Talk:2009 Hudson River mid-air collision

Serious WP:NOTNEWS and WP:POV issues

"One thing that is being considered is requiring all airplanes in the corridors around NYC to have Automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B)" - with 2 references, neither of which says a word about requiring ADS/B for the corridor.

"Debora Hersman, chairwoman of the NTSB, as well as Mayor Bloomberg and many others called for safety improvements in the corridor." References don't say that either of those people are "calling for" safety improvements, only that discussions are under way and a vague blurb that Mayor Bloomberg would "welcome responsible changes in the oversight" of the corridor.

I have nominated the article for deletion but if it's going to stay, the POV needs to be improved. Seanfranklin (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there's some reading into the references a POV which is not being expressed by the people being quoted. I reviewed the WP:SNG for aircraft accidents and it seems to be a very low bar and in place for some time, so I withdraw the WP:NOTNEWS objection I raised above and concur with the WP:POV objection. patsw (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I am removing the "Aftermath" section. First, it is far too soon to be discussing the "Aftermath", the investigation is barely begun. Also, both paragraphs misrepresent the referenced articles with WP:NPOV issues. For example:

"Debora Hersman, chairwoman of the NTSB, as well as Mayor Bloomberg and many others called for safety improvements in the corridor."

The reference doesn't support this. Hersman said that unspecified suggestions had been made in the past about safety improvements for helicopter tour operators, but said nothing about the Corridor specifically. Mayor Bloomberg said that he would support changes, but did not "call for" them.

"The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, which represents small aircraft owners and pilots, argues that the corridors are safe"

No such statement was made, the AOPA simply said that the most recent collision over the Hudson was in 1963.

One thing that is being considered is requiring all airplanes in the corridors around NYC to have Automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B)

Neither reference says this. There are discussons of ADS-B technology, but I can find nothing in the quoted references, or elsewhere, indicating that mandatory ADS-B is being considered for the Corridor.

I considered attempting to rewrite with NPOV but since this is such a recent event, and no action has been taken as a result of it, I decided that the better solution was to remove the Aftermath section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanfranklin (talk • contribs) 14:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed a paragraph about "barbequeing a dead cat" - the prior paragraph covers the fact that there was a phone conversation, and that it appears not to have any relevence to the crash. NPOV. Seanfranklin (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Investigation: Controller joked about barbecuing cat

This is a deleted edit:

On 2009-08-18, in transcripts obtained by the Associated Press, an air traffic controller was joking on the phone about barbecuing a dead cat minutes before the accident.

Lowy, Joan (2009-08-19). "Transcript: Controller joked about barbecuing cat". Associated Press. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

I made this edit because it confirmed in a very specific way, information which was only until the release of the transcript part of the record as tentative and vague leak. Objectively, it is a big addition to the story. I can state this because it led the local television news on Tuesday and newspapers on Wednesday. Had it been an insignificant to the August 8 accident in the judgment of others following this story, I would have not added it. Any accurate account of the accident should mention the transcript. Follow-ons to this story discuss the loss of "situational awareness" that the distraction of personal phone calls create. What do others think about this edit? patsw (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Patrick. I put this on your Talk page, you may not have seen it - Patrick, I removed the paragraph you'd added to 2009_Hudson_River_mid-air_collision regarding the content of the controller's phone conversation. I don't doubt that you considered it relevant, I am not accusing you of vandalism - but I do feel that the prior (remaining) paragraph covers the fact that there was an improper conversation, and that it appeared to not be a causal factor in the crash. The information you added, IMO, put a POV tilt on the article. I hope you understand my perspective on this. Seanfranklin (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• In addition to the above, it's important to be truly objective. The mainstream media is not doing so. If you were to read or listen to most news reports, you might be under the impression that the controller was just chatting away instead of telling the accident pilot about traffic conflicts. In fact, if you read the (poorly worded) original NTSB press release, you'd find that the controller handed the Piper off to Newark tower prior to the accident helicopter even appearing on his scope - then within the next 30 seconds, when the helicopter had appeared and was showing as a potential conflict, he twice attempted to reach the Piper without success - the Piper had apparently changed frequencies, but not to Newark (they tried to reach him too). What frequency was the Piper on? We don't know. This is exactly the kind of speculation I'm trying to keep out of this article, and the main reason I believe it should be deleted until after the NTSB Probable Cause report is issued, which will contain facts. Seanfranklin (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sean, I've laid out my case and you have laid out yours. My purpose in doing so is to get the feedback of other editors. To reply to what Sean wrote above, a good place to start to look at things objectively is to take yourself out of the picture and look at how others see it.

• It is not my subjective assessment this adds to the story, it was the assessment of everyone looking it now, from news editors to aviation bloggers.
• The transcript's release is a fact.
• The impact of the transcript on the story is a fact.

The transcript has not been characterized by anyone as being fabricated -- which it would have been if it were not what Carl Turner said on the phone on August 8 -- and Sean's characterization of it as speculation is misleading. Its omission makes the article incomplete patsw (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The transcript's release is a fact - Agreed.

The impact of the transcript on the story is a fact - No, the impact of the transcript on news reporting is a fact. The impact on the event is speculation. Wikipedia is not news. Seanfranklin (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Bury the lede

A few days later, the AP story from 2009-08-18 is back in the article. Sean, I thought you thought the Wikipedia was not news -- so what's the point of adding this insignificant detail:

Due to the accident, the FAA put the controller and his supervisor on leave and made comments about their actions. However, the NTSB rebuked the FAA for doing so, stating that only the NTSB has the authority to determine the controller's contribution to the incident.

But not this:

On August 18, 2009, in transcripts obtained by the Associated Press, an air traffic controller was joking on the phone about barbecuing a dead cat minutes before the accident.

If the rebuke belongs in the article, the phone call transcript summary belongs in the article. It was the headline and the point of the story. (Lowy, Joan (2009-08-19). "Transcript: Controller joked about barbecuing cat". Associated Press. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help))patsw (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add that, Whaatt did. I do think it's apples and oranges, though. You can note that there was improper conduct without being salacious about the details.

For example, in the Bill Clinton article it's noted that there was an improper sexual relationship with an intern - but they don't quote the titilating details (though they did make headlines at the time) from the transcripts. The article on John Geoghan summarizes the crimes he committed in general terms, but doesn't detail the specific acts he committed (with one exception, and IMO that should be removed).

Does anyone besides Patrick and I have an opinion on this? Seanfranklin (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I tried to remain impartial during the GA review, but since the review is now over, I shall now share my opinions. We need to maintain a balance between too little and too much detail. The section as it currently stands has too little detail, whereas Patsw's proposal has too much detail. Perhaps it would suffice to say that the FAA put the controllers on leave for misbehavior pending an investigation, but pointed out that their actions probably didn't contribute to the collision. By stating the facts this way, we are giving readers an idea of exactly what comments the FAA made without going into too much detail over the content of the phone conversation. --Edge3 (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

After reading reading the reports, we certainly can't say if the controller's telephone conversation contributed to the crash. I think the NTSB said the chopper was on the radar screen even the controller didn't see it. I think the best thing to do to say that because of concerns of improper behavior around the time of the crash, the guys were releived of duty pending further investigation, with a link that talks about the cat talk. As Blumberg said, until the NTSB determines what did and didn't happen or contribute, we don't really know. The FAA and the controller union have said that cat talk didn't contribute to the crash, but we can't go by these, either.Jeffutz (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You raise a valid point. It was an FAA statement saying that the controller and supervisor were suspended for "improper behavior", and they also stated that it appeared that the controller's actions did not contribute to the accident. As I understand it, the NTSB quarrel did not deal with the first part of the statement, but with the second. In essence, the FAA is welcome to suspend anyone they want, and issue statements in that regard, but they may not (are not supposed to, anyway) make statements about how such actions are related to an ongoing investigation, and certainly not in regard to causation. The NTSB may only release statements of that sort, and they have not done so.

Since the (barbequed) cat is "out of the bag", I think it's proper that this article mention the suspension but it should do so very carefully. These controllers are people, subject to the same expectation of privacy and neutrality as anyone should get under WP:BLP. Though an extreme example, consider the fate of Peter Nielsen. He was an air traffic controller who had a mid-air occur under his watch, and he was later murdered by a family member of some of the victims of the crash! Seanfranklin (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

After the US Air 1549 ditch, the air traffic controller took a leave of absence for a few months. I don't know that this air traffic controller or his supervisor would automatically be put on leave or took a leave.Jeffutz (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Rfc: Is the phone call relevant

This article is mostly written by specialist editors one of which has deleted a short reference to a widely reported phone call by a air traffic controller. Another editor considers it reliably sourced and relevant. patsw (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Of all the arguments I had heard against any edit, the idea that adding 15 words of text (the cited reference is already in the article) -- the lamest is "too much detail" -- that's 0.06% growth, or six ten thousandths to the size of this 2,400 byte article. I know that there are axes to be ground here -- players in GA, ATC, FAA, NTSB, etc. A whole alphabet soup of potential spins and editors with an special expertise and a special interest in the public presentation of the case. The Wikipedia is not a court of review of the actions of the participants in the accident. It's certainly not a matter of what we know or we don't know. The wrong criteria are being used on this edit. Since the transcripts were reported by the AP and run in newspapers throughout the world, and its authenticity was not denied we have reliably sourced content. The Wikipedia is not censored.

The only question at this point is whether the phone conversation ("barbecueing a cat") which preceded or occurred during the accident has some lasting relevance to to the story or will become irrelevant. For editors looking at this fresh I am appealing to WP:MTAA (non-technical) and WP:MTTMP (broad audience). If there's any account written for a general audience since 8/18 which omits any mention of the telephone, let's see it, but I don't think one can be found. In summary, it is relevant and it belongs in the article. patsw (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're arguing that the article should mention the phone call, the conversation is over. It already does, and no one is saying it shouldn't. The question is, should it mention the detailed content of portions of the conversation that do not have anything to do with the accident. Some of the news media actually do continue to report on the event without being lured by titilating conversations about barbequed cats: Aug 25 article, Aug 23 article, Aug 22 article.

The fact that there was a phone conversation is certainly relevant. I would be shocked if the NTSB Probable Cause report did not address the phone conversation, even if just to say that it was not a factor. For now, saying that the conversation was not business related and that it should not have occured while the controller was working traffic is enough. Linking to the transcript (if available, I've only seen articles quoting phrases from it but have not found a link for the full transcript) is fine - in the same way that we link to the NTSB Factual Report without regurgitating minutia from it. Quoting the content of the conversation just because it's a funny topic is not relevant. Seanfranklin (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• The application of which Wikipedia editing guideline would exclude mentioning that the conversion topic was barbecuing a cat?

I have explained my position, I believe it's clearly a WP:POV and WP:NOTNEWS issue. The fact that there was a non-business related telephone conversation is relevant. It's an improper conversation, which resulted in his suspension. The content of the conversation is not relevant, and it is unnecessarily inflamatory. It wouldn't matter if the conversation were phone sex, or ordering a pizza. The best information we have (NTSB Factual Report) indicates that the conversation did not contribute to the accident, because the accident helicopter did not appear on radar until after the Piper had changed frequencies.

Which of the 5 pillars do you feel supports adding this information? The only argument I'm hearing is that "CNN said it", which only supports my WP:NOTNEWS objection. Seanfranklin (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• examiner.com is a group blog, and that particular article included the author's own speculative reconstruction of the accident: Sean, do you know exactly when Carl Turner saw a blip? Michael A. Harris seems to know. Do you want Harris' reporting added to the article? Also, since examiner.com also incorporates AP stories, barbecuing a cat was mentioned in the linked articles.
• the stuff.co.nz article was describing the funeral of a victim, three other stories on this site on the accident mention barbecuing a cat
• at least two other UPI.com wire stories covered the transcript's release and mentioned barbecuing a cat patsw (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus is the policy that directly affects us now since you opened up a request for comment. Not enough editors have commented yet, so it might take a while to figure out what should be written on the article.--Edge3 (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and WP:NOTNEWS applies as well. --Edge3 (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The phone call and its topic being mentioned in news accounts doesn't create a presumption for excluding it. For crying out loud, it is/was the AP's headline, hence, the previous section heading was titled "Burying the Lede". There are many other accurate details which appeared in news accounts which I would advise against including on the basis they are not going to be significant in the long term to tell the story. I think what separates me from specialist editors here is that I think in terms of a complete story, not the anticipation of the final NTSB accident report. patsw (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think what's important is that the controller was on the phone during the crash, and the exact content of the conversation is merely extra info. As I said, we're here to form a consensus now, not to interpret guidelines. --Edge3 (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand: Consensus is a not a matter of polling people, it is interpreting policies and guidelines and applying them to resolve an editing dispute. What Wikipedia policy or guideline requires text I characterize as "headline" and "lede" and what you characterize as "extra info" be excluded? patsw (talk) 12:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

But there is no guideline that directly affects our situation. Notability requirements normally apply to stand-alone articles, not sections or statements. Consensus is a necessity in all collaborations, as there will always be situations in which we cannot cite policy. Therefore, what I am essentially arguing is that the barbecued cat shouldn't be mentioned not because of policy, but because it doesn't add a lot of useful info to the article. --Edge3 (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The current text is fine in that it mentions the phone call, no need to go into details. It doesnt appear to be relevant to the accident at the moment, the tower controller had already handed the aircraft over to Newark so did not have any responsibility for the flight. MilborneOne (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Error regarding flight rules

"Within this corridor, aircraft operate under visual flight rules, under which the responsibility to see and avoid other air traffic rests with the individual pilots rather than with the air traffic controller." - the flight rules (VFR or IFR) under which an aircraft is flying does not automatically determine if the pilot is responsible maintaining separation to other aircraft. Instead, it is the combination of airspace classification (A to G) and flight rules that determine whether or not the air traffic controller provides separation between aircraft. Hence the statement in this article should be rephrased. 91.152.41.79 (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'll see if I can get around to this after my long wikibreak...in the meantime, why don't you attempt editing it? Thanks, Whaatt^Speak_Contrib 21:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, reviewing the article from which this statement was sourced, I believe it is correct information...could you please provide some clarification on what you are trying to say? Thanks, Whaatt^Speak_Contrib 21:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2009 Hudson River mid-air collision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050329040939/http://www.ntsb.gov:80/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=55639&key=0 to http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=55639&key=0

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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.

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091124141402/http://www.foxtoledo.com:80/dpp/news/national/northeast/nat_ap_nj_2_bodies_found_in_hudson_river_plane_wreckage_20090812649_2755703 to http://www.foxtoledo.com/dpp/news/national/northeast/nat_ap_nj_2_bodies_found_in_hudson_river_plane_wreckage_20090812649_2755703

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of 2019 Alaska mid-air collision

Deeday-UK has twice removed my addition of the 2019 Alaska mid-air collision from the "See also" section of this article with the justification that both appear in the list on the mid-air collision article, which is crowded by dozens of other mid-airs that have little in common with this one. The reason the 2019 Alaska crash deserves a special mention here is that the two accidents are very similar in circumstances. Both involved collisions of VFR sightseeing flights in U.S. airspace congested with such flights and under scrutiny by the FAA for exceptionally heavy VFR sightseeing traffic. Both accidents are relatively recent and involve failures of modern safeguards that are intended to avert collisions (ATC in NYC, ADS-B avionics in Alaska). Both involve commercial tour operations. The NTSB attributed both accidents primarily to "the inherent limitations of the see-and-avoid concept." Lastly, both involved water rescues. Carguychris (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

If the similarities are so strong (and supported by reliable sources), then they should be covered in the article body, rather than left to a one-liner at the bottom. The problem with 'See also' sections is that adding one such entry opens the floodgates to a lot of others ("here's another mid-air involving an airplane and a helicopter", "another involving a turboprop with floats", "another in New York State"... etc). Drawing the line becomes difficult. With links to list articles, instead, there's no argument and no clutter. --Deeday-UK (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)