This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Pennsylvania 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.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania 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 been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
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
A fact from Mohawk Airlines Flight 40 appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 September 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
Just got through doing some wikification to the article and making sure the links work but now that I've read the whole NTSB report I'm inclined to agree with Mkouklis. I couldn't see anything explicitly stating the part was in backwards, only that it was defective, its flaps were warped, etc. It appears that the only thing 'backwards' or 'reverse' was the airflow due to the defective part, not the part itself. Welcome any proof to the contrary because otherwise, while it's a worthwhile article, the investigation section wording would have to be modified and it negates the reason it was nominated for DYK... Cheers,
Ian Rose10:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)reply
So I see. Was that your only source for the wording in this article? Maybe the guys who wrote the Mohawk Airlines article misinterpreted their sources and it started there. I checked that mechanic's memoir and he didn't say anything about the part being installed backwards either. As ever in the wonderful world of Wikipedia, I'm not so much concerned with truth as verifiability and at this stage I can't see anything to verify it. I'll see what I can find from the Mohawk Airlines editors and if no joy there we'd better change both articles to something more in line with the NTSB report's wording. Cheers,
Ian Rose05:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)reply
Agreed. I'm going to go ahead and remove the information about faulty instalation from the articles for now, before it does any more damage. If a source turns up it can allways be replaced. Changing the wording from "installed backwards" to "failed" shouldn't be a problem since even if it was installed backwards, it still failed. Therefore, while slightly more vague, at least it isn't downright misleading. -
Blood red sandman06:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)reply
External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on
Mohawk Airlines Flight 40. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
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.