1955 MacArthur Airport United Air Lines crash is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 4, 2015. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
October 29, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in 1955, a
United Airlines
Douglas DC-6 (similar example pictured)
crashed only days after a device that could have prevented it was installed on a sister aircraft? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 8 June 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from 1955 MacArthur Airport United Airlines crash to 1955 MacArthur Airport United Air Lines crash. The result of the discussion was moved. |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
upright
on images that are in portrait format, to make them narrower.I've fixed up everything I could find, and have passed the article. Arsenikk (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
In the lead, both CAA and CAB link (via a redirect) to the same section of the same page. Does this mean we can drop one of the links, or is it an error? Mike Christie ( talk – library) 12:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, someone just reversed all the improvements I made to this article. I see nothing "radiical" about them at all, so it never occurred to me anyone would object, AND DO A WHOLESALE REVERT, without at least discussing it on this page. I did check this page before I made the edits, and saw nothing here that would suggest that this article could not still be improved.
First edit: To replace the generic DC-6 photo in the info box, with a United Airlines DC-6 photo from Commons. Please explain why a generic DC-6 photo is to be preferred to the United DC-6 photo, in an article that is about the crash of a United Airlines DC-6? It seems basic logic that if it was a United DC-6 that crashed, a United DC-6 photo would be more germane, than one that has no UAL logo at all. But then, maybe there is some informative virtue Wiki readers will gain, if they are denied a United Airlines DC-6 photo, that is already at Commons, in a Wiki article about a United Airlines DC-6 crash? If you will bother to look at that page at Commons, you will see that same photo has been preferred in four other United Airlines DC-6 crash articles. If good for those, why not also good for this one?
Second Edit: Was to improve syntax of sentences - briefer and clearer than the previous ones, and to correct an erroneous word. That kind of edit has been routine for all editors, since Wiki was started. I did not remove any relevant information; I only improved the clarity and removed some unnecessary words. Please show me how doing that is "radical." I changed the section title from "incident" to "accident." Crashes are not "incidents." They are "accidents," so the change to the more accurate word, was quite proper. Editors are supposed to use the correct nomenclature in aviation articles, and that is governed by ICAO Convention on International Civil Aviation [ 13|here]. I don't understand why anyone would insist on referring to other crashes, as "incidents." Makes no sense at all.
Third Edit: Was to add two more accidents that were caused by the misuse of reverse thrust. Again, seems logical, since this article is about an accident that was cause by the misuse of reverse thrust. I then removed other accidents that were not germane to this one because they had nothing to do with reverse thrust being causal. Please explain the "logic" of having other accidents referenced in the article, that are supposed to be related, even though they were not caused by the misuse or malfunction of reverse thrust? And, why you would remove two additional ones that I added, that WERE related to the misuse and/or malfunction of reverse thrust?
Fouth Edit: I removed the photo of the Air Florida 737. What on earth does that photo have to do with this accident? Reverse thrust was not cited as a causal or contributing factor in the crash of Palm 90, so how is that accident germane to this one? And why wouldn't the two other REVERSE THRUST accidents that I added, not be a lot more germane than Palm 90?
CONCLUSION: I believe all my edits were constructive and thus improved the article from what it was before I made them. I gave explanations for each one, so I shouldn't be accused of trying to hide the reasons. I see nothing radical about those edits. Please explain what was "radical" about them? And you might also please explain why you would do a wholesale revert of all the work I contributed, without at least discussing it on this page first. Your idea of "consensus" is that others should discuss their proposed changes on talk pages first, but there is no such requirement for you, before you do a wholesale revert of edits that were constructive? Thank you, 66.81.52.62 ( talk) 12:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
And thanks for both of your replies, in a civil manner. Very much appreciated. I do not understand some of the comments by Eisfbnore, so posing these questions, in hope of further clarification:
Since you have now said I am free to restore my edits, I will do so at this time, and maybe we can work together to improve those edits even further, by the usual tweaking process? Thanks much, 66.81.52.126 ( talk) 01:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, I'm glad this debate has been kept civil, thank you both for keeping cool heads. Before I say anything about the article I should say I stand by the rules of WP:OWN; I don't pretend this article is mine and always like it when others try to improve articles I have written. I appreciate you both taking the time to improve the article.
I've had a read through the conversation above and looked through the recent diffs and will say the following. I agree about changing the infobox picture; I swapped it around a few times before submitting it at FAC, and tried to get an image that gave the reader an idea of what the DC-6 looks like. However, the new image (while not the best) does show a DC-6 in the UA livery at the time and I believe is suitable for the article, so I'm happy for that to stay.
However, the new prose in the new prose in the "Later accidents" section is of a poor standard. WP:MOS discourages small paragraphs that read like bulleted lists (i.e., all starting with "in, x year, y happened"). Two of the accidents mentioned also are unreferenced, which is unacceptable in an FA. Secondly, I do not really understand why the second paragraph about aircraft being misconfigured prior to take-off was removed. I believe it is relevant to the article, but I am open to debate about this if anyone disagrees. If anything (and this was decided at the FA), it still serves as an insightful ending to the article that rounds it off for the reader. Therefore, I have restored the section to include both paragraphs. If you wish to add more information about reverse thrust accidents, 66.81.52.126, I would appreciate that, but they should be referenced in an FA.
I'll finish just by thanking you for taking the time to improve the article and am grateful to you both for your civility and good intentions, which is not something I see much of around here these days. I will be around on WP for the next few weeks, and would certainly like to improve the article with you both if you wish to discuss it below. Thanks again, wacky wace 18:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I think this paragraph should be removed from this article, along with the photo of the B-737, because they have no logical relevance to this accident:
This 1955 DC-6 training accident was not about mis-configuring the plane, prior to the beginning of the takeoff roll. It was caused by a deficient design which allowed a propeller to be inadvertently placed in the reverse thrust mode, during a touch-n-go training flight that required trainee pilots to demonstrate proficiency in flying the plane safely, after one engine fails at the most critical time (during takeoff). The engineered design at that time, amounted to nothing more than a series of switches/relays, that were supposed to prevent a pilot from inadvertently putting an engine into the reverse mode, while in-flight. However, if the landing gear strut was compressed, then the engines could be put into reverse, since that is their purpose: to shorten the landing rollout and save wear on the brakes.
The training captain was doing what he was supposed to do, when he retarded the #4 throttle, during the touch-n-go portion of that training flight. He did not know that the engine had gone into reverse thrust until it was too late to save the plane. The sole cause of that accident was that poor design, which was supposed to prevent an engine from going into reverse thrust as it lifted off the ground, but it failed to do that. The "safety" design failed miserably and all the pilots died and the plane was destroyed. That is why the "Martin Bar" was subsequently installed, to prevent that kind of accident from ever happening again.
I see no relevance at all to the Palm 90 takeoff crash. It was caused by a variety of factors, like improper deicing of the plane by American Airlines ground crews; a non-standard mixture nozzel on one deicing truck, so that the deicing mixture on the left wing was much weaker than what was applied to the right wing (meaning one wing would freeze up quicker than the other wing); the long wait for takeoff, while the snow was falling wet and heavy; the pilot's failure to turn on the EPR probe heat, which led to them getting engine readings which indicated more thrust than they actually had; the pilots failure to reject the takeoff, when it became obvious that the acceleration was too slow; and then the failure to firewall the thrust levers, once they started getting the stick shaker. ALL of those were factors in why Palm 90 crashed. NONE of the Palm 90 factors were present in this 1955 DC-6 accident -- NONE!
I fail to see any Nexus at all between that accident, and this one. About the only way to relate them is that they were takeoff crashes. If that is all that is required to include other crashes in this article, then I would like to add a few dozen more takeoff crashes. Would that be OK, if I did that?
The same goes for the 1987 NWA MD-80 takeoff crash. That one had nothing to do with inflight reversing. The pilots were grossly negligent in that crash, not reading their pre-takeoff check lists properly and rushing to takeoff without following the required SOPs, and then the failure of the takeoff warning configuration system. Again, NONE of those factors were present in the 1955 DC-6 training flight crash -- NONE!
Nothing like that happened in this 1955 DC-6 accident. The pilots followed proper procedures and did it by the book, yet deficient reverser safety design reared up its ugly head and killed them all, without their having a chance to recognize the problem in time to avert the crash.
No Nexus at all, that I can see, unless we should include all other crashes that happened in the takeoff phase of flight. If that is to be the standard of measure of which crashes are relevant to this one, then surely no one would object if I add a few dozen more?
This may be an FA article, but it needs some real improvement in this area. 66.81.52.195 ( talk) 08:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello and thanks to all the editors of this page : it has now been translated into FR:. Hop ! Kikuyu3 ( talk) 08:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
The infobox photo previously used in this article, although a nice color photograph of a United DC-6, shows one with a livery about a decade too late for the accident. United completely changed its aircraft livery around 1958 and used the new livery on most of its planes through the 1960s; the previous infobox photo was taken in 1966 and shows a DC-6 in this livery. I've replaced the infobox photo with one of a DC-6 in the livery used through most of the 1950s, including the year of the accident. Unfortunately this photo, while still pretty good, is in black and white, and its contrast isn't quite as good, but it's the best Commons photo I could find of a United DC-6 (as opposed to a DC-6A or -6B) with the livery of that period. A better image would be welcome. -- Colin Douglas Howell ( talk) 10:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
If someone can find a COLOR photo of one with the same livery that was on Mainliner Idaho, then I would not object. But, a B&W photo is NOT a close representation of the same livery that DC-6s are alleged to have had at that time. As to the OR issue, while it is ok to make a statement about what a particular bit of history was and when it was changed, on the Talk Page, without a citation, it is still required that if you make changes in the article for the purpose of correcting that alleged historical error, you should be able to provide a WP:RS which will support that change. Otherwise, that edit amounts to nothing more than that editor's own OR. EditorASC ( talk) 02:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Note; the photo does NOT need to be in colour, we are not a quality service. And the best picture is not nessasary, the most suitable would be the picture that is painted in the livery that the aircraft was painted in when it crashed. Black and white or colour. RMS52 ( talk) 08:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
What I mean by that is that we do not need the best quality, we need the best picture. (On account of this incident) As you say, it is a nice colourful picture. But on what Colin says, United changed there livery. So the livery that was pressent at the time of the crash would be most suitable. RMS52 ( talk) 11:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Here is the history of United liveries... https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ff/d1/e0/ffd1e0b7bb9c75d3a87f57a2527cd020.jpg RMS52 ( talk) 11:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, could someone restore the picture Colin added? RMS52 ( talk) 20:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Right, EditorASC here is a source as requested, United changed it's livery slightly after the crash. Colin is right, the picture he has is the correct one.
Here is the source for the United livery history http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4206507/
RMS52 ( talk) 06:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Well after while we have not had much edits to this disscussion, I think the picture now. Is the picture we keep RMS52 ( talk) 09:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations to all the contributors to this featured article. You deserve a lot of applause, recognition and appreciation. What a wonderful article.
In the lead it says the aircraft turned through 90 degrees, in History it says the aircraft rotated through 90° (at which point the wings were vertical to the ground). So it's meant that the aircraft rolled/banked 90 degrees? -- catslash ( talk) 18:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1955 MacArthur Airport United Airlines crash. 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, 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1955 MacArthur Airport United Airlines crash. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1955 MacArthur Airport United Airlines crash. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq I have undone this move. Please stop moving articles without consensus; I see in your contribs that many repairs are needed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 09:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Both the move proposer and the reverter have agreed to move pre-1974 incidents from "Airlines" to "Air Lines" to avoid anachronisms. All the surviving requests in this mass move are pre-1974, so they will all be moved. ( non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 02:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
– Now, I apologize for my previous bold moves for them being reverted. The discussion above suggests that these 22 pages can be moved to their alternative older and commonnames before the name change occurred from United Air Lines to United Airlines. This change is rather subtle and can only really be noticed through the timetables. (This name change is also not mentioned anywhere in the page History of United Airlines. My theory is that when the rainbow livery of United came to existence, the name too changed since none of the accidents using the friendship livery or older, per the final report, were called "United Airlines". It was only since the rainbow livery was introduced then was it referred to as United Airlines which we know today.) Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq ( talk) 15:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I see this Featured article has been moved again; please be sure to clean up the text to match the new article name. An explanation of the name change of the airline via a footnote would be helpful. For example, something along the lines of: SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
On April 4, 1955, a United Airlines [a] Douglas DC-6 named Mainliner Idaho crashed shortly after taking off from Long Island MacArthur Airport, in Ronkonkoma ...
Notes
1955 MacArthur Airport United Air Lines crash is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 4, 2015. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
October 29, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in 1955, a
United Airlines
Douglas DC-6 (similar example pictured)
crashed only days after a device that could have prevented it was installed on a sister aircraft? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 8 June 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from 1955 MacArthur Airport United Airlines crash to 1955 MacArthur Airport United Air Lines crash. The result of the discussion was moved. |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
upright
on images that are in portrait format, to make them narrower.I've fixed up everything I could find, and have passed the article. Arsenikk (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
In the lead, both CAA and CAB link (via a redirect) to the same section of the same page. Does this mean we can drop one of the links, or is it an error? Mike Christie ( talk – library) 12:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, someone just reversed all the improvements I made to this article. I see nothing "radiical" about them at all, so it never occurred to me anyone would object, AND DO A WHOLESALE REVERT, without at least discussing it on this page. I did check this page before I made the edits, and saw nothing here that would suggest that this article could not still be improved.
First edit: To replace the generic DC-6 photo in the info box, with a United Airlines DC-6 photo from Commons. Please explain why a generic DC-6 photo is to be preferred to the United DC-6 photo, in an article that is about the crash of a United Airlines DC-6? It seems basic logic that if it was a United DC-6 that crashed, a United DC-6 photo would be more germane, than one that has no UAL logo at all. But then, maybe there is some informative virtue Wiki readers will gain, if they are denied a United Airlines DC-6 photo, that is already at Commons, in a Wiki article about a United Airlines DC-6 crash? If you will bother to look at that page at Commons, you will see that same photo has been preferred in four other United Airlines DC-6 crash articles. If good for those, why not also good for this one?
Second Edit: Was to improve syntax of sentences - briefer and clearer than the previous ones, and to correct an erroneous word. That kind of edit has been routine for all editors, since Wiki was started. I did not remove any relevant information; I only improved the clarity and removed some unnecessary words. Please show me how doing that is "radical." I changed the section title from "incident" to "accident." Crashes are not "incidents." They are "accidents," so the change to the more accurate word, was quite proper. Editors are supposed to use the correct nomenclature in aviation articles, and that is governed by ICAO Convention on International Civil Aviation [ 13|here]. I don't understand why anyone would insist on referring to other crashes, as "incidents." Makes no sense at all.
Third Edit: Was to add two more accidents that were caused by the misuse of reverse thrust. Again, seems logical, since this article is about an accident that was cause by the misuse of reverse thrust. I then removed other accidents that were not germane to this one because they had nothing to do with reverse thrust being causal. Please explain the "logic" of having other accidents referenced in the article, that are supposed to be related, even though they were not caused by the misuse or malfunction of reverse thrust? And, why you would remove two additional ones that I added, that WERE related to the misuse and/or malfunction of reverse thrust?
Fouth Edit: I removed the photo of the Air Florida 737. What on earth does that photo have to do with this accident? Reverse thrust was not cited as a causal or contributing factor in the crash of Palm 90, so how is that accident germane to this one? And why wouldn't the two other REVERSE THRUST accidents that I added, not be a lot more germane than Palm 90?
CONCLUSION: I believe all my edits were constructive and thus improved the article from what it was before I made them. I gave explanations for each one, so I shouldn't be accused of trying to hide the reasons. I see nothing radical about those edits. Please explain what was "radical" about them? And you might also please explain why you would do a wholesale revert of all the work I contributed, without at least discussing it on this page first. Your idea of "consensus" is that others should discuss their proposed changes on talk pages first, but there is no such requirement for you, before you do a wholesale revert of edits that were constructive? Thank you, 66.81.52.62 ( talk) 12:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
And thanks for both of your replies, in a civil manner. Very much appreciated. I do not understand some of the comments by Eisfbnore, so posing these questions, in hope of further clarification:
Since you have now said I am free to restore my edits, I will do so at this time, and maybe we can work together to improve those edits even further, by the usual tweaking process? Thanks much, 66.81.52.126 ( talk) 01:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, I'm glad this debate has been kept civil, thank you both for keeping cool heads. Before I say anything about the article I should say I stand by the rules of WP:OWN; I don't pretend this article is mine and always like it when others try to improve articles I have written. I appreciate you both taking the time to improve the article.
I've had a read through the conversation above and looked through the recent diffs and will say the following. I agree about changing the infobox picture; I swapped it around a few times before submitting it at FAC, and tried to get an image that gave the reader an idea of what the DC-6 looks like. However, the new image (while not the best) does show a DC-6 in the UA livery at the time and I believe is suitable for the article, so I'm happy for that to stay.
However, the new prose in the new prose in the "Later accidents" section is of a poor standard. WP:MOS discourages small paragraphs that read like bulleted lists (i.e., all starting with "in, x year, y happened"). Two of the accidents mentioned also are unreferenced, which is unacceptable in an FA. Secondly, I do not really understand why the second paragraph about aircraft being misconfigured prior to take-off was removed. I believe it is relevant to the article, but I am open to debate about this if anyone disagrees. If anything (and this was decided at the FA), it still serves as an insightful ending to the article that rounds it off for the reader. Therefore, I have restored the section to include both paragraphs. If you wish to add more information about reverse thrust accidents, 66.81.52.126, I would appreciate that, but they should be referenced in an FA.
I'll finish just by thanking you for taking the time to improve the article and am grateful to you both for your civility and good intentions, which is not something I see much of around here these days. I will be around on WP for the next few weeks, and would certainly like to improve the article with you both if you wish to discuss it below. Thanks again, wacky wace 18:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I think this paragraph should be removed from this article, along with the photo of the B-737, because they have no logical relevance to this accident:
This 1955 DC-6 training accident was not about mis-configuring the plane, prior to the beginning of the takeoff roll. It was caused by a deficient design which allowed a propeller to be inadvertently placed in the reverse thrust mode, during a touch-n-go training flight that required trainee pilots to demonstrate proficiency in flying the plane safely, after one engine fails at the most critical time (during takeoff). The engineered design at that time, amounted to nothing more than a series of switches/relays, that were supposed to prevent a pilot from inadvertently putting an engine into the reverse mode, while in-flight. However, if the landing gear strut was compressed, then the engines could be put into reverse, since that is their purpose: to shorten the landing rollout and save wear on the brakes.
The training captain was doing what he was supposed to do, when he retarded the #4 throttle, during the touch-n-go portion of that training flight. He did not know that the engine had gone into reverse thrust until it was too late to save the plane. The sole cause of that accident was that poor design, which was supposed to prevent an engine from going into reverse thrust as it lifted off the ground, but it failed to do that. The "safety" design failed miserably and all the pilots died and the plane was destroyed. That is why the "Martin Bar" was subsequently installed, to prevent that kind of accident from ever happening again.
I see no relevance at all to the Palm 90 takeoff crash. It was caused by a variety of factors, like improper deicing of the plane by American Airlines ground crews; a non-standard mixture nozzel on one deicing truck, so that the deicing mixture on the left wing was much weaker than what was applied to the right wing (meaning one wing would freeze up quicker than the other wing); the long wait for takeoff, while the snow was falling wet and heavy; the pilot's failure to turn on the EPR probe heat, which led to them getting engine readings which indicated more thrust than they actually had; the pilots failure to reject the takeoff, when it became obvious that the acceleration was too slow; and then the failure to firewall the thrust levers, once they started getting the stick shaker. ALL of those were factors in why Palm 90 crashed. NONE of the Palm 90 factors were present in this 1955 DC-6 accident -- NONE!
I fail to see any Nexus at all between that accident, and this one. About the only way to relate them is that they were takeoff crashes. If that is all that is required to include other crashes in this article, then I would like to add a few dozen more takeoff crashes. Would that be OK, if I did that?
The same goes for the 1987 NWA MD-80 takeoff crash. That one had nothing to do with inflight reversing. The pilots were grossly negligent in that crash, not reading their pre-takeoff check lists properly and rushing to takeoff without following the required SOPs, and then the failure of the takeoff warning configuration system. Again, NONE of those factors were present in the 1955 DC-6 training flight crash -- NONE!
Nothing like that happened in this 1955 DC-6 accident. The pilots followed proper procedures and did it by the book, yet deficient reverser safety design reared up its ugly head and killed them all, without their having a chance to recognize the problem in time to avert the crash.
No Nexus at all, that I can see, unless we should include all other crashes that happened in the takeoff phase of flight. If that is to be the standard of measure of which crashes are relevant to this one, then surely no one would object if I add a few dozen more?
This may be an FA article, but it needs some real improvement in this area. 66.81.52.195 ( talk) 08:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello and thanks to all the editors of this page : it has now been translated into FR:. Hop ! Kikuyu3 ( talk) 08:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
The infobox photo previously used in this article, although a nice color photograph of a United DC-6, shows one with a livery about a decade too late for the accident. United completely changed its aircraft livery around 1958 and used the new livery on most of its planes through the 1960s; the previous infobox photo was taken in 1966 and shows a DC-6 in this livery. I've replaced the infobox photo with one of a DC-6 in the livery used through most of the 1950s, including the year of the accident. Unfortunately this photo, while still pretty good, is in black and white, and its contrast isn't quite as good, but it's the best Commons photo I could find of a United DC-6 (as opposed to a DC-6A or -6B) with the livery of that period. A better image would be welcome. -- Colin Douglas Howell ( talk) 10:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
If someone can find a COLOR photo of one with the same livery that was on Mainliner Idaho, then I would not object. But, a B&W photo is NOT a close representation of the same livery that DC-6s are alleged to have had at that time. As to the OR issue, while it is ok to make a statement about what a particular bit of history was and when it was changed, on the Talk Page, without a citation, it is still required that if you make changes in the article for the purpose of correcting that alleged historical error, you should be able to provide a WP:RS which will support that change. Otherwise, that edit amounts to nothing more than that editor's own OR. EditorASC ( talk) 02:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Note; the photo does NOT need to be in colour, we are not a quality service. And the best picture is not nessasary, the most suitable would be the picture that is painted in the livery that the aircraft was painted in when it crashed. Black and white or colour. RMS52 ( talk) 08:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
What I mean by that is that we do not need the best quality, we need the best picture. (On account of this incident) As you say, it is a nice colourful picture. But on what Colin says, United changed there livery. So the livery that was pressent at the time of the crash would be most suitable. RMS52 ( talk) 11:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Here is the history of United liveries... https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ff/d1/e0/ffd1e0b7bb9c75d3a87f57a2527cd020.jpg RMS52 ( talk) 11:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, could someone restore the picture Colin added? RMS52 ( talk) 20:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Right, EditorASC here is a source as requested, United changed it's livery slightly after the crash. Colin is right, the picture he has is the correct one.
Here is the source for the United livery history http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4206507/
RMS52 ( talk) 06:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Well after while we have not had much edits to this disscussion, I think the picture now. Is the picture we keep RMS52 ( talk) 09:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations to all the contributors to this featured article. You deserve a lot of applause, recognition and appreciation. What a wonderful article.
In the lead it says the aircraft turned through 90 degrees, in History it says the aircraft rotated through 90° (at which point the wings were vertical to the ground). So it's meant that the aircraft rolled/banked 90 degrees? -- catslash ( talk) 18:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1955 MacArthur Airport United Airlines crash. 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, 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1955 MacArthur Airport United Airlines crash. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1955 MacArthur Airport United Airlines crash. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq I have undone this move. Please stop moving articles without consensus; I see in your contribs that many repairs are needed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 09:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Both the move proposer and the reverter have agreed to move pre-1974 incidents from "Airlines" to "Air Lines" to avoid anachronisms. All the surviving requests in this mass move are pre-1974, so they will all be moved. ( non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 02:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
– Now, I apologize for my previous bold moves for them being reverted. The discussion above suggests that these 22 pages can be moved to their alternative older and commonnames before the name change occurred from United Air Lines to United Airlines. This change is rather subtle and can only really be noticed through the timetables. (This name change is also not mentioned anywhere in the page History of United Airlines. My theory is that when the rainbow livery of United came to existence, the name too changed since none of the accidents using the friendship livery or older, per the final report, were called "United Airlines". It was only since the rainbow livery was introduced then was it referred to as United Airlines which we know today.) Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq ( talk) 15:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I see this Featured article has been moved again; please be sure to clean up the text to match the new article name. An explanation of the name change of the airline via a footnote would be helpful. For example, something along the lines of: SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
On April 4, 1955, a United Airlines [a] Douglas DC-6 named Mainliner Idaho crashed shortly after taking off from Long Island MacArthur Airport, in Ronkonkoma ...
Notes