This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ramstein air show disaster 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 |
Ramstein air show disaster was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on August 28, 2008. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Under the " Accident Process" section, the text says "After the crash the remaining group had to circle the airbase in missing man formation." There's even a link to "Missing Man formation," but I think it highly unlikely that a ceremonial formation would be used under emergency circumstances like that. Can anyone document this? Septegram 18:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
@Septegram
You are correct. I was there. The runway they took off from was trashed. Being in a military airspace with surrounding civilian airspace they didn't know where to go so they circled until given orders. That wasn't a "missing man" but it was very creepy watching them circle. Excellent choice in deleting that section.
Sorry this took so long to respond. I just became aware of this page... It's full of inaccurate facts. This is the first of my corrective suggestions :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesds ( talk • contribs) 04:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: I can agree with the Trivia heading not being appropriate, but the fact that the band Rammstein was named after the event and that one of their first and major songs is a tribute to the event is relevant and definitely relating to the event. -- rxnd ( t | € | c ) 07:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, here you go:
So, primarily because of the issues with fair use images, problems with prose and lack of citations, I'm going to fail the GA at this time. If the above issues are dealt with, please feel free to re-nominate the article for GA. If you'd like any help with implementing the above then let me know. The Rambling Man 07:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
John, removing the documentary of relatives of victims is not an option. Read them first or keep away. Guidod 18:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
External links on Wikipedia are supposed to be "encyclopedic in nature" and useful to a worldwide audience. Please read the external links policy before adding more external links.
The following kinds of links are inappropriate:
Links which do not comply with the policy must not be included in the article. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
On April 10, 2008, editor Cynjut ( Talk | contribs) made a number of changes, which added a new section, "Analysis". None of that section cites reliable sources. It speaks about research in the passive voice. The section ends by saying, "...If the accident had occurred 50 feet east of where it did, it would have ... probably killed me." If "me" refers to the editor, then I understand why they would have expertise and passion about this topic. It makes me wonder if the entire Analysis section is original research, which is against Wikipedia policy. I think this section needs at least a change to remove the "me" reference, and some citation of reliable sources which do the analysis. I'm leaving the editor a message on their Talk page. -- Jdlh | Talk 19:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
"Sixty-seven spectators and three pilots died and 346 spectators sustained serious injuries in the resulting explosion and fire."
"Of the 31 people who died at the scene, 28 had been hit by shrapnel in the form of airplane parts, concertina wire, and debris from items on the ground.[2] Sixteen of the fatalities occurred in the days and weeks after" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.23.122 ( talk) 04:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Now it says "Sixty-seven spectators and four pilots died" but the total in the infobox is still 70. Which is right? -- 129.21.93.164 ( talk) 13:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I feel as if the timeline presented on the article would better be suited for a table. Hence, here is my crack at it:
Time | Details |
---|---|
3:40 | Start of the Frecce Tricolori |
3:44 | Collision |
3:46 | Fire fighters arrive |
3:48 | First American ambulance arrives |
3:51 | First American ambulance helicopter arrives |
3:52 | Second American ambulance helicopter arrives |
3:54 | First American ambulance helicopter takes off |
4:10 | German ambulance helicopter Christoph 5 from Ludwigshafen arrives |
4:11 | German ambulance helicopter Christoph 16 from Saarbruecken arrives |
4:13 | 10 American and German ambulances arrive |
4:28 | About 10 - 15 ambulances arrive. 8 medical helicopters (US Air Force, ADAC, SAR) at the scene |
4:33 | First medical helicopter of the Rettungsflugwacht arrives |
4:35 | Doctor on emergency call over the radio: "We are searching for burnt patients that are pulled and transported unaided away from us by the Americans. They told us nobody from them are here no more. Not all the injured people are transported away by helicopter or ambulance. There is total chaos around us and some of the injured are even transported on Pick Up trucks that are not leaving on emergency exit, they are driving beside the drifting visitors. It was a terrible sight to see people with burnt clothes and sagging burnt skin, squirming with pain of transfixed and shocked with pain on these vehicles. |
4:40 | First low platform trailer for transport of the dead bodies arrives |
4:45 | Second low platform trailer for transport of the dead bodies arrives |
4:47 | At that time the German headquarter for emergencies had no clue of the dimensions, obvious by the radio communication: "Yes, and that is the problem. We don't know yet what had happened, how many injuries and what else. The leading emergency medical did not send any feedback yet. He wants to have a synoptic view first" |
5:00 | At that time several medics arrive with helicopters. Later they said: "At the time we arrived shortly after 5:00 there where no injured people no more. We could see that the last badly injured people where loaded into American helicopters. We could see some Pick Up trucks with injured people transporting them away. It was not possible to find a officer in charge, a director of operations or even a contact person [...] so we got to the Johannis hospital in Landstuhl by own initiative. Asking several action forces, paramedics, police officers nobody could name a director of operations. I was asking for a managing paramedic of the operation to coordinate the evacuation. But there was none." |
6:05 | A ambulance helicopter arrives at the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center. The paramedic said later: "We found a large number of severely burnt, badly injured people absolutely unaided. [...] When I arrived in Landstuhl, severely burnt people partly lay on wooden planks and no paramedics where there. After I aided a injured person and left her with a hospital nurse that attended us at the flight, I was treating several injured people at the helicopter landing zone at the military hospital and did not see even one American medic there" |
6:20 | Dead bodies are transported away from the scene with the two platform trucks |
6:30 | A bus full of injured people arrives in Ludwigshafen (80 km away). A paramedic later said: "5 severely burnt people where inside the bus. There was no paramedic attending this transport. Just a not German speaking driver unfamiliar with the area, on an odyssey through the town until he was able to find the hospital." |
If you support this format of display the timeline, please say so here. If you oppose, please voice your opinion and reason as well. I do believe that minor things like the header-text should be tweaked, but other than that, I think it looks much better than the fragmented way it is shown right now. Aly89 ( talk) 05:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I was in the RAF at the time this disaster happened and I remember some 'best practise' or possibly legislation that came in as a result of this incident. I think the primary change was that manoeuvres were no longer permitted to run towards the crown line. Instead, they had to be carried out parallel to the crowd at a minimum distance.
I wonder whether anyone can confirm any changes that came out as part of this incident? Can reference it? Comment whether it should be included in the article. G0ggy ( talk) 14:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
This needs some work, in addition to reliable sources.
Auntieruth55 ( talk) 20:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I was there on this sad day. I was standing approx. 50 meters left to the impact area of Ivo Nutarelli´s plane. As i was trying to understand what had happend around me,i looked up. I saw two formations (the freece tricolori had a ten planes with three just crashed): one formation of three with one plane trailing smoke and the others as escort heading for Spangdahlem airbase.
The other one of four flew in a missing man formation over the field. But i had the feeling then and now still i believe it was a personal fairwell and not ordered by ATC or some other power. They flew much to high to be regognized by the the stuned crowd. It was a private tribute to the victims of the accident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.221.218.123 ( talk) 19:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I tried to create a diagram showing how the disaster happened including the aerobatic figure (I guess that was requested). The solist is marked red, the two formations are blue, the spectator area is orange, the impact points on the ground are numbered.
Obviously, the size of the aerobatic figure is not correct, I don't have any figures about the size of it, so that is only a very rough approximation.
I would be happy to get some criticism on how I can improve the diagram. -- Julian Herzog ( talk) 15:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi
Julian
Thanks for a very good try at explaining the disaster via a diagram which even I could follow! It should fit-in well with the description of the 'heart' maneuver near the article's beginning. Here are a couple of other comments that might improve things still more:
1. What does the grey arrow represent? It could possibly confuse readers, but if it is there to give 'depth', fair enough; nevertheless there should be some sort of explanation.
2. It could be good if your diagram showed where the largest pieces of debris came to rest and the fireballs occurred. (You would probably have to tread a fine line here, as the temptation to put too much detail in might be hard to resist).
Regards
RASAM ( talk) 20:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
The WikiPedia Senior Expert RichardW removed this line about I-TIGI case "....unrelated with their daily duties, moreover their TF-104 was the only Italian A.F. aircraft in flight at the time of the accident and they were the only crew which sent a "maximal alert" codified signal..'''' " I don't know if RichardW is a CIA man or a right wing WASP, he just can clean my contribution on Wikipedia pages but he cannot hide the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiko 64 ( talk • contribs) 19:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ramstein air show disaster. 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) 02:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
" In January 1991, Werner Reith, a German journalist from the newspaper Die Tageszeitung, suggested in an article that the Ramstein disaster could have been caused by some sudden technical problem—or even sabotage—in Nutarelli's plane. No supporting evidence could be collected. Reith pointed out that Lt. Col. Nutarelli and Lt. Col. Naldini were supposed to know details about another air disaster, the 1980 Ustica massacre, citing Italian press sources. Judge Rosario Priore, who was investigating the case at the time, found that they were performing training flights nearby minutes before the Ustica incident, but he definitely rejected their deaths as sabotage. "
Am I the one one who finds this paragraph baffling? What does the pilot's potential knowledge about another air disaster have to do with whether the jet was sabotaged? What do training flights at a nearby base have to do with sabotage? This appears to be a collection of unrelated statements collected here for no particular reason, and without any obvious relevance to the rest of the article. Also, the way the text reads you'd think the main point of this article is to bash the emergency response. No doubt there are many important and relevant issues that were raised, things that could have been done better, but it seems like the general theme of every section is "they totally screwed it up, see??" Is this the official position of the German emergency authorities? Is there universal consensus that the response was basically a comedy of errors, or is this just someone with a chip on the shoulder?
64.223.162.221 ( talk) 19:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The first sentence states there were 300,000 people at the air show that day. Really?! Can this figure be verified? 30,000 sound more probable to me. 91.85.42.17 ( talk) 19:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ramstein air show disaster 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 |
Ramstein air show disaster was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on August 28, 2008. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Under the " Accident Process" section, the text says "After the crash the remaining group had to circle the airbase in missing man formation." There's even a link to "Missing Man formation," but I think it highly unlikely that a ceremonial formation would be used under emergency circumstances like that. Can anyone document this? Septegram 18:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
@Septegram
You are correct. I was there. The runway they took off from was trashed. Being in a military airspace with surrounding civilian airspace they didn't know where to go so they circled until given orders. That wasn't a "missing man" but it was very creepy watching them circle. Excellent choice in deleting that section.
Sorry this took so long to respond. I just became aware of this page... It's full of inaccurate facts. This is the first of my corrective suggestions :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesds ( talk • contribs) 04:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: I can agree with the Trivia heading not being appropriate, but the fact that the band Rammstein was named after the event and that one of their first and major songs is a tribute to the event is relevant and definitely relating to the event. -- rxnd ( t | € | c ) 07:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, here you go:
So, primarily because of the issues with fair use images, problems with prose and lack of citations, I'm going to fail the GA at this time. If the above issues are dealt with, please feel free to re-nominate the article for GA. If you'd like any help with implementing the above then let me know. The Rambling Man 07:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
John, removing the documentary of relatives of victims is not an option. Read them first or keep away. Guidod 18:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
External links on Wikipedia are supposed to be "encyclopedic in nature" and useful to a worldwide audience. Please read the external links policy before adding more external links.
The following kinds of links are inappropriate:
Links which do not comply with the policy must not be included in the article. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
On April 10, 2008, editor Cynjut ( Talk | contribs) made a number of changes, which added a new section, "Analysis". None of that section cites reliable sources. It speaks about research in the passive voice. The section ends by saying, "...If the accident had occurred 50 feet east of where it did, it would have ... probably killed me." If "me" refers to the editor, then I understand why they would have expertise and passion about this topic. It makes me wonder if the entire Analysis section is original research, which is against Wikipedia policy. I think this section needs at least a change to remove the "me" reference, and some citation of reliable sources which do the analysis. I'm leaving the editor a message on their Talk page. -- Jdlh | Talk 19:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
"Sixty-seven spectators and three pilots died and 346 spectators sustained serious injuries in the resulting explosion and fire."
"Of the 31 people who died at the scene, 28 had been hit by shrapnel in the form of airplane parts, concertina wire, and debris from items on the ground.[2] Sixteen of the fatalities occurred in the days and weeks after" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.23.122 ( talk) 04:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Now it says "Sixty-seven spectators and four pilots died" but the total in the infobox is still 70. Which is right? -- 129.21.93.164 ( talk) 13:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I feel as if the timeline presented on the article would better be suited for a table. Hence, here is my crack at it:
Time | Details |
---|---|
3:40 | Start of the Frecce Tricolori |
3:44 | Collision |
3:46 | Fire fighters arrive |
3:48 | First American ambulance arrives |
3:51 | First American ambulance helicopter arrives |
3:52 | Second American ambulance helicopter arrives |
3:54 | First American ambulance helicopter takes off |
4:10 | German ambulance helicopter Christoph 5 from Ludwigshafen arrives |
4:11 | German ambulance helicopter Christoph 16 from Saarbruecken arrives |
4:13 | 10 American and German ambulances arrive |
4:28 | About 10 - 15 ambulances arrive. 8 medical helicopters (US Air Force, ADAC, SAR) at the scene |
4:33 | First medical helicopter of the Rettungsflugwacht arrives |
4:35 | Doctor on emergency call over the radio: "We are searching for burnt patients that are pulled and transported unaided away from us by the Americans. They told us nobody from them are here no more. Not all the injured people are transported away by helicopter or ambulance. There is total chaos around us and some of the injured are even transported on Pick Up trucks that are not leaving on emergency exit, they are driving beside the drifting visitors. It was a terrible sight to see people with burnt clothes and sagging burnt skin, squirming with pain of transfixed and shocked with pain on these vehicles. |
4:40 | First low platform trailer for transport of the dead bodies arrives |
4:45 | Second low platform trailer for transport of the dead bodies arrives |
4:47 | At that time the German headquarter for emergencies had no clue of the dimensions, obvious by the radio communication: "Yes, and that is the problem. We don't know yet what had happened, how many injuries and what else. The leading emergency medical did not send any feedback yet. He wants to have a synoptic view first" |
5:00 | At that time several medics arrive with helicopters. Later they said: "At the time we arrived shortly after 5:00 there where no injured people no more. We could see that the last badly injured people where loaded into American helicopters. We could see some Pick Up trucks with injured people transporting them away. It was not possible to find a officer in charge, a director of operations or even a contact person [...] so we got to the Johannis hospital in Landstuhl by own initiative. Asking several action forces, paramedics, police officers nobody could name a director of operations. I was asking for a managing paramedic of the operation to coordinate the evacuation. But there was none." |
6:05 | A ambulance helicopter arrives at the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center. The paramedic said later: "We found a large number of severely burnt, badly injured people absolutely unaided. [...] When I arrived in Landstuhl, severely burnt people partly lay on wooden planks and no paramedics where there. After I aided a injured person and left her with a hospital nurse that attended us at the flight, I was treating several injured people at the helicopter landing zone at the military hospital and did not see even one American medic there" |
6:20 | Dead bodies are transported away from the scene with the two platform trucks |
6:30 | A bus full of injured people arrives in Ludwigshafen (80 km away). A paramedic later said: "5 severely burnt people where inside the bus. There was no paramedic attending this transport. Just a not German speaking driver unfamiliar with the area, on an odyssey through the town until he was able to find the hospital." |
If you support this format of display the timeline, please say so here. If you oppose, please voice your opinion and reason as well. I do believe that minor things like the header-text should be tweaked, but other than that, I think it looks much better than the fragmented way it is shown right now. Aly89 ( talk) 05:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I was in the RAF at the time this disaster happened and I remember some 'best practise' or possibly legislation that came in as a result of this incident. I think the primary change was that manoeuvres were no longer permitted to run towards the crown line. Instead, they had to be carried out parallel to the crowd at a minimum distance.
I wonder whether anyone can confirm any changes that came out as part of this incident? Can reference it? Comment whether it should be included in the article. G0ggy ( talk) 14:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
This needs some work, in addition to reliable sources.
Auntieruth55 ( talk) 20:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I was there on this sad day. I was standing approx. 50 meters left to the impact area of Ivo Nutarelli´s plane. As i was trying to understand what had happend around me,i looked up. I saw two formations (the freece tricolori had a ten planes with three just crashed): one formation of three with one plane trailing smoke and the others as escort heading for Spangdahlem airbase.
The other one of four flew in a missing man formation over the field. But i had the feeling then and now still i believe it was a personal fairwell and not ordered by ATC or some other power. They flew much to high to be regognized by the the stuned crowd. It was a private tribute to the victims of the accident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.221.218.123 ( talk) 19:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I tried to create a diagram showing how the disaster happened including the aerobatic figure (I guess that was requested). The solist is marked red, the two formations are blue, the spectator area is orange, the impact points on the ground are numbered.
Obviously, the size of the aerobatic figure is not correct, I don't have any figures about the size of it, so that is only a very rough approximation.
I would be happy to get some criticism on how I can improve the diagram. -- Julian Herzog ( talk) 15:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi
Julian
Thanks for a very good try at explaining the disaster via a diagram which even I could follow! It should fit-in well with the description of the 'heart' maneuver near the article's beginning. Here are a couple of other comments that might improve things still more:
1. What does the grey arrow represent? It could possibly confuse readers, but if it is there to give 'depth', fair enough; nevertheless there should be some sort of explanation.
2. It could be good if your diagram showed where the largest pieces of debris came to rest and the fireballs occurred. (You would probably have to tread a fine line here, as the temptation to put too much detail in might be hard to resist).
Regards
RASAM ( talk) 20:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
The WikiPedia Senior Expert RichardW removed this line about I-TIGI case "....unrelated with their daily duties, moreover their TF-104 was the only Italian A.F. aircraft in flight at the time of the accident and they were the only crew which sent a "maximal alert" codified signal..'''' " I don't know if RichardW is a CIA man or a right wing WASP, he just can clean my contribution on Wikipedia pages but he cannot hide the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiko 64 ( talk • contribs) 19:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ramstein air show disaster. 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) 02:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
" In January 1991, Werner Reith, a German journalist from the newspaper Die Tageszeitung, suggested in an article that the Ramstein disaster could have been caused by some sudden technical problem—or even sabotage—in Nutarelli's plane. No supporting evidence could be collected. Reith pointed out that Lt. Col. Nutarelli and Lt. Col. Naldini were supposed to know details about another air disaster, the 1980 Ustica massacre, citing Italian press sources. Judge Rosario Priore, who was investigating the case at the time, found that they were performing training flights nearby minutes before the Ustica incident, but he definitely rejected their deaths as sabotage. "
Am I the one one who finds this paragraph baffling? What does the pilot's potential knowledge about another air disaster have to do with whether the jet was sabotaged? What do training flights at a nearby base have to do with sabotage? This appears to be a collection of unrelated statements collected here for no particular reason, and without any obvious relevance to the rest of the article. Also, the way the text reads you'd think the main point of this article is to bash the emergency response. No doubt there are many important and relevant issues that were raised, things that could have been done better, but it seems like the general theme of every section is "they totally screwed it up, see??" Is this the official position of the German emergency authorities? Is there universal consensus that the response was basically a comedy of errors, or is this just someone with a chip on the shoulder?
64.223.162.221 ( talk) 19:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The first sentence states there were 300,000 people at the air show that day. Really?! Can this figure be verified? 30,000 sound more probable to me. 91.85.42.17 ( talk) 19:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)