This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1999 South Dakota Learjet crash article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 1999 South Dakota Learjet crash has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article has been created after discussion on the Learjet 35/36 talk page. Given the extraordinary circumstances of this accident, it certainly meets all notability criteria.
The name was selected based on a general naming convention for disasters, which is <<year>> <<place>> <<event>>. I have deliberately not included Stewart's name in the title, for the same reasons that it was inappropriate to include Cory Lidle's name in the title of the article 2006 New York City plane crash (for a discussion of this, see Talk:2006 New York City plane crash#Rename to 2006 New York City plane crash or Cory Lidle plane crash
The article is based, so far, mainly on the NTSB accident, portions of which are included directly, as the NTSB is a public domain document. There's a lot more information from the NTSB files which I'll be culling through, but this, at least, is a start. Any and all are invited to join in the project. Akradecki 00:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I have passed 1999 South Dakota Learjet crash as a Good Article, because, well, it passes all the criteria. It's interesting and well written, it has citations and images (although there is room for improvement with a couple images) with good captions. It's stable, has a NPOV, and includes more than just basic information about the crash. Good job! – Dok( talk| contribs) 16:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The article did not reference the source of the cabin pressure system (Honeywell, Tucson). The FPGAs controlling the quartz based air pressure sensors were later discovered by Honeywell to be faulty. These sensors could lock at either an extremely high or extremely low pressure or somewhere in between. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.36.50.233 ( talk) 10:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
A couple of thoughts about the "Similar Incidents" Section. First of all, I came to this page from the Helios Airways Flight 522 article, and it seems like a very similar incident that should be included. However, with 7 or 8 similar incidents, it seems that a substantial part of this article is now not actually about the title crash. Certainly we don't have enough for a devoted list page, but if there are separate articles for the various other incidents we might just be better off creating links rather than summarizing. Another idea: If the similar incidents all fall within a nicely deliniated categorization of aircraft issues, we could have a devoted page to those types of issues, with a link and a little blurb.
Thoughts?
Samois98 05:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The phrase "in the last thirty years" has no value and should be deleted.
75.222.164.5 (
talk)
04:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Since when do lear jets fly at 39,000 feet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.250.100 ( talk) 23:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Do we really need so much detail in the similar incidents list? A brief list is fine, but this takes up nearly a quarter of the article, without adding anything relevant to the incident described. Let's just replace it with a list, and the link to the list of similar incidents? Guinness2702 ( talk) 14:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
1999 South Dakota Learjet crash. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
That seems to have been the case in this tragedy. If so it's a profound, entirely unnecessary, and truly tragic technology oversight. I posted a detailed comment about this matter on the talk side of the Autopilot page.
Autopilots should not become abjectly stupid nor simply bail in response to loss of thrust. If they still do so the aviation community is suffering from a massive blind spot which will cause further wholly unnecessary tragedies.
I'm genuinely mystified. Please comment. -- H Bruce Campbell ( talk) 08:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The pilot's check list was clearly found to be a contributing factor to this accident. It confused the pilots before it told them to don their oxygen masks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwbN762wTfo Yet this is not mentioned at all in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.189.78.210 ( talk) 02:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
In summary, the Safety Board was unable to determine why the flight crew could not, or did not, receive supplemental oxygen in sufficient time and/or adequate concentration to avoid hypoxia and incapacitation.