sufficient. You only need another reference if a piece if info is sourced elsewhere.
Example 1 "John Smith was born on 6 August 1926 to James Smith and Mary Smith (nee Jones).[1]"
Example 2 "John Smith was born on 6 August 1926[1] at Fooville[2] to James Smith and Mary Smith (nee Jones).[1]"
Hope this makes it clear. Mjroots (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
It needs to be changed back. If all the citations are at the end of the paragraph, nobody knows which sentences go to which citations. --Pixelface (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The "Crash" section we now have sensible organization to the information in readable prose: One paragraph about the pre-crash context, one paragraph about the flight strictly from the on-board point-of-view (followed by crash site and the people on the ground there, etc.) and then one about the notable passengers. Organization of the information for the reader is probably more important than micro-referencing every factoid. We have the same discussion going on for the Suleman octuplets. Both have lots of press coverage, references that overlap extensively and loads of factoids. When griping about a ref for this or the factoid, please ask yourself if finding a supporting ref is so difficult, then why is the factoid so important to you.--Spellage (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
If someone alters any of the uncited sentences, where is a reader (or editor) supposed to go to verify that the information in the uncited sentence is correct? That is why we put citations at the ends of sentences and not in a giant pile at the bottom of an article (or paragraph) — so a reader does not have to look through every single reference. --Pixelface (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible causes?

We should add the most possible causes, these being:

The federal investigators, after recovering the two black-boxes, stated that "moments after the aircraft’s pilots complained of significant ice buildup, the plane lost stability and began to experience severe side-to-side rolling and up-and-down pitching".Reports about the crash Gunner0095 (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

ABC radio news on the hour just reported that the autopilot was engaged during the approach in icing conditions. The pilots are required to disconnect the AP and hand fly the machine, when they enter significant icing conditions (part of the ADs that resulted from the crash of AMR 4184). It sounds like the plane did a full stall and went into a flat spin. That is about the only way that it could land on its belly, while pointed in a direction away from the airport, yet still on the course line to the runway.EditorASC (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Elevator stall

Trust me, there's no "full stall" or "flat spin" involved here! There's simply no space or time for that. It takes much more altitude for a plane to get into any kind of spin than you may have on a final approach. I'm not gonna forgo NTSB ivestigation here, but every pilot who like me have flown in similar weather conditions "know" what happend. The phenomen is known from similar fatal crashes in the past as "Flap induced elevator stall", prone to happen specifically with airplanes with an extended fuselage (like a Q-400). I'm taking a risk free bet here that the investigation is about confirming what happend and trying to figure out why the captain let it happen. I have not seen a reliable source that the aircraft really hit the house flat on it's belly, and it shouldn't be in this article! News media have a very bad tendency to never know anything related to aviation and make naiv conclusions for a good headline. Confirmed by NTSB so far is that the airplane collided with the ground with an uncontrolled pitch oscillaton (exactly the same thing as elevator stall!) after the flaps were lowered. --Towpilot (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I originally suggested the "flap induced elevator stall" (actually, the entire horizontal stab and elevator stalling because of ice buildup on the tail) above, after the initial reports said that things went bad when the flaps were extended and that it nosed into the ground. Here is what I said in the "Icing" section above:

The sudden loss of pitch control, when the flaps are extended, is a classic symptom of stalling of the tail plane, because of ice buildup on the tail. The same thing happened to a CAL Vickers Viscount on January 29, 1963, at the MKC airport. All on board died in that crash too. And again, the same happened to a Slick Airways DC-4, on March 10, 1964 at BOS, and to a United Express BA-3101 turboprop on December 26, 1989, at Pasco, WA. [This last one hit the ground at 50 to 60 degrees nose down, which is why the NTSB suggested it was more likely a tail plaine stall, than a wing stall. A long fuselage is not required for that to happen.]
See http://www.airlinesafety.com/letters/atr.htm for greater detail on the design problems of turboprop airliners, when it comes to their ability to handle inflight icing. EditorASC (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

However, that was based on the reports that it had suddenly nosed into the ground, after the flaps and gear were extended.

Since then, the reports have changed to say that it crashed belly first, with a heading direction well away from the airport. NTSB's "Chealander said information from the plane's flight data recorder indicates that the plane pitched up at an angle of 31 degrees in its final moments, then pitched down at 45 degrees.

The plane rolled to the left at 46 degrees, then snapped back to the right at 105 degrees — 15 degrees beyond vertical. Radar data shows Flight 3407 fell from 1,800 feet above sea level to 1,000 feet in five seconds." That amounts to a descent rate of 9600 ft. per minute.

Of course you are right, that if the information coming in is not accurate, then all bets are off. But, IF it did impact right side up, and belly first, then that tells me it fully stalled and was dropping like a rock. As to the spin, it doesn't have to make several rotations for that to be true. It only has to be entering a flat spin with part of the first turn, to account for the heading direction of the plane upon impact. EditorASC (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Pilot error. However, we should neither list possible causes, nor present conclusions until the NTSB has determined them. So far they have only presented factual information, and that is sufficient. In the incident reporting system they have not even updated the number of fatalities. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that elevator stall was the problem, for a different reason. Pitching motion. I suddenly had a flash of insight here, which I have not seen discussed. I bought and flew a Piper Cherokee with a standard tail plane section, because of reports that a high tail ("T-tail") plane configuration such as with the Piper Lance that year was tricky to handle in pitched up situations because then the elevator was ineffectual the air-flow being blanked off by the wing. This plane had the high tail-plane design. Taking it out of automatic pilot at such low altitude, and manually resetting and unsetting the flaps would have caused the pitch-up, and the tail-plane would cease to fly (no lift) and the plane would have become completely uncontrollable. The flying characteristics of a tail high plane was perhaps not first up in the pilot's mind, he was fairly new to the design. I think that the icing/lift as the cause is a red herring. Other pilots reported no warning of unusually heavy icing in the area at that time, and landed successfully. JohnClarknew (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to everyone's knowledge and experience in flying, this is not a forum for second guessing the actions of the pilot and copilot, and it is not the place of this encyclopedia to speculate either. This page is, as article talk pages, for discussing improvements to the article only. Discussing which reliable sources to include in the section is one thing, but personal opinions and who said what had happened first have no place here, there's enough of it going on in the mainstream media. Mfield (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not second-guessing. The term is not apt. The article is reporting on so-called "reliable sources" for speculation which may turn out to be wrong. The only reliable source will be the NTSB, and many months may pass before there are reliable answers. Only then will people "second-guess". Meanwhile, the mainstream media is mostly ignorant on flying matters. Wikipedia is used as a valuable resource by journalists. I'd say this kind of talk, which may effect future corrections in the article, do belong on this page. JohnClarknew (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I would say that speculation is not what this talk page is for any experienced journalist will use industry discussion groups like pprune for information not a wikipedia talk page. So any speculation is just turning this page into a discussion page - which as mfield has said it is not. MilborneOne (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
We agree that the media is mostly ignorant but sadly that doesn't change WP policies or what this page is for. The opinions of wikipedia editors and synthesis of reported facts into possible conclusions e.g. "IF it did impact right side up, and belly first, then that tells me it fully stalled and was dropping like a rock" and "I believe that elevator stall was the problem, for a different reason." is out of place even on article talk. No one should be discussing what they believe happened here on article talk, and editors can't make judgement on the accuracy of reports that come from inherently reliable sources. Like it or not, mainstream media outlets will trump everything as reliable sources until reports come out from independent organizations like the NTSB. WP is bound to what has been reported and published, whether or not individual editors know it to be correct. No wikipedia editor alone has any credibility at all in any matter, that's a core principle. If the reports are severely conflicting then the most we can do is put in a statement listing all the early conclusions from various sources, making sure that those are only drawn from sources who are highly respected and independently notable. These sources opinions are noteworthy whether or not editors agree with them from experience. That's the whole basis of reliable sourcing. Possible causes drawn from editors personal experiences are entirely inappropriate to even discuss. Mfield (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
From today's report by the Associated Press: "Lorenda Ward, the National Transportation Safety Board's chief investigator, said one of many possibilities is the pilot pulled back too hard, bringing the plane's nose too high up in an attempt to prevent the stall and dooming the aircraft." If the NTSB's chief investigator is not being misquoted by two incompetent AP reporters (which I doubt, she has a private pilot's licence), then she avers that stalls are handled by pulling the nose UP? Please. Here we have 2 "reliable sources", neither of whom is giving out "reliable information." JohnClarknew (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Aviation Today reveals this bit of technical info, which might explain the above quote: ". . . pilots must immediately determine whether they are undergoing a wing stall or tail-plane stall. Although the warning signs are subtle, the recovery techniques are quite opposite. For wing stall, you add power and push the yoke forward. For tail-plane stall you do the opposite: pull the yoke back, reduce flaps and on some aircraft, ease off on power." JohnClarknew (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

13 incidents

The article claims that The Q400 model has been involved in 13 incidents, but this is the first fatality. I don't see where that number comes from. According to Aviation Safety Network, there have been 7 Q400 accidents, including Flight 3407, out of a total of 28 Dash-8 occurrences (20 accidents, 1 incident and 7 hijackings). DES (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

If there's a better source, please use it. The ref for 13 is [18], which claims the information is from the "Ascend Online Fleets database". Pat (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Unsupported Attacks on Competence of Crew?

Does this really belong in this entry? "Bloggers have reacted too. At least one blogger, Michael Crook, pointed out the apparent amount of time that the pilots had to react, and did not inform air traffic control of any problems. He also pointed to what he said was the youth and apparent inappropriate attitude of First Officer Rebecca Shaw. [33]" The source is the musing of one controversial blogger whose site exhibits no expertise in commercial aviation (or anything else). 76.182.84.208 (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This has to go, no? Skudrafan1 (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Most notably, his blog exhibits no intelligence whatsoever. And I'm 100 percent positive the person who added the paragraph is the blogger himself. Sick. Skudrafan1 (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Blogs fail WP:RS anyway. Some blogs/chatboards such as Pprune, whilst not RS's in themselves, are useful for finding such sources.
      • the problematic text has all been removed already.--Spellage (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I do not feel some blogger should be referenced in this article. In addition, his website trips Websense filters under the category of "sex". Does not sound very credible. It is probably just the blogger himself attempting to generate publicity for his blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.140.254.10 (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
That is already removed.  JGHowes  talk 20:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This information has been attempted to be re-added three times by a new user with no other contributions nor any discussion (despite being invited to discuss here). User Whatgoesup11 (with an obviously inflammatory username) is now on final warning and a further re-add will break 3RR. Also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blogging4truth Mfield (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Off duty crew member

I can't seem to find any guidance for how off duty crewmembers should be recorded in the infobox. Do they just thrown in with the "on duty" crew, as it currently is, separated into "on duty # + off duty #" or do they count as a passenger? The template documentation doesn't mention how to deal with them. --Resplendent (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If they were off-duty and not on the flight deck then he was a passenger. MilborneOne (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Nothing seems to mention whether he was in a jumpseat or in the main cabin, so it's hard to tell. Does the Q400 even have a jumpseat?--Resplendent (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
One account I read said he was riding the cockpit jumpseat. But, I don't remember which article that was. EditorASC (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Would he still be riding in the jumpseat even though there were over 20 seats open? Spikydan1 (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter where he was seated. He was counting duty time but riding "deadleg" and not needed as a crew member on this flight. Legally, he was by FAA definition nothing but a passenger!--Towpilot (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. I have changed crew count to 4 and passenger count to 45. --Resplendent (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

ATC archive

ATC tapes edited from 31 minutes to the 4 relevant minutes are ava. at [19] User:Yousaf465

Prior to the crash, the voice of a female pilot on Continental flight 3407 can be heard communicating with air traffic controllers, according to a recording of the Buffalo air traffic control’s radio messages shortly before the crash captured by the Web site www.liveatc.net. Neither the controller nor the pilot exchange any concerns that anything is out of the ordinary as the airplane is asked to fly at 2,300 feet.

A minute later, the controller tries to contact the plane saying but hears no response. After a pause, he tries to contact the plane again.

Then the controller asks the pilot of a nearby Delta Air Lines plane to see if he can see the Continental flight.

“Delta 1998, look off your right side about 5 miles for a Dash 8 about 2,300 (feet). You see anything there?” he asks.

“Uh, negative,” the Delta pilot says

from [20] User:Yousaf465 Audio here [21]User:Yousaf465

You'd think that the Delta pilot would have seen the fireball on the ground. What were the cloud conditions at the time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.130.47 (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Delta 1998 pilot stated that they were in the cloud cover (or just above it, don't remember). There was a layer of cloud cover that night.
It should also be remembered that the first controller instructing the plane to approach at 2300 feet is the ground controller out of cleveland(?) that flew the plane from NJ to Buffalo. He had just instructed the plane to change frequencies and contact approach control at the buffalo tower. This communication was never established, and the tower actually contacted ground control inquiring about the flight as well. →ClarkCTTalk @ 05:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

At the time in question, the weather was low visibility, and probably unlikely for another flight to see the plane, although thats just speculation Dtheweather9 (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

10 Canadians killed (?!)

Media reports here in Canada have (to my knowledge) only been reporting 1, and lately, 2 Canadians on that flight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.52.95 (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I just added the orginal research tag to the table. No soruces were listed for the table. Spikydan1 (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Nationality Passengers Crew Other Total
 Canada 10 0 0 10
 Germany 4 0 0 4
 Israel 2 0 0 2
 United Kingdom 3 0 0 3
 United States 26 4 1 (on ground) 31
Total 45 4 1 50

what about the non-passenger non-crew deadheading pilot in the jump seat? The table doesn't list that. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 07:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion at the 2011 Tucson shootings (Gabrielle Giffords) talk page where there is overwhelming consensus that names can be listed. Therefore, names are listed here. If you have a beef, then settle the matter in Tucson (talk page). Ryan White Jr. (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Convention for aircrash articles is that generally only Wikinotable people are mentioned, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Mjroots (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Include L.I.F.E. line information

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=31134277&o=all&op=1&view=all&subj=54413513195&aid=-1&id=207800129&oid=54413513195

I wanted someone to mention the L.I.F.E. line that was created. A local clarence, ny business created t's and $10 of your donation goes to the LOVE IS FOR EVERYONE -LINE fund,: L.I.F.E. LINE

In this picture is the the the lady who created L.I.F.E. line, LInda Weiss with Chuck Mangione, signing the donated t's to fundraise more money.

All donations are accepted at the Bank of Akron @ The 4 Corners of Clarence.

I have no idea how to wikipedia, but locally Clarence and the Buffalo community has done a lot to help heal the soul.

I also graduated from Clarence High School and lived off of Clarence Center road, I am happy to help answer any questions. I have more informationa nd pictures, if you look on the facebook page their is more information. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aundie (talk • contribs) 03:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sterile Cockpit Rule violated

This just in, the pilots of 3407 violated the Sterile Cockpit Rule. National briefs: Chatter of pilots on flight that crashed violated federal rules | Nation | Star-Telegram.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.151.193 (talk) 06:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A contributory cause?

The referenced mention that two of the crew were flirting has been removed. The actions of the two crew members involved may have been at least contributory to the accident. The source is reliable, so should the info be added back in or not? Mjroots (talk) 05:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Saying that they were flirting (both were married) is sensationalistic, and simply the opinion of a New York Post reporter based on his reading of the CVR transcript. While it can be sourced to a major US newspaper, the article is much better without it. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I concur. That kind of baseless sensationalistic crap is routine for rags that are trying to increase their sales revenue with gutter titillation tactics. EditorASC (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The two crew were most likely suffering from extreme fatigue - it is likely that at least one of the two crew members was suffering from jet lag - and were possibly 'chatting' in order to keep each other awake, although the fatigue was neither pilot's fault. The fact that in the subsequent accident they both did exactly the wrong thing - despite their training - to recover from an incipient stall illustrates this as their responses to the approaching stall appear to be the result of being suddenly startled, with the handling pilot then pulling back on the stick - the opposite to what he should have done - and freezing at the controls. The second pilot's then retracting the flaps - a puzzling thing to do in the circumstances - compounded this mistake, and made subsequent recovery impossible in the height available.
In addition, teaming together two pilots who each had relatively little airline experience was not a great idea either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.176 (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Autopilot

This articule needs to be edited, the first stage of stall protection kicks the autopilot OFF, therefore when the stick shaker activated the pilot had to take control of the airplane. The second stall protection mechanism is the stick pusher, which is what the name implies, it is like " ok pilot you need to get the nose down to avoid a complete aero stall" and it does just that , pushes the stick forward in the hopes airspeed will be generated and the pilot needs to go with this, saying that though the pushed stick can be overcome by force by the pilots if they feel they are too close to the ground —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanook97 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

re: Nationalities

I understand that this is a project in progress so I took the liberty of updating the Nationalities portion of the page. 

The new information is as follows:

Four (4) Jamaicans were thought to be Americans. 

Therefore I have updated the graph with the new information.

208.131.190.152 (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Kewolski, Jamaica

Yes, it's all in progress. Constantly. ;-)
208.131.190.152, the problem is that a change like this needs a reliable reference. Where did you get the information about the Jamaicans? Currently the table cites as reference a report from the Buffalo News (NY), which lists the names of the 50 dead (45 passengers, 5 crew). Please provide a source when changing the figures. -JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael Moore film mentioning flight 3407

Can we including something from Michael Moore film?

Michael Moore is not a reliable source as to the cause or contributing factors to this crash. His statement that "The co-pilot on Continental Connection Flight 3407, which crashed in February 2009, earned a little over $16,000 the previous year", while factually true, is deceptive in that she only worked (very) part-time the year before. The NTSB investigation has been focusing on work-related issues such as scheduling, commuting, and fatigue of the flight crew (including the fact that most flight crew can't afford to live anywhere near where they work), however is not trying to fit the facts to a certain political view. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

NTSB Board Meeting Feb. 2, 2010

The Board Meeting on this crash will start at 9:30am EST Feb. 2, 2010. You can watch it live or an archived webcast will be available the next day at www.ntsb.gov. The Final report on the crash will probably be adopted at the end of the meeting. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colgan_Air_Flight_3407/Archive_1&oldid=1136622488"