Talk:Qantas Flight 1

Photograph

The ATSB report contains several photographs of the accident. I am unsure as to the copyright status, but they would be very useful in illustrating the article. Other photographs were taken by a Qantas pilot and are widely available on the web. --Jumbo 07:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Hops on the Kangaroo Route

The kangaroo route is a term to denote flights between Europe and Australasia; these flights generally have a stopover along the Southeast Asia flight corridor. Flights along this route are considered to generate high yield for airlines; this is due to the large population of European ancestry in Australia and New Zealand, along with the long distances involved. However, because of agreements between the various governments along the route, the number of airlines allowed to fly the route has traditionally been restricted. The name refers not only to the kangaroo, native to Australia, but also to the fact that the journey was traditionally accomplished with at least two "hops" due to the stopovers, alluding to the kangaroo's means of locomotion. --Jumbo 07:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Standards for airliner crash articles

An airliner crash is generally titled by the airline flight number, as in Flash Airlines flight 604 and many others. The article is about the crash, rather than the route. Let's face it, if we had an article for every airline route (including codeshares) we'd have a lot of short articles.

I accept that there is a need for articles on specific routes, especially where they are significant, such as the Kangaroo Run. Perhaps we could find some unique way of titling such articles that doesn't interfere with the large corpus of articles on airline crashes? --Jumbo 05:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That naming standard works fine for major crashes, where the airline no longer uses the flight number after the crash. In this case, QF1 still exists, and theoretically could have further incidents in future. In any case, I believe I improved the article by putting the information in a more logical order. The only additional information I added was that some Kangaroo route flights use Hong Kong, and the name of VH-OJH is Darwin, which the aircraft template required at the time I started editing. The usual standard for naming articles about accidents and disasters includes the year, for example 1997 Thredbo landslide or 2002 Bali bombing. Other article names describe the event, even without a date (Ash Wednesday fires, Granville railway disaster). When most people think of Qantas Flight 1, they think of a European holiday (or coming home from an Australian one if they started in Europe), not about a plane running off the runway in Bangkok. The content and focus of this article is surprising given its title. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything except changing the article to focus on the route rather than the crash, as given the large number of articles about airline crashes and the small number about specific routes, this is something that should be discussed with all interested parties. Adding in a date seems like a good idea. Perhaps 2002 Qantas Flight 1 crash? Not sure about how to not make the title look awkward. Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines would probably be the best place to raise this question. --Jumbo 06:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I'd prefer 2002 Qantas Flight 1 accident, as it didn't really crash - it made a controlled landing, followed by running out of runway. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• If it is not an accident, then I think it is usually called an incident. Incidents are regarded seriously and is probably appropriate in this instance - thus 2002 Qantas Flight 1 incident. I think an article about the route would be useful, it is a famous route with interesting history.--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The difference between an 'incident' and an 'accident' is clearly difined. The term 'accident' is called for when the airframe is significantly damaged or people are injured. An 'incident' is when a aircraft has technical dificulties that do not allow the flight to be completed safely, and the aircraft subsequently has land as a precaution without sustaining significant damage.

Example: The Quantas Flight 1 accident is clearly to be called a 'accident' not a 'incident', since there was significant damage to the airframe.

Overshooting a runway may be called a 'incident' if the aircraft overshoots with a relatively low speed, and therefore no significant damage is caused to the aircraft (appart from possible foreign object damage to turbines and landing gear due to mud, grass etc.) and no injuries to people on board.

81.221.66.200 04:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Article still confused

This article is still a jumble of general info on Qantas' flagship route/flight number and specific info about a particular incident that happened to an aircraft that was operating that route at the time. I attempted to clean this up once before by sorting the general info to the top, then having a section about the 1999 incident, but my edit was reverted as most articles about flight numbers only mention the last time it flew. In the case of QF1, the last time it flew is always within the last day or two! Am I the only one who thinks the article needs work? --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Qantas Flight 1 → 1999 Qantas Flight 1 accident – Per above discussion from 2006, to distinguish from the currently operating flight. 202.28.181.200 (talk) 05:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment is the currently operating flight notable? -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 10:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think it really matters, since it's still potentially confusing whether or not there's a separate article for the current flight. The title should clearly reflect what the article is about, and this article is about the accident. --202.28.181.200 (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Are any other flight accident/incident articles done up this way? Afterall, almost all of them had flights with those numbers before, and many had them still being used after their respective events. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 06:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• I'd prefer "incident" to "accident", but am not convinced that both the incident and whatever historical notability there is for the route doesn't belong on the same page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - The current name follows the existing convention that lots of aviation related incident and accident articles follow. For example: Air Transat Flight 236, Pan Am Flight 103, Singapore Airlines Flight 006, Alliance Air Flight 7412, Alaska Airlines Flight 261, Crossair Flight 498, Korean Air Cargo Flight 8509, Korean Air Lines Flight 007, UPS Airlines Flight 6, United Airlines Flight 811, South African Airways Flight 295, Qantas Flight 30, Alaska Airlines Flight 261, Aeroperú Flight 603. They follow these guidelines. It would mean its the odd one out. Its not like its known as 1999 Qantas Flight 1 accident by common name. --JetBlast (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think that's irrelevant, as the nominator has been speaking of ambiguity. Hill Crest's WikiLaser (Boom.) (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support The issue here is ambiguity. Not the common name. Hill Crest's WikiLaser (Boom.) (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Would that WP:AT were based on ambiguity instead of WP:UCN... it would make things much easier... I assume you're going for a WP:IAR ? -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking about the scope of the move. Thanks for that. Hill Crest's WikiLaser (Boom.) (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment this article has been sent for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight 1 -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - no need to dab yet. Should there be another accident to Qantas Flight 1 that merits an article, convention is to dab by year. No need to move the article until that happens. Mjroots (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support The famous QF1 'kangaroo route' is notable in isolation from this incident. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose article uses standard convention for accident article, no evidence that QFA1 is otherwise notable for a seperate article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2012 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.