Talk:Hughes Airwest Flight 706

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHughes Airwest Flight 706 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 26, 2011Good article nomineeListed
March 22, 2011WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 26, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that, following the collision of Hughes Airwest Flight 706 with a Marine Corps F-4B Phantom II, the US Armed Forces required military aircraft to obey civilian air traffic controllers?
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 6, 2015, June 6, 2019, and June 6, 2023.
Current status: Good article

Fiscal aftermath[edit]

Did Uncle Sam pay the victims' families or did they sue the airline? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.162 (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eurowhite or banana yellow[edit]

I just unlinked the image from the infobox, because it shows a yellow plane. According to the eurowhite and Hughes Airwest articels, Hughes Airwest changed to their yellow livery as a consequence of this collision. Presumably as a kind of warning colour. Airliners.net has an image of the accident aircraft in the old livery.--ospalh (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been dealing with an old arbcom ruling so have been away from the commons. Man I wish I'd of known that the livery changed after the crash, that banana livery was a pain in the arse. (Live and learn) I'll definitely get that fixed ASAP :) Anynobody(?) 02:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks.--ospalh (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hughes Airwest Flight 706/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

Please fix this disamb. link: Near-miss. External links check out.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    " Diagnostics revealed" →" Diagnostic tests at Mountain Home revealed"
    "had died previously.[2]"→"had died prior to the crash.[2]"
    "the pilot was subsequently unable to eject"→"the pilot was consequently unable to eject"
    "investigating National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) team"→"National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigation team"
    "A Federal Aviation Administration study in 1968"→"An FAA study in 1968"
    "require military aircraft to file"→"require military aircraft on cross-country flights to file"
    "move all related court actions to California."->"move all related court actions to the Central District of California."
    Why do you use the abbreviations VFR and IFR in the Flight histories section and then stop using them in later sections?
    I would include the fatality count in the lead paragraphs.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Fn, 4, 8, 22 and 33 are dead.
    Fn. 9, 11 and 25 need Retrieved date.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    You say that the Mountain Home AFB could not repair the transponder. What about the degraded radar?
    Are there any published data on how many flights landed at El Toro and LAX in 1971.
    You might want to add that El Toro has since been shut down.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Nice photo and animation. Thank you for donating them.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I am placing the article on hold. Racepacket (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response(s)[edit]

Note- this will be updated piecemeal as I edit between classes. I may do some edits as my alt (User:OldManInACoffeeCan) if at a school terminal. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 15:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Prose updated with suggestions above. The only one not incorporated was the one about military cross-country flights. The sources indicate that it was cross country flights and flights to-and-from military bases that had to file flight plans. Since that pretty much covers all or most military flights in the US, I left it as just "required military flights to file flight plans." But if you think it needs to be changes I'll be sure to expand. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 15:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that it applies to most flights in the US.
  • Re the dead links. They're offline sources, I just happened to find copies on Google News Archive. The links have since gone dead, but the newspapers are still valid. Will you accept them in good faith if I remove the dead links? --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 15:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no prohibition against printed sources. Reliable sources do not have to be online. However, if a link goes dead and you can't find another, then you must remove the link.
Dead links have been removed, citations for offline sources remain. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 06:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine.
  • Re section 4 questions and points:
    • Mountain Home AFB could not fix the radar either. I updated the sentence and reverified the source.
    • I may be able to find LAX stats in a newspaper, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I do have a source that states that Los Angeles was the single busiest and most dangerous (in terms of near-misses) air spaces at that time, but I personally don't think it passes WP:RS. It's an editorial from a daily newspaper. I will see what I can do to find the LAX stats.
    • I'm pretty sure I won't be able to find El Toro stats, on the other hand, since it was a military base, so there would be a whole lot of top secret stuff going on, especially since this was during the Vietnam War.
    • I have updated the article to mention that El Toro has since closed, and added a source. --OldManInACoffeeCan (Mukkakukaku's alt for public terminals) 17:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 06:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have sources to support adding a sentence to the chronology that the military pilot did not inform civilian flight control of his changes from the flight plan?
Since he was flying VFR, the military pilot did not file a flight plan. Civilian flight control was never aware he was there, until the collision, that is. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 06:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most DC-9 references have hyphens, but the last two in the Investigation section are missing hyphens.
  • Last F-4 in the Investigation section is also missing the hyphen. The one in the Aftermath section is missing the hyphen as well.
Hyphens have been fixed. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 06:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Congratulations. I made one more change from jetliner → airliner for consistency. You might also want to standardize on either F-4 or F-4B in the text of the article. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 03:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom image[edit]

It seems strange that the article is lacking a representative image of the Phantom II involved. file:F-4Bs VMFA-115 323 DaNang Jan1966.jpg has similar aircraft from VMFA-323 a few years earlier, I could cut one out if required. Alternatively, a representative F-4B of a similar type/date from another squadron? File:F-4B VMFA-314 1968.jpg (Hohum @) 15:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second, File:F-4B VMFA-314 1968.jpg, looks pretty good, I think. I'll see about adding it in ... once I figure out the best place for it. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 16:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BuNo 458[edit]

The article uses 'BuNo 458' to refer to the Phantom II fighter involved for three reasons: clarity, precedence, and consistency. Generally speaking, other articles that refer to specific aircraft in this manner use the "BuNo XX" format, where XX is a number. (See, for example, Flight 19 and Naval Air Station Banana River.) Additionally, the Aircraft Accident Report by the NTSB refers to the aircraft as BuNo 458. As the accident report is, for the most part, the most important of our sources (being the definitive and official document explaining the accident), we generally don't want to contradict that. Finally, by referring to the aircraft in question throughout the article as "BuNo 458" and not substituting any other naming convention, we maintain consistency within and without the article. (See also WP:MOSFOLLOW.) --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 23:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hughes Airwest Flight 706. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hughes Airwest Flight 706. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VFR/IFR[edit]

In the 'flight histories' section it states 'VFR require pilots to "see and avoid"' which is true, but that requirement is also applicable to IFR aircraft. Later in the paragraph it is mentioned that see and avoid is applicable to all aircraft in VMC but it is unlikely to be obvious to a non-pilot that IFR aircraft are also required to participate in see and avoid when not in IMC. Right of way rules do not consider whether an aircraft is IFR or VFR, so each aircraft has equal responsibility for see and avoid in this scenario. However, the way the article currently reads implies that the F4 was responsible for maintaining separation. Bpt848 (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hughes_Airwest_Flight_706&oldid=1207662836"