Talk:JetBlue Flight 292

JetBlue Airways Flight 292 on television station KCAL.

JetBlue Flight 292, moments after front landing gear touched down.

This article was previously considered for deletion.
An archived record of the discussion can be found here.

The landing gear is designed to turn to 90 degrees in case of system failure

As the original article states, a similar event took place in Columbus, Ohio. A friend of mine who works for American West Airlines (R.A.) mentioned the Columbus incident to me last night over the phone. He also mentioned the Airbus was designed to turn the wheel to 90 degrees in the event of a system failure so that the plane would land just like we all saw. Otherwise, if the wheel is not straight or perpendicular (to the fuselage's axis), the plane might steer off the runway. The plane is designed to perform exactly the way it did in this type of situation. The original article says "it appeared the wheel was turned 90 degrees". This did not occur by accident.

By the way, I do not have time to confirm this and did not wish to edit the original news page. If someone wishes to find this information and add it, please do so. Thanks.

I'd really like to see a source for this, as somebody has added it to the article. Neurophyre 02:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notablility in the long-term

This is a stupid question, but what's the purpose of having an article in an encyclopedia about an event that's occuring over a few hours right now? If they land safely, as we all sincerely hope they do, ~~this won't even be notable~~. -- SCZenz 00:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Events can still be notable after they happen. We have an article about September 11th. --Oreckel 01:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sept 11 was notable for its deaths, structural loss, and repurcusions. -- user:zanimum

Granted, it was an extreme example, but still... --Oreckel 01:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But I wasn't claiming events aren't notable after they happen. The Magna carta was signed almost 800 years ago, and it remains notable today. I was claiming this wasn't notable, although zanium may have addressed that part of my point. -- SCZenz 01:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Airline buffs will still consider this successful landing notable, and things that airplane buffs like are just as important as thing Star Trek buffs like. -- user:zanimum

If that's true, fair enough. But it seems almsot creepy to me to be rushing to get edits in as events happen, and it's certainly more appropriate for Wikinews than here. -- SCZenz 01:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True, but Wikinews is still rather hidden. We've established some of our notablility not just with the overall concept of Wikipedia and breadth of topics, but with our currentness. I hate to sound superficial in anyway, but we owe our success to September 11th. It boosted our Google rating, as we were one of the most complete pages on the net on the topic. That brought thousands of readers and writers to the project for the first time, many of whom have stayed. -- user:zanimum

LOL

As a pilot, I can assure you that the incident will lead to major scrutiny of the airbus 320 programme, and WILL be notable for some time. Fawcett5 01:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fair to say at this point that I stand corrected. -- SCZenz 02:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right or left?

MSNBC said the wheel was tiled to the right, not the left. I'm not sure which is correct. --Oreckel 01:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I've heard is left. -- user:zanimum

MSNCB Testimonial

MSNBC interviewd by phone a passenger named "Tod" (I didn't catch his last name) just now. Here are the notes that I got, if someone wants to work them into the article, here it is:

About 10 minutes after takeoff, the captain made an in-flight announcement to report there was a problem with landing gear

About 20 minutes later, there was another announcement that they were doing a fly-by at another airport to see what the problem was

About 15 minutes later, it was announced that the landing gear was down (extended), but was turned 90 degrees and would't retract.

Through the event, the passengers were watching MSNBC, getting "lots of information" between the TV and crew announcemnts. The TV's wern't turned off until about 3-4 minutes before landing.

They also shifted people and luggage to the back of the plane to lighten the front end.

Reported everyone was calm and "prepared to do what they had to do".

--Oreckel 01:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any evidence for passengers watching MSNBC, not even on the MSNBC website. Do you have a link for this? Johntex\^talk 02:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't. I forgot to mention this and I thought I did - this was a TV interview about 3 or 4 minutes after passengers started to get off the plane, so this was just what I heard. The passenger said he was watching the TV, and since it was an MSNBC interview, he chuckled and added ", we were watching MSNBC, actually". MSNBC's website probably won't have a commentary - I doubt it will ever be documented in full on the internet, so the only source is a TV broadcast, which I don't have the means to digitize. --Oreckel 02:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know if the full TV coverage footage is available online anywhere? Not just for the landing but of the entire flight. I wasn't by a TV as it was happening and I'm interested in seeing what the news coverage was like. Thanks! --George

AfD

Can we move it to the bottom of the page, as not to confuse readers? -- user:zanimum

Who does it confuse? It's on the top for every article.--Pharos 01:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is that you can't. They can look at the link, and see everyone votes to keep, and forget about it. But concealing a VfD is a no-no for obvious reasons. -- SCZenz 01:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just isn't welcoming for people discovering us for the first time. Any other AfD article is relatively obscure, unlike this. -- user:zanimum

Yeah, and you're stuck with it for a week. I hear you. You could find out how to put in a request to an admin to have it removed as frivelous and/or overwhelmingly decided--I know they can do that. -- SCZenz 02:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can? That's cool. I'll do it anyone can find that for me. -- user:zanimum

The news on Hurricane Rita(? - I forgot the name) is on the front page as news.. I found this article in Current events and if other people are looking for news on the subject to they'll see that annoying article deletion template too — CuaHL 02:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How does this relate to speeding up the AfD process? -- user:zanimum

I've skimmed over all the AfD policy pages, can't find any reference to speeding up the process, even in the precedents section. -- user:zanimum

I thought I saw it done on the deletion log earlier today, but I guess that was a case of obvious vandalism. This is actually getting reasoned delete votes, so it wouldn't count as that. -- SCZenz 02:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fawcett5's taken the AfD notice off as of 21:29 EST, September 21, 2005. -- user:zanimum

I agree with this move. This issue arises on a fairly regular basis, and once it is clear the page will be kept removing the header is standard procedure. It might be a good idea to have a general policy on removing vfd headers from breaking news stories. - SimonP 02:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about "If an article is properly marked as a "Current Event", it may not be marked for Articles for Deletion (AfD) until at least two weeks into its existance." -- user:zanimum

While I voted merge, this proposal is a good idea, since once the news event fades away, we can say if it truely had an impact and not worry about "recentism." Zach (Sound Off) 13:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

Just to archive this until people are less objectionary (new word creation) to this content, if ever. -- user:zanimum

A few minutes after the incident, JetBlue aired a commercial on some television stations.
ABC was airing a repeat episode of the television series Lost while the incident was concluding. Lost focuses on the survivors of a downed plane.

If not ITN

Because of objections to this being on In The News, I've added this to DYN. zanimum

translation, please? Johntex\^talk 02:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had to rush, the computer lab was closing as I typed. I posted this story in In The News. Pharos objected, and removed it. I added the article to Did You Know, bypassing procedure. Pharos objected, and removed it. It would be nice to have it featured somewhere. -- user:zanimum

Passengers had TVs

It's a known fact that this plane had in-flight satellite TV, and it was reported that passengers were actually watching TV coverage until 3-4 minutes before the flight ended. We had a paragraph on this about an hour ago and now it's gone - can we restore it? I thought it was a rather interesting piece of information, since this is the first time to my knowledge that passengers were able to get information about their situation and see their damaged plane while in the air. --Oreckel 02:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Edwards Airforce base was being questioned as well, due to its wide and long runway. --.::Imdaking::. ^{Bow | DOWN} 03:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the TV angle is very interesting. I'd just like to have a source for it, please? At one point, it was said that the TV's were on until 3-4 minutes before the flight, at another point, someone seemed to be saying they were turned off as soon as there was a problem. I'm all for putting it in if we have a reputable source. Same for the Edwards AFB consideration. Johntex\^talk 03:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at various articles to see that it has the technology to provide in-flight satellite TV. I've also heard conflicting reports - purley on TV coverage which isn't a citable source. I heard a passenger say it was 3-4 minutes before the ended, but a friend has told me they heard 30 minutes. Apparently some people say it was turned off right away - I can't be sure. Check above for the "MSNBC Testimonial" header I added - those are the details I heard. --Oreckel 03:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LA Times says passengers watched "the drama on televisions": http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-092105plane_lat,0,3067510.story?coll=la-home-headlines and also says that the TV's were off "well before landing". --Oreckel 03:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know all the JetBlue planes have satellite TV--a wonderful way to spend a flight, that's for sure. http://ktla.trb.com/news/local/ktla-jetblue,0,6586766.story?coll=ktla-news-1 says the passengers were watching TV: "Passengers witnessed their own crisis from televisions onboard the aircraft. 'Communications were cut well before we landed,' a passenger, Mike Miceli, told Channel 4 news. 'But we watched it probably for an hour or so.'"Kevin M Marshall 03:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for finding the sources. I've added this to the article. Johntex\^talk 04:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image to replace disputed fair use screenshot

File:Jetblueemergency.jpg

User:Andrewmarino has graciously uploaded an excellent photograph he took of the landing after I found it on airliners.net and suggested the idea to him. I'm going to add it to the article, but suggest here that perhaps the close-up screenshot of dubious copyright status be eventually removed in its favor. Neurophyre 17:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't this essentially {{permission}} then? -- user:zanimum

Not at all. It was generously uploaded under copyrighted free use, which is absolutely the freest license possible.--Pharos 21:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, clearly we need to stick with images that can legally be used. It would be great to be able to use (or find a replacement for) the close-up image that illustrates how the landing gear was turned. Any ideas on getting that type of image back in the article? Johntex\^talk 16:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CBS News Typo?

The CBS News website had an article which stated:

"Christiana Lund, 25, just moved to New York from the L.A. area, and had gone back to pick up her car, which was with her on the plane." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/22/earlyshow/main878702.shtml

Her CAR? Did they mean CAT, or can an Airbus 320 actually carry a car? -- Silent 3 13:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No that's definetly a typo. -- user:zanimum

Fair Use Image

The question of whether the landing gear image is usable or not is under discussion here. I encourage you to join the discussion. Johntex\^talk 21:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Podcast of pilot, controllers and maintenance

Joe d’Eon, who authors the podcast Fly With Me has captured part of the conversation between the pilot, controllers, dispatch and maintenance and put it up as a podcast episode: Fly With Me Episode 8 and a Half. It's notable because it presents the viewpoint of the pilot without interference from the media. user:blalor