This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all
list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
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 not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar and style: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please
add the following code to the template call:
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
I notice that many (most?) of the items do not have dates given. This is most useful data for readers. At the intro to this article, it states that the list gives dates, which is not honored.
Tony (
talk)
04:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Should we use the RFC 3339 date format as recommended in
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Formats for tables, even if the entries aren't (yet) in tables? That format makes it much easier to compare the dates per bullet, than the current small-endian sporadically used mess. --
Jeandré, 2016-05-23
t12:52z
I am quite sure that there has been at least one serious crash in Sweden. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
62.101.126.216 (
talk) 09:29, 29 August 2006
Wasn't there also an incident in Boston some years ago when a plane (USAir, I think) slid off the runway into Boston Harbor? It was in the winter, I think, and the front of the plane broke off and a couple of rows of passengers went into the water. --
Wspencer11(talk to me...)18:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)reply
That event, IMO most likely within +/- 5 years of 1980, was well covered in US press, and should have plenty of info available. One aspect of it that should contribute to notability is that two passengers, mutually father and son, remained unaccounted for, and the insurer resisted liability for their apparent deaths, suggesting that they had left the scene under their own power! I don't recall ever hearing what the resolution of that aspect was. --
Jerzy•
t03:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)reply
There was also a Britsh Airways turboprop crash at liverpool—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bnpforgov (
talk •
contribs) 12:15, 9 June 2007
That's probably enuf info to be sure we're talking abt one specific crash in doing followup with, initially, the goal of finding out whether that event fits the established criteria for this list. --
Jerzy•
t03:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)reply
There's several missing major incidents that I am aware of, such as one in Leipzig, Germany and two in Boston, Massachusetts. I guess there are better resources than wikipedia than this information, such as airdisasters.com —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
216.15.124.10 (
talk)
19:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Reduce to jet crashes
I think the list should be reduced to jet crashes, all Australian commercial crashes is a long list. Looked at the criteria, more than 10 people, that cuts it back. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
61.9.139.165 (
talk)
22:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)reply
If # of casualties is non-negotiable criterion, consensu on improving the criteria is a more important task than complying with them. --
Jerzy•
t03:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Page structure
Any page with 131 sections and subsections is broken. If no one proposes a different plan soon enuf, i'll try converting subsections with fewer than 4 entries into pseudo-sections (each addressable with the same section lk as at present, and each with a still smaller heading but no ToC entry) within an "other" subsection that will follow the retained subsections of the same section. That being done, we'll be in a better position to decide whether the page should instead be broken up. --
Jerzy•
t04:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)reply
As it stands, whenever an aircraft crashes into a body of water, it is listed here under the body of water and not under the country whose waters it crashed in.
As an example,
Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961. This aircraft crashed into the Indian Ocean off the coast of Comoros, but not in international waters. It is considered to have crashed in Comoros, and the flight's page is listed at
Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in Comoros. In this list, however, it is listed under Indian Ocean and not Comoros. (Up until my latest edit, that is; now it's still listed at Indian Ocean, but there's a note under Comoros saying "go look under 'Indian Ocean' for this listing.")
I propose listing flights under the country the accident/incident occurred in, including bodies of water if they occurred in national waters, and only listing flights under a heading like "Pacific Ocean" if and only if the accident/incident occurred in international waters.
It's been over a year, so I'm not sure it counts as being WP:BOLD', but I just consolidated all of the bodies of water under the heading of International Waters.
Additionally, I merged
marginal seas, smaller constituent bodies of water, and other tributary bodies under the heading of the larger ocean it belongs to. These consolidations are:
I have been considering divorcing the Mediterranean Sea from the Atlantic Ocean and making it its own heading, but the list only contains two records for the Mediterranean, and I figured it might as well be incorporated into the larger Ocean for the time being.
Finally it is important to note that
international waters are defined as being 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi) from the coast of any territory; anything closer than that is territorial water. Of course, there are disputes, but we'll need to consider those on a case-by-case basis.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I'm thinking that the article
List of flight accidents in india can be merged with this article. I can see that this article too has List of accidents in India but, with some accidents are not mentioned. So, my opinion is to add that extra information down here and change that page into a redirect page. --
Jaaron95 (
talk)
01:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support The India specific article appears to be largely a copy of the incidents already listed here, without any information or context. It may have been started as a
split from this page, but if that were the case, it should have more detail, not less.
WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!11:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support The India page is more in a category list style, which should then rather be done as a category. perhaps while performing the merge, the Category page should be created in its place...
GremlinSA08:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Definition of list
As a list, this article shall be limited to a brief description of each incident. There is no need for a protracted description here, as one click will take the reader to the full accident article.
Samf4u (
talk)
02:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Just giving thoughts, I do agree that it should be summarized, but I need your opinion about the description, did it make you more interested to click the full article or actually make you yawning, lazy to read, and even don't care about it? Please send a feedback, I really appreciate it. As an aviation enthusiast, I'll do my best to improve it, thanks. (sorry for my english)
PaPa PaPaRoony (
talk)
16:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)reply
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
Not sure what an airliner specific article could say "these airliners have had accidents". Dont think it would achive much, we dont have an article on airliner by location or any others.
MilborneOne (
talk)
19:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)reply
March 22-23? during day light 1969 I was aboard a Lockheed? E C 121 air transport coming from Adorn Thailand shuttling back to the USA when 3 engines were blown by surface to air missiles and the Captain was forced to glide in on an emergency landing. its been over 50 years think it was Phuket but could have been Utapao . The plane had a dark bottom and white top.Please help me The Air force say they have no record but I will never forget the trauma. I new a Captain was flying because he greeted all the passengers when we got off the plane.I gave him a hug and kiss on the cheek for saving our lives. Told him I did not know you could land a 4 engine plane on 1 engine.God in heaven knows it happened but Air force has no record and said records were destroyed in a warehouse fire.
It would be unusual if there was no record of such an incident but I cant find any evidence that it happened with the information provided. Most serious incidents are normally well documenated.
MilborneOne (
talk)
11:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I suggest we change the names of this article and all sub-articles to
List of aviation accidents and incidents in '(insert country name)'.... as airliners makes the article sound like the accidents being groubed depending on which airline companies were involved and where they were located instead of where the accidens actually happened.
DoctorHver (
talk)
16:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
With the greatest of respect, I would oppose this move. I disagree that the present title causes confusion, indeed I think it is quite clear, and that the proposed replacement is vague and unsatisfactory. Best to all
DBaK (
talk)
22:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply