Talk:Proteus Airlines Flight 706

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Proteus Airlines Flight 706 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Aviation: Accidents

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Removal of multiple-issue templates proposed

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the templates below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments about this deletion should be made under this box on the talk page or made in a deletion review.

It's been one year since the addition of multiple-issue templates dated July 2016. These include the suggestive incorporation of material from the French version of this article for expansion as well as WP:CN. I would like to propose the removal of these templates and I seek consensus to do so here.

The article as it is written now does not require additional information from the French version. A quick perusal of the French version of this article shows that, if anything, it's the French version which requires maintenance — in that it contains an excess of non-relevant information about the Proteus Airline company itself that isn't really germane to the accident.
Although the article contains information sourced from only two different entities (the BEA and the NYTimes) those two entities are arguably two of the best, most relevant sources for information on this accident (the BEA report undoubtedly so). Information taken from the BEA report and included in this article was exhaustively sourced down to the page number, which I believe gives the article a greater sense of verifiability.

I seek consensus for the removal of these templates and will do so approximately 14 (fourteen) days from now if there are no dissenting opinions.—Spintendo^Talk 19:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

........................................

There were no dissenting opinions offered over the course of two weeks.

........................................

The result of the discussion was to Delete made on 09:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC) by Spintendo^Talk to the following three templates:

Multiple issues dated July 2016
Expand French dated July 2016
Improve references dated July 2016

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made below this box.

September 2017 edits

The following changes made to this article shown in these diffs → 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. do not appear to improve the article.

Some key changes made:

References which directly pointed to a page number in the official report were removed and replaced with the bare URL's to the report, with a page range instead of the actual numbers, placed in the references at the bottom of the article, rather than in situ within the text. The additional listing of the report's URL (4 extra times in the references) clutters the references unnecessarily.
Information pertinent to the investigation such as the position of the sun and the fuselage acting as obstructions was removed without reason.
Information already specified under 'Investigation' heading was removed and then reinserted later in the paragraph, albeit reworded differently, for no other reason than editor's fiat.

This article had existed in its current form essentially undisturbed for well over ~~a year~~ nine months before these most recent changes were made. Any further changes made along these lines ought not be made unilaterally, but rather, come as the result of a new consensus reached by the community and brought forth on this talk page.—Spintendo^Talk 23:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "also"

I accidentally put the edit in before I had typed explanation. I removed "also" because the preceding sentence was about the OTHER aircraft in this incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.56.94 (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about the Mayday documentary

The Cessna pilot, flying alone, was also killed. The documentary doesn't say that. It starts off with the commuter flight going down and killing its passengers & crew, and it goes through the process of finding a 2nd plane's wreckage, identifying it as a Cessna, and then matching it up with the nearby takeoff of a Cessna which never returned.

Yes, the article is correct in that all people on both aircraft were killed. I'm just saying there seems to have been some delay in figuring out that a 2nd plane (the Cessna) was involved.

Also, I don't recall hearing in the documentary about the sun being part of the reason the Cessna pilot couldn't see the Beechcraft commuter plane. There has been UNRELATED stuff in the Forensic Files TV series about the sun's angle and the need to determine time of day based on where the sun and/or resulting shadows are.

(In the documentary, I am hearing that some minutes earlier, the Cessna was where it could be seen by the Beechcraft crew but would have been overlooked because it only showed up as the size of an ant. Later, it says that the Beechcraft came out of the Cessna's blind spot(s) -- TOO LATE!!)

Afterthought: I have listened numerous times to traffic reports on a certain "news radio" station, and I do occasionally hear of road traffic being affected by sun glare. So how goes it regarding pilots' sun glare? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B104:F978:D4B9:9D58:9FD7:BC1F (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the accident (2pm) the position of the sun in Quiberon Bay was 223° in azimuth, with a height of 55° above the horizon. The Cessna's heading upon entering the final moments of flight was 226°. This would have placed the sun directly in front of the Cessna pilot. The glare coming off of the windshield, coupled with the fuselage configuration of the Cessna having wide windshield side posts, made visual scanning of the horizon difficult in the areas just ahead of, and to the left of, the Cessna pilot. SPINTENDO 12:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should we rename this to Quiberon bay mid-air collision?

Should we rename this to Quiberon bay mid-air collision since it is not only involving one but two aircraft? Username006 (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles on collisions involving a single commercial flight are named after that flight. See Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 182, Aeroméxico Flight 498, Gol Linhas Aéreas Flight 1907, Hughes Airwest Flight 706, United Express Flight 5925, etc. ThatFlyingSquid (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]