This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of deadliest aircraft accidents and incidents 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 |
List of deadliest aircraft accidents and incidents is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
July 4, 2013. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that between 1944 and 2012 there were 508
high fatality aircraft accidents and incidents, across all seven continents, in which 53,419 people died? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured list |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2 April 2022. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Some quick things I've noticed.
The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia's stature could be enhanced a bit by getting rid of contradictory titles, such as this one: "List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities." If ANYONE is killed, then it is by definition (ICAO, FAA, EASA, US Federal Code of Regulations AND Wikipedia itself) an "ACCIDENT" and is NOT an "incident." [ [1]] EditorASC ( talk) 22:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
OK I have had a more detailed look at it - perhaps we can sort something out if this survives AfD, some of my concerns:
So have a look at my comments and simplify the table and get rid of the more important stats stuff to Aviation accidents and incidents and then I may support this replacing List_of_accidents_and_disasters_by_death_toll#Aviation. MilborneOne ( talk) 18:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I shifted the bit about reviewing locations against google earth to a hidden note for editors as it's related to the construction of the article.
The other bit about location names is not clear as to purpose. "The names of locations are as they existed at the time of the accident or incident. However, when sorted, countries are arranged alphabetically according to their present-day names."
I understand this to mean that a pair of hypothetical crashes in Yugoslavia in 1967 and 1968 would appear in the list between crashes in Bahrain and Botswana (location in present day Bosnia) and between Senegal and Sweden (present day Serbia).
This seems counter-intuitive since they occured in the same airspace/regulatory framework.
GraemeLeggett (
talk) 08:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
"The first aviation incident with more than 50 fatalities occurred on 23 August 1944 when an U.S. Army Air Forces heavy bomber crashed into the center of the village of Freckleton, England, UK."
That is the first fixed-wing aircraft incident. The rigid airship USS Akron (ZRS-4) went down on 4 April 1933 leading to deaths of 73 of 76 aboard. It seems to fit the criteria for inclusion. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 08:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Good stuff, thanks for the help. A shame we have an AFD running in parallel now people are finally clubbing together to be helpful. The Rambling Man ( talk) 09:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the crash-by-manufacturer and crash-by-month tables as I can't see the value in comparing these data. Are we supposed to infer that we shouldn't fly a 'plane in July? Or that we are all better-off flying in a Mikoyan-Gurevich (a manufacturer of one- and two-seat fighters) aircraft because only one of them has been involved in a 50-deaths-or-higher crash? YSSYguy ( talk) 09:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion the use of Model suffixes detracts from the average person's understanding of the list. Those within the aviation industry or with a high degree of interest know that a Boeing 757-223 is a Boeing 757-200, or that an Airbus A330-202 is an A330-200, so why not just call them that here as this is a non-detailed overview, and then have the more-detailed info in the crash articles? I had considered just using "Boeing 757" or "Airbus A330", but that becomes a problem for the Boeing 737 as there are four different articles depending on the Model. YSSYguy ( talk) 01:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not overly happy with using the codes in the articles either, but consensus seems to be that they are included - possibly because the most-used ref ASN (which, being a website of the Flight Safety Foundation, easily qualifies as a RS) invariably uses the codes. I anticipated the question, so yesterday I made this edit - anyway that's a more-general issue that should be discussed elsewhere. YSSYguy ( talk) 00:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Once we get the snow closure of the AFD out of the way, the one point of real interest that came out of it was a concern over the size of the page. I was wondering if there was any appetite for two lists, i.e. List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 100 fatalities and List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in 50–99 fatalities? It would probably split the page roughly in half? (Then both lists would be more manageable and you could have two lists at FL rather than just one!) The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps the exclusion criteria could be clarified in the following manner:
Incidents involving any military aircraft other than transport (e.g., fighters, ground attack, bombers, surveillance, and aerial reconnaissance) were excluded unless such airplane was involved in an occurrence with an included category of aircraft, or (subject to consensus) the crash of such aircraft was unquestionably accidental and did not occur within an active
theater of operations. If this was adopted, then both airship accidents would meet criteria, without (to the best of my knowledge) needing to make other additions.--
Godot13 (
talk) 19:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
and 38 crew per "The Missing Dixmude." Times [London, England] 28 Dec. 1923: 8. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 10 July 2013. I make that 52. MilborneOne ( talk) 18:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Has been replaced per a suggestion at FLC review. If anyone prefers the old image, please let me know.-- Godot13 ( talk) 22:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps to gain a reduction in size and tidy up the code the use of Template:ASN accident should be considered. MilborneOne ( talk) 20:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Entering the search term “Aviation Safety Network” in
Google scholar resulted in 10 35 pages of results. Below are selections from the first three pages where the Aviation Safety Network was either cited as a reference or portions of ASN data were used in original research. (Some of these require purchase or subscription, but the citation of ASN is clear). This was first search (no digging) and the citations below represent less than 30% of the results. I believe these are all from academic journals or published books:
Given this information in advance of any possible RS noticeboard activity, such a posting might be viewed as (another) waste of the community’s time and efforts... Godot13 ( talk) 01:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The links to the CAB reports in the references do not appear to always function. Twenty-five occurrences cite CAB reports. Each report has been archived and a secondary link provided.- Godot13 ( talk) 00:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I would like to move the key to the main table from after the table (where it is currently located) to before the table (its original location). Two editors have suggested this and I tend to agree that the terms should be clear before the main table is reviewed by readers. Feedback on this issue would be appreciated.- Godot13 ( talk) 15:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
|
|
Thanks in advance- Godot13 ( talk) 01:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
|
|
Thanks for your help on this. By breaking it into two table it helped me figure out what I was trying to get at. Are you okay with this presentation? I moved the dagger and 1* up since it is related to deaths. - Godot13 ( talk) 15:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I did mention this earlier but it got lost in the early discussion but should we look at using Template:ASN accident to help reduce the clutter? MilborneOne ( talk) 18:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to say thank you for this list, Godot13! I'm sorry I missed all the discussions above, I would have loved to have chipped in on this one. This must have taken ages. Jinnythesquinny ( talk) 12:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The 1948 Air France Latécoère 631 disappearance claimed 52 lives. Mjroots ( talk) 20:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussing purely the content of the article, I agree that to add "about 1600" to 92 and produce "1,692" is wrong. "1,700" would be better but prone to confusion; "circa 1,700" better still. I know that produces difficulties for table formatting, but that tail should not be allowed to wag the dog. Pinkbeast ( talk) 06:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey, who misindented all my posts? I did it, anyway; still seems to sort OK. I also added the relevant header to the G and C columns, although I admit an aircraft accident with an indeterminate number of crew fatalities seems implausible. Pinkbeast ( talk) 21:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
"note the high selection bias of this statistic, since incidents with less than 50 fatalities, likely to have low FR"
Does this need a citation? It seems obvious; consider the very low end of the scale (for example, an incident with 0 fatalities must have 0 FR). Since many aircraft have many more than 50 people aboard, any accident with a high FR involving them must have more than 50 fatalities.
Why is it that AA11 & UA175 are given separate entries in the table when more easily separable events like the aircrafts in the Tenerife disaster are listed together? 152.78.36.15 ( talk) 02:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the word "incident" should be removed from the title, since any crash that results in significant damage and/or even one fatality, is properly defined as an "accident," not as an "incident." That is the ICAO definition and is adopted and used worldwide by the accident investigative agencies of all major countries. EditorASC ( talk) 05:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
This IP has been reverted twice and has been made a third time by the editor. I’m looking for some input as to whether this edit is necessary, whether the existing statement “all passengers and crew were killed” requires further clarification with “and no one survived,” or if it is simply redundant. Thanks-- Godot13 ( talk) 03:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
There have been some helicopter crashes which killed over 50 people and I believe that they are aircraft too so I think it is possible to add them to the list. If there is a reason why they can't be added you can tell me. D.M. Krol ( talk) 00:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Can values in the column 'Tot' be made properly sortable with {{ sort}}? – Editør ( talk) 22:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
This article is HUGE my suggestion is to rename it to List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 100 fatalities. I do not see how the removal of material under 100 will effect the quality of the article, it can even be split off. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 23:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I have spotted a couple of minor problems with the initial order of the table. I'll just note them in a separate item here. NameIsRon ( talk) 02:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The note says "Initial sort order is by total fatalities (descending) and then by date (most recent to most distant)", but there is a "Tot=101" entry in the middle of the 99s, and a 93 entry in the middle of the 87s. I don't know if either entry has just had its "Tot" number edited in error, or if the Tot figure was edited correctly, and the editor just neglected to move the row to where it should appear. I know several editors have spent a great deal of effort in building the table, and I don't want to create more work by trying to fix something when I'm not sure what's wrong, so I'll leave this for the subject matter experts to decide what to do (if anything). I thought I had something clever to say about this, but it has eluded me. ☮ NameIsRon ( talk) 02:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The table looks ugly and confusing to a lay person. There's too much space, and what are all those numbers and abbreviations on the left and right side??? When I first saw the table, I just felt confused.
"Incident" should be the first column. It's the first thing people will want to see. The first thing people want to know are which INCIDENTS had the highest death tolls. The exact NUMBER of deaths should not be the priority.
As per above, a different IP address is making the same redundant edit as before here, here, and here. While these are not in a 24 hour period, I do not want to get baited… for my own reference, does the 3RR rule apply to an editor who is reverting a specific edit as per prior consensus? Thanks.-- Godot13 ( talk) 05:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Seems to be some serious navel gazing going on here. Per Loki's Wager, I suggest we should just admit that 50 is an arbitrary number plucked out of thin air, and maybe move inclusion criteria to a comment at the head of the article for editors only to see. -- Kendrick7 talk 09:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Undescribed made a series of edits, some of which needed to be reverted, and then created List of aviation accidents and incidents by number of ground fatalities which directly copies some of the present article verbatim and does not cite any sources (including the present article). Is the newly-created article necessary given the information is contained here? I put a low-level editing warning on the user's talk page. Should there be a comment regarding the cut and paste as well?-- Godot13 ( talk) 04:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The cause of crash of Malaysian Airlines MH17 is incorrect. It has NOT been proven EVER that it was brought down by a ground to air missile. Read EVERY article on the net and you will see the NO real proof or determination has been offered or made as to what brought it down. The author/s has ignored all the information available because the American controlled media says a Ground Air missile but almost EVERY other publication (including those from Malaysia) either has no biased opinion or has taken into account eyewitness reports that it was brought down by a Ukrainian MIG. For the record, I am not Russia! I support unbiased news and true reporting so please either add a citation that this is just speculation for now, pending a final report. The article is also incorrect as it just regurgitates what America says! The article points blame to Ukraine Rebels but NO proof. "America indicated"..."It is believed"...all just speculation with no proof. What about eyewitnesses which saw what happened? My point is that the article is not well written and perhaps needs to be edited with JUST the FACTS, not speculation from American sources who offer no proof. It appears to be a combination of articles regurgitated from CNN, BBC and RT. Go to globalresearch.ca or realnews to get a different viewpoint or one of the other UNBIASED news sites. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.230.88.77 ( talk) 06:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Andy, I know who BBC etc is and what they represent. I never cited a fact in my comment, I have just asked for the article to be made a better reflection of what is being said and to not plant ideas of blame in anyone's mind. My reference to bbc, cnn and rt was just to say that the article only appears to copy what comes out of those government biased websites / news-sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.230.88.77 ( talk) 07:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
It says that it excludes 'attacks on military aircraft by an enemy combatant in their theater of warfare'. Surely these incidents should be included? I don't see any reason why they aren't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.106.201 ( talk) 07:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
As the number of fatalities for the 1996 Air Africa crash is uncertain, what number should we use? There were 225 manslaughter charges to the pilots. ASN uses 237 fatalities. The CAA review 1990-1999 ( https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP701.PDF) as well as some media sources states 297 fatalities on the ground. Some other sources say 348 or 350+. Some witnesses said over 1000. In my opinion 297 is the most credible number as it comes from an official organization, so I have changed it to that number on the table as well as the wiki page for the accident. What do other people think we should use? 111.69.108.222 ( talk) 08:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Though the column is sortable, but it's pointless because sorting doesn't work, even after I added "data-sort-type="date"" I don't know whether it's because of the leading zeroes are missing, or just this stupid backwards order is not supported for sorting. So I guess a standard ISO date is needed. But how to make the conversion?. Probably no-one will do it one-by-one for 700+ items... (Though the help ( /info/en/?search=Help:Sorting#Date_sorting_problems) claims that date sorting works for "Day, month, and year" it obviously doesn't. If you sort by descending you don't even get the inverse of the ascending order. The first is 2001-09-11 while the last for ascending is 1947-06-13) -- Dqeswn ( talk) 10:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
It was a tad laborous still. But at least it works now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dqeswn ( talk • contribs) 13:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C063056.pdfWhen 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C121660.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C060363.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C030162.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C020359.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C053047.pdfWhen 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C020865.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C120863.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C090161.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C110861.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C062659A.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C100460.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C110865.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C022564.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C062350.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C083150.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C041152.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C102447.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C011860.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C042952.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C082451.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C063051.pdfWhen 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Delta Air Lines Flight 723. Change total to 89. Change passengers to 83. Notes: Change to Cross. Survivor died 4.5 months later,leaving no survivors.Move below Royal Saudi Air Force (453). Source:DAL Flight 723 Wiki page. Eastern Airlines Flight 212. Change total to 72. Passengers: change to 70. Move below Aeroflot Flight 2415. 3 died later. Source: Eastern Airlines Flight 212 Wiki page. Thank you. 2601:581:8500:949C:80E3:A2F:D7A1:81A3 ( talk) 17:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
71 people killed. Please add. Thank you. Überlingen mid-air collision — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazik144 ( talk • contribs) 22:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
The above incident occurred 2/11/2018 killing all 65 passengers and 6 crew. Please add to list. Thanks and have a good day. 2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 ( talk) 00:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Not just that crash there has also been a crash in Iran that's killed 66 people. The Iran crashed planes name was Iran Aseman Flight 3704, and it crashed into Mount Dena in the Zargos Mountins. Unknown artist ( talk) 09:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Please add US Bangla Airlines Flight 211 (March 12) to list.(51 fatalities).Place above Malift Air. Also Iran Aseman Airlines Flight 3704 needs to be updated, change 65 to 66,change 59 to 60, place above Egypt Air 804. Source: Aviation Safety Network for updates and info. Thank you and have a good weekend. 2601:581:8500:949C:ECAC:1F18:3A5E:4DF2 ( talk) 23:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Can someone change the above incident from 59 passengers to 60 passengers and 65 fatalities to 66 fatalities, and place over Egypt Air flight 804.Sources: wiki page, Aviation Safety Network, and JACDEC, and CAO report. Thank you. 2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 ( talk) 21:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, again. Place over Egypt Air Flight 804. This I don't know how to do. With same # of fatalities, the incidents listed run from the most recent to oldest, in reverse chronological order. Sorry to bother you again. Have a good evening. 2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 ( talk) 23:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that aircraft disasters are placed either in the Commercial (accident/incident)/Military (accident/incident) category, or in the INB/INH/EXG/EXS category. But what if an incident fits into more than one category? For instance, both the 1968 Kham Duc C-130 shootdown and 2002 Khankala Mi-26 crash are listed as "MIL", but shouldn't both of them also be "EXG"? In addition, the table key also infers that the COM/MIL category is applicable to both accidents and incidents, which is even more confusing. Does that mean that an incident such as Pan Am Flight 103 can fit exclusively into the "COM" category because it was an incident? -- Undescribed ( talk) 02:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Put Cubana Flight 972 above United Flight 232 and below Dan-Air. This list runs in reverse chronological order. Data is correct, unfortunately a survivor passed away today.Thank you. 2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 ( talk) 02:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Another survivor passed today, sadly. Change 105 to 106, 111 to 112, place below Air France Flight 117. Thank you. 2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 ( talk) 19:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Place below Air France Flight 117. The list runs in reverse chronological order. Sorry to bother you but thank you. 2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 ( talk) 20:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello and good day. Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 is missplaced. Should be placed below Air India Express Flight 812 and above Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 1103 and Libyan Air Force. Entry should be polished up a little bit, missing info. Thank you for your time. 2601:581:8000:21B0:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 ( talk) 00:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
This article has been deliberately titled so that may be biased to include the 9/11 attacks in my view. 9/11 attacks should not be included in an article that should be about aircraft accidents. There are plenty of other placee where that tradgedy can be memorialised, there is no need to deliberatly skew every possible article just to include it. The 9/11 attacks were not an accident (and they're far too significant to be trivialised as being called an "incident"). They should be reomved from this list, which should remain a purely aircraft accident list.
94.175.102.211 ( talk) 10:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
This section seems to be quite superfluous imho. Even the lead sentence that lists the total number of fatalities for every crash on the list. Every single figure in the descriptive stats section has to be manually updated after every new crash and it is an extremely tedious task. Unless there is a way to make the stats tables update automatically with every new crash, I think this entire section should be removed entirely. Any thoughts? Undescribed ( talk) 02:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
..old planes didn't carry 50 people. All that makes the list prior to 1945 are ridged air ships and any added ground-casualties. It's biased towards newer (bigger) planes which create bigger casualties. Green C 04:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Deadly is deadly. Period. There is no deadlier than deadly. You seem to mean something else. Be more precise with your choice of words. 2001:9E8:36EF:F800:A064:20BF:5BBE:A099 ( talk) 23:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
By deadliest, one implies ranking highest number of casualties. Deadly simply implies a casualty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.78.133.220 ( talk) 20:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of deadliest aircraft accidents and incidents 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 |
List of deadliest aircraft accidents and incidents is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
July 4, 2013. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that between 1944 and 2012 there were 508
high fatality aircraft accidents and incidents, across all seven continents, in which 53,419 people died? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured list |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2 April 2022. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Some quick things I've noticed.
The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia's stature could be enhanced a bit by getting rid of contradictory titles, such as this one: "List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities." If ANYONE is killed, then it is by definition (ICAO, FAA, EASA, US Federal Code of Regulations AND Wikipedia itself) an "ACCIDENT" and is NOT an "incident." [ [1]] EditorASC ( talk) 22:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
OK I have had a more detailed look at it - perhaps we can sort something out if this survives AfD, some of my concerns:
So have a look at my comments and simplify the table and get rid of the more important stats stuff to Aviation accidents and incidents and then I may support this replacing List_of_accidents_and_disasters_by_death_toll#Aviation. MilborneOne ( talk) 18:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I shifted the bit about reviewing locations against google earth to a hidden note for editors as it's related to the construction of the article.
The other bit about location names is not clear as to purpose. "The names of locations are as they existed at the time of the accident or incident. However, when sorted, countries are arranged alphabetically according to their present-day names."
I understand this to mean that a pair of hypothetical crashes in Yugoslavia in 1967 and 1968 would appear in the list between crashes in Bahrain and Botswana (location in present day Bosnia) and between Senegal and Sweden (present day Serbia).
This seems counter-intuitive since they occured in the same airspace/regulatory framework.
GraemeLeggett (
talk) 08:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
"The first aviation incident with more than 50 fatalities occurred on 23 August 1944 when an U.S. Army Air Forces heavy bomber crashed into the center of the village of Freckleton, England, UK."
That is the first fixed-wing aircraft incident. The rigid airship USS Akron (ZRS-4) went down on 4 April 1933 leading to deaths of 73 of 76 aboard. It seems to fit the criteria for inclusion. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 08:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Good stuff, thanks for the help. A shame we have an AFD running in parallel now people are finally clubbing together to be helpful. The Rambling Man ( talk) 09:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the crash-by-manufacturer and crash-by-month tables as I can't see the value in comparing these data. Are we supposed to infer that we shouldn't fly a 'plane in July? Or that we are all better-off flying in a Mikoyan-Gurevich (a manufacturer of one- and two-seat fighters) aircraft because only one of them has been involved in a 50-deaths-or-higher crash? YSSYguy ( talk) 09:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion the use of Model suffixes detracts from the average person's understanding of the list. Those within the aviation industry or with a high degree of interest know that a Boeing 757-223 is a Boeing 757-200, or that an Airbus A330-202 is an A330-200, so why not just call them that here as this is a non-detailed overview, and then have the more-detailed info in the crash articles? I had considered just using "Boeing 757" or "Airbus A330", but that becomes a problem for the Boeing 737 as there are four different articles depending on the Model. YSSYguy ( talk) 01:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not overly happy with using the codes in the articles either, but consensus seems to be that they are included - possibly because the most-used ref ASN (which, being a website of the Flight Safety Foundation, easily qualifies as a RS) invariably uses the codes. I anticipated the question, so yesterday I made this edit - anyway that's a more-general issue that should be discussed elsewhere. YSSYguy ( talk) 00:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Once we get the snow closure of the AFD out of the way, the one point of real interest that came out of it was a concern over the size of the page. I was wondering if there was any appetite for two lists, i.e. List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 100 fatalities and List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in 50–99 fatalities? It would probably split the page roughly in half? (Then both lists would be more manageable and you could have two lists at FL rather than just one!) The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps the exclusion criteria could be clarified in the following manner:
Incidents involving any military aircraft other than transport (e.g., fighters, ground attack, bombers, surveillance, and aerial reconnaissance) were excluded unless such airplane was involved in an occurrence with an included category of aircraft, or (subject to consensus) the crash of such aircraft was unquestionably accidental and did not occur within an active
theater of operations. If this was adopted, then both airship accidents would meet criteria, without (to the best of my knowledge) needing to make other additions.--
Godot13 (
talk) 19:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
and 38 crew per "The Missing Dixmude." Times [London, England] 28 Dec. 1923: 8. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 10 July 2013. I make that 52. MilborneOne ( talk) 18:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Has been replaced per a suggestion at FLC review. If anyone prefers the old image, please let me know.-- Godot13 ( talk) 22:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps to gain a reduction in size and tidy up the code the use of Template:ASN accident should be considered. MilborneOne ( talk) 20:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Entering the search term “Aviation Safety Network” in
Google scholar resulted in 10 35 pages of results. Below are selections from the first three pages where the Aviation Safety Network was either cited as a reference or portions of ASN data were used in original research. (Some of these require purchase or subscription, but the citation of ASN is clear). This was first search (no digging) and the citations below represent less than 30% of the results. I believe these are all from academic journals or published books:
Given this information in advance of any possible RS noticeboard activity, such a posting might be viewed as (another) waste of the community’s time and efforts... Godot13 ( talk) 01:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The links to the CAB reports in the references do not appear to always function. Twenty-five occurrences cite CAB reports. Each report has been archived and a secondary link provided.- Godot13 ( talk) 00:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I would like to move the key to the main table from after the table (where it is currently located) to before the table (its original location). Two editors have suggested this and I tend to agree that the terms should be clear before the main table is reviewed by readers. Feedback on this issue would be appreciated.- Godot13 ( talk) 15:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
|
|
Thanks in advance- Godot13 ( talk) 01:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
|
|
Thanks for your help on this. By breaking it into two table it helped me figure out what I was trying to get at. Are you okay with this presentation? I moved the dagger and 1* up since it is related to deaths. - Godot13 ( talk) 15:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I did mention this earlier but it got lost in the early discussion but should we look at using Template:ASN accident to help reduce the clutter? MilborneOne ( talk) 18:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to say thank you for this list, Godot13! I'm sorry I missed all the discussions above, I would have loved to have chipped in on this one. This must have taken ages. Jinnythesquinny ( talk) 12:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The 1948 Air France Latécoère 631 disappearance claimed 52 lives. Mjroots ( talk) 20:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussing purely the content of the article, I agree that to add "about 1600" to 92 and produce "1,692" is wrong. "1,700" would be better but prone to confusion; "circa 1,700" better still. I know that produces difficulties for table formatting, but that tail should not be allowed to wag the dog. Pinkbeast ( talk) 06:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey, who misindented all my posts? I did it, anyway; still seems to sort OK. I also added the relevant header to the G and C columns, although I admit an aircraft accident with an indeterminate number of crew fatalities seems implausible. Pinkbeast ( talk) 21:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
"note the high selection bias of this statistic, since incidents with less than 50 fatalities, likely to have low FR"
Does this need a citation? It seems obvious; consider the very low end of the scale (for example, an incident with 0 fatalities must have 0 FR). Since many aircraft have many more than 50 people aboard, any accident with a high FR involving them must have more than 50 fatalities.
Why is it that AA11 & UA175 are given separate entries in the table when more easily separable events like the aircrafts in the Tenerife disaster are listed together? 152.78.36.15 ( talk) 02:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the word "incident" should be removed from the title, since any crash that results in significant damage and/or even one fatality, is properly defined as an "accident," not as an "incident." That is the ICAO definition and is adopted and used worldwide by the accident investigative agencies of all major countries. EditorASC ( talk) 05:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
This IP has been reverted twice and has been made a third time by the editor. I’m looking for some input as to whether this edit is necessary, whether the existing statement “all passengers and crew were killed” requires further clarification with “and no one survived,” or if it is simply redundant. Thanks-- Godot13 ( talk) 03:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
There have been some helicopter crashes which killed over 50 people and I believe that they are aircraft too so I think it is possible to add them to the list. If there is a reason why they can't be added you can tell me. D.M. Krol ( talk) 00:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Can values in the column 'Tot' be made properly sortable with {{ sort}}? – Editør ( talk) 22:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
This article is HUGE my suggestion is to rename it to List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 100 fatalities. I do not see how the removal of material under 100 will effect the quality of the article, it can even be split off. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 23:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I have spotted a couple of minor problems with the initial order of the table. I'll just note them in a separate item here. NameIsRon ( talk) 02:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The note says "Initial sort order is by total fatalities (descending) and then by date (most recent to most distant)", but there is a "Tot=101" entry in the middle of the 99s, and a 93 entry in the middle of the 87s. I don't know if either entry has just had its "Tot" number edited in error, or if the Tot figure was edited correctly, and the editor just neglected to move the row to where it should appear. I know several editors have spent a great deal of effort in building the table, and I don't want to create more work by trying to fix something when I'm not sure what's wrong, so I'll leave this for the subject matter experts to decide what to do (if anything). I thought I had something clever to say about this, but it has eluded me. ☮ NameIsRon ( talk) 02:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The table looks ugly and confusing to a lay person. There's too much space, and what are all those numbers and abbreviations on the left and right side??? When I first saw the table, I just felt confused.
"Incident" should be the first column. It's the first thing people will want to see. The first thing people want to know are which INCIDENTS had the highest death tolls. The exact NUMBER of deaths should not be the priority.
As per above, a different IP address is making the same redundant edit as before here, here, and here. While these are not in a 24 hour period, I do not want to get baited… for my own reference, does the 3RR rule apply to an editor who is reverting a specific edit as per prior consensus? Thanks.-- Godot13 ( talk) 05:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Seems to be some serious navel gazing going on here. Per Loki's Wager, I suggest we should just admit that 50 is an arbitrary number plucked out of thin air, and maybe move inclusion criteria to a comment at the head of the article for editors only to see. -- Kendrick7 talk 09:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Undescribed made a series of edits, some of which needed to be reverted, and then created List of aviation accidents and incidents by number of ground fatalities which directly copies some of the present article verbatim and does not cite any sources (including the present article). Is the newly-created article necessary given the information is contained here? I put a low-level editing warning on the user's talk page. Should there be a comment regarding the cut and paste as well?-- Godot13 ( talk) 04:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The cause of crash of Malaysian Airlines MH17 is incorrect. It has NOT been proven EVER that it was brought down by a ground to air missile. Read EVERY article on the net and you will see the NO real proof or determination has been offered or made as to what brought it down. The author/s has ignored all the information available because the American controlled media says a Ground Air missile but almost EVERY other publication (including those from Malaysia) either has no biased opinion or has taken into account eyewitness reports that it was brought down by a Ukrainian MIG. For the record, I am not Russia! I support unbiased news and true reporting so please either add a citation that this is just speculation for now, pending a final report. The article is also incorrect as it just regurgitates what America says! The article points blame to Ukraine Rebels but NO proof. "America indicated"..."It is believed"...all just speculation with no proof. What about eyewitnesses which saw what happened? My point is that the article is not well written and perhaps needs to be edited with JUST the FACTS, not speculation from American sources who offer no proof. It appears to be a combination of articles regurgitated from CNN, BBC and RT. Go to globalresearch.ca or realnews to get a different viewpoint or one of the other UNBIASED news sites. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.230.88.77 ( talk) 06:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Andy, I know who BBC etc is and what they represent. I never cited a fact in my comment, I have just asked for the article to be made a better reflection of what is being said and to not plant ideas of blame in anyone's mind. My reference to bbc, cnn and rt was just to say that the article only appears to copy what comes out of those government biased websites / news-sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.230.88.77 ( talk) 07:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
It says that it excludes 'attacks on military aircraft by an enemy combatant in their theater of warfare'. Surely these incidents should be included? I don't see any reason why they aren't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.106.201 ( talk) 07:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
As the number of fatalities for the 1996 Air Africa crash is uncertain, what number should we use? There were 225 manslaughter charges to the pilots. ASN uses 237 fatalities. The CAA review 1990-1999 ( https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP701.PDF) as well as some media sources states 297 fatalities on the ground. Some other sources say 348 or 350+. Some witnesses said over 1000. In my opinion 297 is the most credible number as it comes from an official organization, so I have changed it to that number on the table as well as the wiki page for the accident. What do other people think we should use? 111.69.108.222 ( talk) 08:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Though the column is sortable, but it's pointless because sorting doesn't work, even after I added "data-sort-type="date"" I don't know whether it's because of the leading zeroes are missing, or just this stupid backwards order is not supported for sorting. So I guess a standard ISO date is needed. But how to make the conversion?. Probably no-one will do it one-by-one for 700+ items... (Though the help ( /info/en/?search=Help:Sorting#Date_sorting_problems) claims that date sorting works for "Day, month, and year" it obviously doesn't. If you sort by descending you don't even get the inverse of the ascending order. The first is 2001-09-11 while the last for ascending is 1947-06-13) -- Dqeswn ( talk) 10:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
It was a tad laborous still. But at least it works now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dqeswn ( talk • contribs) 13:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C063056.pdfWhen 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C121660.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C060363.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C030162.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C020359.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C053047.pdfWhen 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C020865.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C120863.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C090161.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C110861.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C062659A.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C100460.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C110865.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C022564.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C062350.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C083150.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C041152.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C102447.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C011860.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C042952.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C082451.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A%5CDOT_56GB%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C063051.pdfWhen 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Delta Air Lines Flight 723. Change total to 89. Change passengers to 83. Notes: Change to Cross. Survivor died 4.5 months later,leaving no survivors.Move below Royal Saudi Air Force (453). Source:DAL Flight 723 Wiki page. Eastern Airlines Flight 212. Change total to 72. Passengers: change to 70. Move below Aeroflot Flight 2415. 3 died later. Source: Eastern Airlines Flight 212 Wiki page. Thank you. 2601:581:8500:949C:80E3:A2F:D7A1:81A3 ( talk) 17:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
71 people killed. Please add. Thank you. Überlingen mid-air collision — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazik144 ( talk • contribs) 22:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
The above incident occurred 2/11/2018 killing all 65 passengers and 6 crew. Please add to list. Thanks and have a good day. 2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 ( talk) 00:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Not just that crash there has also been a crash in Iran that's killed 66 people. The Iran crashed planes name was Iran Aseman Flight 3704, and it crashed into Mount Dena in the Zargos Mountins. Unknown artist ( talk) 09:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Please add US Bangla Airlines Flight 211 (March 12) to list.(51 fatalities).Place above Malift Air. Also Iran Aseman Airlines Flight 3704 needs to be updated, change 65 to 66,change 59 to 60, place above Egypt Air 804. Source: Aviation Safety Network for updates and info. Thank you and have a good weekend. 2601:581:8500:949C:ECAC:1F18:3A5E:4DF2 ( talk) 23:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Can someone change the above incident from 59 passengers to 60 passengers and 65 fatalities to 66 fatalities, and place over Egypt Air flight 804.Sources: wiki page, Aviation Safety Network, and JACDEC, and CAO report. Thank you. 2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 ( talk) 21:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, again. Place over Egypt Air Flight 804. This I don't know how to do. With same # of fatalities, the incidents listed run from the most recent to oldest, in reverse chronological order. Sorry to bother you again. Have a good evening. 2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 ( talk) 23:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that aircraft disasters are placed either in the Commercial (accident/incident)/Military (accident/incident) category, or in the INB/INH/EXG/EXS category. But what if an incident fits into more than one category? For instance, both the 1968 Kham Duc C-130 shootdown and 2002 Khankala Mi-26 crash are listed as "MIL", but shouldn't both of them also be "EXG"? In addition, the table key also infers that the COM/MIL category is applicable to both accidents and incidents, which is even more confusing. Does that mean that an incident such as Pan Am Flight 103 can fit exclusively into the "COM" category because it was an incident? -- Undescribed ( talk) 02:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Put Cubana Flight 972 above United Flight 232 and below Dan-Air. This list runs in reverse chronological order. Data is correct, unfortunately a survivor passed away today.Thank you. 2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 ( talk) 02:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Another survivor passed today, sadly. Change 105 to 106, 111 to 112, place below Air France Flight 117. Thank you. 2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 ( talk) 19:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Place below Air France Flight 117. The list runs in reverse chronological order. Sorry to bother you but thank you. 2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 ( talk) 20:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello and good day. Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 is missplaced. Should be placed below Air India Express Flight 812 and above Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 1103 and Libyan Air Force. Entry should be polished up a little bit, missing info. Thank you for your time. 2601:581:8000:21B0:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 ( talk) 00:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
This article has been deliberately titled so that may be biased to include the 9/11 attacks in my view. 9/11 attacks should not be included in an article that should be about aircraft accidents. There are plenty of other placee where that tradgedy can be memorialised, there is no need to deliberatly skew every possible article just to include it. The 9/11 attacks were not an accident (and they're far too significant to be trivialised as being called an "incident"). They should be reomved from this list, which should remain a purely aircraft accident list.
94.175.102.211 ( talk) 10:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
This section seems to be quite superfluous imho. Even the lead sentence that lists the total number of fatalities for every crash on the list. Every single figure in the descriptive stats section has to be manually updated after every new crash and it is an extremely tedious task. Unless there is a way to make the stats tables update automatically with every new crash, I think this entire section should be removed entirely. Any thoughts? Undescribed ( talk) 02:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
..old planes didn't carry 50 people. All that makes the list prior to 1945 are ridged air ships and any added ground-casualties. It's biased towards newer (bigger) planes which create bigger casualties. Green C 04:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Deadly is deadly. Period. There is no deadlier than deadly. You seem to mean something else. Be more precise with your choice of words. 2001:9E8:36EF:F800:A064:20BF:5BBE:A099 ( talk) 23:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
By deadliest, one implies ranking highest number of casualties. Deadly simply implies a casualty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.78.133.220 ( talk) 20:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)