Jump to content

Template talk:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2018

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basaran jet crash

[edit]

Does this crash warrant its own article and subsequent inclusion in this template?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43364579

YantarCoast (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gatwick Airport drone incident

[edit]

Per Aviation accidents and incidents:

In aviation... International Civil Aviation Annex 13... defines an incident as an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operation.

Gatwick Airport drone incident unequivocally meets that definition, so I'm not sure why it has again been removed from this template (and the template again removed from that article), after I restored it. One reason that I am unclear is that the edit summary when it was removed was "No nut rage, no United Express, no terrorist incidents at airports", which does not seem to contain anything relevant. The edit summary at its first removal was blank. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again you don't read, I said take the discussion here[1]...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Drop the abuse. I read the page well enough to quote it, above. Address that. Here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're being abusive. Obviously deleting my message without reading. Citing gibberish in an edit summary, and now refusing to take a discussion to the WikiProject talk page that covers all these templates. A real triple play.
Again you're taking something out of context. The article says a aircraft with passengers and where damage is done to that aircraft. Where did that happen....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@WilliamJE: You're confusing accident with incident. The Gatwick Airport drone incident is an aviation incident, and is described as such in "Drones ground flights at Gatwick". BBC News. 20 December 2018. Retrieved 20 December 2018.. An aviation incident is defined as

"Incident. An occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft which affects or could affect the safety of operation.

by the Convention on International Civil Aviation. See: "Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation". The Investigation Process Research Resource Site. October 11, 1994. Chapter I, Definitions. Retrieved July 20, 2018.
There is no doubt that the Gatwick Airport drone incident meets the inclusion criteria for this template and I've restored it. --RexxS (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's normal to discuss issues pertaining to a page, on the talk page of the page, WilliamJE. Your peremptory "Again you don't read, I said take the discussion here" is uncivil and makes me wonder who died to make you the king. An unwillingness to discuss the issue at hand and engagement in ad hominem attacks is a shibboleth of a losing argument; bluster is not logic, just misplaced emotion. If you feel that members of a project should be involved in a discussion, a reasonable way to achieve that is put a neutral note on the project's talk page informing project members of the fact of a discussion they may wish to interest themselves in. If your suggestion is that the Gatwick outage was not an aviation incident, you need to do better than this huffing & puffing. On the face of it, massive disruption of a major airport is very clearly an aviation incident, by any common understanding as well as by the lead definition of our article on the subject. RexxS - I've 'fixed' indentation of this thread, including your comment. Hope that's okay. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An incident has to involve the operation of an aircraft. This doesn't. What the media describes it as is immaterial.
We don't include nut rage, the 2010 volcano erruption that disrupted air travel throughout Europe, second hand smoke killing a passenger, Terrorist bombings at airports, United Express Flight 3411 incident either. All per consensus and I put the links in at Andy's talk page before he deleted it. Go to his page history and find those links. This matter belongs at the WikiProject talk page[2] too because this is something concerning more than this one page....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Read these talk page discusssions here[3] and here[4]. There are others but I don't remember where they are....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is the place to discuss edits to Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2018. An incident has to be associated with aircraft operation which affects or could affect the safety of operation, by definition. All of the affected aircraft were grounded because of the concern that their safety could be affected by the drones. When reliable sources describe an incident as an incident, your opinion becomes immaterial. You don't get to decide that your say-so takes precedence over the BBC.
I've looked at the talk page discussions you refer to and they confirm my impression that you're insisting an incident meets the definition of an accident in the first case. The second case is a discussion on a Wikiproject talk page about "Terrorist attacks, Airport bombings". That's nothing to do with safety concerns about an aircraft colliding with a drone.
Now, you need to stop attempting to force your preferred version into the template by edit-warring against multiple other editors. I've provided sources to back up my edit; you've provided none. --RexxS (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per Andy & RexxS, you need to stop now. Until the consensus established here is overturned, the incident shall remain. I give you fair warning about 3RR. It would be a shame to see your 2019 start with a block. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Question: reading the article, we are not even sure if a drone was actually flown (other than possibly police ones). Would this qualify as an "incident" for this template, if it transpired that no illegal drone flying actually took place? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The drone is a MacGuffin. The shutdown of the airport was real enough and constitutes the incident. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am for not including the drone incident in the template. Aside from the formal definition of accident and incident, from a reader's point of view, I would expect the entries of this template to be about people getting injured or killed during some sort of aircraft operation, or aircraft getting damaged or destroyed or seriously upset. As a reader, I would not expect to find odd events broadly connected with the aviation industry where no harm was done to people nor aircraft, such as in the nut rage incident or indeed the Gatwick drone one. Put in another way: would this incident get its own entry in the ASN database? If not, then it should not be included in the template either (for the record, the Gatwick drone incident does not have an entry at the ASN, only a brief news article). --Deeday-UK (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, taking your points roughly in reverse order: first, which ASN database? They seem to have at least 3 [5] and in addition publish apropos news stories, which I will count as a fourth. Clearly it will not feature in the ASN Accident database, since it was not an accident. It will almost certainly feature in the ASN Drone database. It may or may not feature in their Wikibase. It does, as you say, feature in their news database. I score that as, say 2.5 mentions out of 4 possibilities, and suggest that, contrary to your assertion, consideration of ASN supports the inclusion.
Next, I respect your 'as a reader' opinion. My 'as a reader' opinion is that a major airport outage is indubitably an aviation incident, and I would expect a wikipedia navigation template covering aviation accidents and incidents to list it. I would be puzzled by its omission. I do not share your expectation that the scope of accidents and incidents is limited to "people getting injured or killed during some sort of aircraft operation, or aircraft getting damaged or destroyed or seriously upset". So that's probably some form of maximalist versus minimalist, or deletionism versus inclusionism type difference of opinion.
Penultimately, I find it problematic that you start by putting wikipedia's and CICA's formal definitions of 'incident' aside because they do not comport with your a priori expectations. For me, that fundamentally undermines your argument. Wikipedia is tertiary and secondary source led; it does not fly by the seat of its pants.
Finally, the nut incident is not under discussion here. Your use of it is a red herring. The purpose of your use of it appears to be to draw a false equivilance between a major airport outage and an individual having a hissy-fit, so as to minimise the major airport outage to the level of the individual hissy fit. That is a disingenuous argument which, if you'll forgive the pun, will not fly. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the nut rage and the Gatwick drone incidents are essentially equivalent, with regard to their relevance to this template. It's not the severity of an event that determines its inclusion in this template; it's its nature. All terrorist bombings of airports are "major airport outages", for that matter, yet none of them is included in this template. Indeed, if there was an 'Airport accidents and incidents in xxxx' template, that's where the Gatwick drone incident (and all airport bombings) would belong; here, that article is the odd one out. --Deeday-UK (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The major flaw in your understanding seems to be, Deeday-UK, that you think airports have nothing to do with aviation. Good luck landing your plane. Again, to borrow from your own proffered logic, if the template were called 'Aeroplane accidents and incidents in xxxx' we wouldn't need this discussion because it's clear that an airport is not a plane. And yes, I do think airport bombings such as Brussels should be in the template too. --Tagishsimon (talk)
Try to get your head around the definition given in, for instance Aviation: "Aviation, or air transport, refers to the activities surrounding mechanical flight and the aircraft industry. Aircraft includes fixed-wing and rotary-wing types, morphable wings, wing-less lifting bodies, as well as lighter-than-air craft such as balloons and airships." Aircraft are a subclass of aviation. Aircraft incidents are a subclass of aviation incidents. Airports are a subclass of Aviation. Airport incidents are a subclass of aviation incidents. This template is about Aviation accidents and incidents. Is it really that hard to understand? Activities surrounding. It's not what you'd like the template to be about that is important. It is what the template is, by definition of its title, about. Aeroplanes are in. Airports are in. Air traffic control is in - so an incident at West Drayton would be in. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that much of the problem here is that this series of templates has tended to be treated as if they were "Template:Aircraft accidents and incidents in <YEAR>". Looking back over previous years' templates, they seem to only contain accidents and incidents involving aircraft. It's not true to say that terrorist incidents at airports are consistently excluded as I noticed 1973 Rome airport attacks and hijacking was included in Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1973, for example. When you look at the Template:Lists of aviation accidents and incidents, which gives the corresponding lists, the lists sometimes include airport-related incidents. There's a similar picture with Category:Aviation accidents and incidents. In other words, the vast majority of items included are aircraft-related, but the inclusion criteria don't specify that exclusivity.
The sole purpose of navigational templates, such as this, is to provide the reader with links to similar or related topics, so the question becomes "If we exclude airport-related incidents from this template, how does a reader find those articles, which theoretically belong under the umbrella of 'aviation incidents'?" I believe it would be more productive to try to find some consensus on the answer to that, than to argue back-and-forth between those of use who think that a template should reflect what its name says it is, and those who are accustomed to using the template for a narrower purpose. Let's see if we can find some common ground. --RexxS (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I start thinking that having separate templates could be an idea. Aircraft accidents and incidents in xxxx for air accidents proper and hijackings; Airport incidents in the xxxxs for airport bombings, drones etc, where only the ground infrastructure is involved, but no aircraft (probably grouping by decade, rather than year, unless the volume of incidents justifies it). --Deeday-UK (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Aviation_accidents_and_incidents_in_2018&oldid=1228065446"