This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Aviation: Accidents This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation This article is supported by the Aviation accident project. New York City Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. New Jersey Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Disaster management Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		I award the Teamwork Barnstar to all editors who have taken part in writing the US Airways Flight 1549 article so well and so quickly. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section seems like what Wikipedia is not: A directory. It is not the goal of the encyclopedia to provide information on when programs were on about the incident. --Izno (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If any of these programs were used as sources in the article, then they should simply be cited as such in the appropriate areas. And if any of them were not, but can be viewed or read on the Net, then links to them can be placed in EL. Nightscream (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added note to section about why the circumstances of this accident (a river ditching in a metropolitan area in which all the occupants survived and could thus provide first person accounts) makes this listing appropriate. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

It's still a directory, unless you can provide sources talking about the documentaries themselves; i.e., that the documentaries themselves are notable. If you can't, then they should probably be removed. --Izno (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed name of section to "Video and first person accounts" and expanded note describing why these were both significant and unusual in commercial aviation accidents. While this "listing" may not strictly fall within the suggested guidelines about "directories" in Wikipedia, I feel strongly that the existence of so much real time video and photography, and the rapid access to the first person accounts of participants, is significant and unusual enough to warrant its being included in its own section for this particular accident. (Centpacrr (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

That you like it doesn't cut it; there are other arguments on that page which you have made which should also be avoided. --Izno (talk) 01:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific with your objection than it "doesn't cut it." I am not taking my position here just because "I like it" but for the reasons explained both above and in the paragraph that I added to the section in the article: real time video of plane crashes is very very rare, as is the availability (especially so soon after an incident) of such extensive broadcast interviews with the first hand accounts by key participants.

This is not a "Google" search type list with thousands of links which is more what I expect the listing guideline is meant to discourage. I agree that such a listing would certainly be inappropriate. Instead there are only four key examples included in the section with some explanatory information about them as to what they contain and why they are significant. I suggest that you click on and watch the linked video files as they really do provide much valuable information. (The links have also been in the article for several months now without any previous objection that I am aware of.) The links explain and direct readers to valuable reference materials that both directly support many of the elements of the event described in the article and provide additional information not available elsewhere. Relavant information should not be discarded simply because it may not absolutely conform to a guideline as to formatting. "Substance" should really be given more deference than "form."

I did not find or add these to the article originally (although I did reformat the first one a couple of months ago for clarity), but for the reasons I gave earlier and immediately above I still strongly believe that they should remain as they are. (Centpacrr (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I support Centpacrr's comments. In this case, WP:IAR could be said to overrule WP:NOT. The programmes mentioned could be used as references, but we don't know how long they will be available for online. Should any link become dead, then I'd support the removal of the link. Mjroots (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reading this article:

• Anatomy of a Miracle

It's long seven page article, which should read it. So could use to filling the <ref></ref> tags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B767-500 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My addition of a reference to the Aug 8, 2009, plane crash in the Hudson 40 blocks from 1549 was deleted here with a summary saying that discussing all other accidents in the general area would make a mess of the article. A high percentage of the Aug. 8 articles make reference to 1549. It's not a common occurence for planes to go down in the Hudson. Americasroof (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Americasroof that the August 8 accident has a significant enough connection (propinquity of its unusual location; rescue/recovery effort) that it deserves a brief mention in the US Airways Flight 1549 article. Centpacrr (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Has it been undeleted/reinserted? --98.232.181.201 (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been back for four days in a somewhat expanded form. Centpacrr (talk) 09:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any notability for a quote by the Air Traffic Controller about how he felt after losing contact, in a newspaper article about the third anniversary?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article says

"aircrew began evacuating the 150 passengers, both on to the wings through the four mid-cabin emergency window exits ..."

This is sort-of incorrect.

Passengers leaving through the overwing exits were doing so of their own volition, whereas passengers leaving through the front exits (1L and 1R) were being instructed to do so by cabin crew. So the cabin crew weren't "evacuating passengers onto the wings".

Cabin crew evacuated the passengers through the front doors (doors 1L (yellow) and 1R (red) on the diagram on page 155 of the report cited below).

Some passengers chose to leave the plane through the overwing exits (blue and red on the diagram) - but they weren't instructed to do so by the cabin crew, and the overwing exits were opened by passengers rather than cabin crew. The emergency info cards showed that the overwing exits were not intended for use in a ditching (landing on water).

This is interesting and significant from a 'human factors' view of the accident, because the overwing exits were not equipped with liferafts. Passengers leaving through these exits were more likely to end up in the water, and therefore were at higher risk of drowning or hypothermia.

Some of the passengers who initially exited through an overwing exit later re-entered the plane in order to exit through 1L and 1R, and get to the liferafts.

Source: NTSB Survival Factors Group Chairman's Report (contains detailed witness statements from cabin crew and passengers) http://www.exosphere3d.com/pubwww/pdf/flight_1549/ntsb_docket/420151.pdf

e.g. page 101 (passenger 17B):

"He went up the aisle to the overwing exits and exited through the right side in row 10. He saw a slide behind the wing that was upside down. Passenger 14A and another man were trying to flip it over. He was freezing and water was coming over the top of the wing and he knew the situation was not good. He saw the slide/raft at door 1R and there was room in it. He turned around and went back to the overwing exits telling other passengers that there was room in the front right slide/raft. Almost everyone was out of the airplane and he estimated that he spent less than 30 seconds on the wing. He went inside, walked up the aisle, and saw the captain in the cockpit doorway. The captain instructed him not to jump into the slide/raft, just slide in. He believed several other passengers followed him and got into the slide/raft after he did. The ferries arrived and he yelled for them to get the people on the wings first."

--93.97.113.11 (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that's the same diagram as on page 43 of the main accident report. http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2010/AAR1003.pdf Passengers who exited the aircraft then reentered and exited through a different exit are designated with a '/' symbol in that diagram. --93.97.113.11 (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you review the criteria for inclusion of material as set out in WP:EP and linked policies, before deleting facts from this page? Like you, I am keen to make sure that articles are well written, properly copy edited, and don't contain information not appropriate to the topic. But where there is factual information relevant to the topic, that is neutral and verifiable, it should be included. In this incident the flying time of each engine and the various openings beneath the aircraft that might let in water are both relevant factual information that it is reasonable for an encyclopedia to include. Neither you or I could possibly imagine all the various reasons that might bring people to this page. Our mission is to present everything that is relevant, and to present it in the best way we can. IanB2 (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you fundamentally misunderstand the criteria for inclusion of material. We emphatically are supposed to imagine the various reasons that readers will come to the article, and fashion it accordingly. This article is littered with detail which the lay reader cannot appreciate or even comprehend, and which does nothing to help him understand what happened in the incident. For example, you apparently want the article to say:

The Airbus A320 has a "ditching" button that closes valves and openings underneath the aircraft, including the pressurization outflow valve, the ram air inlet, the avionics ventilation inlet and extract valves, and the pack flow control valves. It is meant to slow flooding in a water landing. Sullenberger later noted that it probably would not have been effective anyway, since the force of the water impact tore holes in the plane's fuselage much larger than the openings sealed by the switch.

-- and even include an image showing the location, in the cockpit, of this switch that wasn't used! Now, I ask you, what is the typical reader supposed to do with the fact that "the pressurization outflow valve, the ram air inlet, the avionics ventilation inlet and extract valves, and the pack flow control valves" are among ("among" -- not even a complete list, apparently) of various ways water could enter after a ditching? The answer is Nothing, because almost no readers will have any idea what these doohickeys are, though they sound very impressive. Here's my version, half as long and without the gee-whiz image that tells the reader nothing except that button not pushed was orange and surrounded by lots of other knobs and switches:

The Airbus A320 has a control that closes valves and openings in the fuselage, in order to slow flooding after a water landing, but the flight crew did not activate it. Sullenberger later said this made little difference since the impact tore significant holes in the fuselage anyway.

Notice I've also substituted e.g. "forse of the water impact" --> just "impact", which is the same thing for all practical purposes.

This is just one of scores of similar places where the article can and should be streamlined so that a lay reader can follow what happened without having to plow though stuff of no consequence. Those interested in aircraft design can find out about the ram air inlet and outflow valves by consulting the sources. EEng 10:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair points. I absolutely agree that many articles on here need copy-editing down (which TBH is my usual approach) and you are right that endlessly mentioning such things as the wings being attached to a plane or the river being the Hudson is annoying, and I deleted a lot of such from this page quite recently. And the photo of a switch can definitely go! But I do suggest that deleting Canada Geese wasn't wise, and if we give the engine hours at all it would be sensible to attribute the figures to the engines? We also need to recognise that this particular page is a sensitive one to the people involved, mostly still living, and be careful deleting too much factual material in one go. Good luck with your edits IanB2 (talk) 10:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe that discussion actually led to agreement. I'll notify the media!

You were right, and I was wrong, about Canada Geese (and I believe I send a thanks for you setting me straight on that). If I keep going on this article, please keep watch and revert where appropriate, but remember: every added detail means that the reader's limited reservoir of attention will be spread that much thinner, so that he absorbs everything already in the article that much less well. The question, always, is whether that loss is justified by the value of the new thing added. EEng 10:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being faced with what is typically my own argument was a clear sign to stop digging whilst I could still see out of the hole. ;) Just take a little care...for many involved (helpers as well as passengers) this incident was the most significant of their lives. IanB2 (talk) 10:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem abnormally easy to work with. Have you visited The Museums? EEng 11:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a satisfying exercise, isn't it? EEng 18:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this could get to GA, it would make a great DYK:

... that after Flight 1549 landed in the Hudson River, the airline gave each passenger $5000, a ticket refund, and a letter of apology?

Actually, what were they apologizing for? The geese? EEng 22:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably not. But yes, GA looks like your only viable route. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• They did enter controlled airspace without a clearance. IanB2 (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then the geese should be apologizing. EEng 00:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are good sources that should enable us to properly reference an extra section to set out the effects of being struck by an airliner in midair and of a large bird being sucked through a jet engine? IanB2 (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Effect on the bird, or on the engine? Now that I think about it, the airline probably should have apologized to the geese too. BTW, people have survived being inhaled by a jet engine [1] (doesn't look so good for the engine, though) – there's even an "International Classification of Diseases" diagnotistic code for it, V97.33 Sucked into jet engine. EEng 01:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm thinking about taking this article to a possible GA or FA, using Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 (an FA) as a point of reference. Here's what we may need to do:

• Lead section - while it's a pretty good summary, the lead should be at least three to four paragraphs depending on the situation.
• Route, aircraft, crew and passengers section - we can expand it to include that plane's history and how it changed through the years.
• Investigation - we can add the safety recommendations if necessary.
• Final report - we may need to create a separate section.

If there are any other suggestions, please let me know here. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lot of stuff in the "Media and popular culture" could be pruned out likewise "Crew awards and honors" could be reduced to a couple of paragraphs and remove some of the less notable stuff. MilborneOne (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. This article has been heavily copy edited by me and even more by User:EEng, and is hopefully in pretty good shape. I am not convinced the plane's prior history is of much significance given this was a bird strike that would have disabled pretty much any plane? I did review the investigation report some time back and think the principal recommendations are in the article; a further review and perhaps an itemised list wouldn't do any harm. The usual problem with leads is that editors try to pack too much in; I always saw the guidelines as maxima, and if we've said it all with fewer paragraphs, well, that's a bonus! Nevertheless we should check that the lead does cover all the most important points. MapReader (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Brief mobile comments:

• It's clearly GA already.
• Popcult/media needs substantial cut. I suspect there are sources commenting on the saturation media coverage -- we should be working from that rather than accumulating our own list.
• Crew awards needs a lesser trim.
• Lead probably should touch on investigation's consideration, and rejection, of possibility of airport landing.
• For God's sake keep fancruft on aircraft history to a later section or a footnote.

EEng 16:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from cutting down the pop culture section as well as expanding the lead to summarize all aspects of the article, should we nominate it for GA immediately or have it go through a peer review beforehand? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re this recent edit to the lead: The text says: ".. the crew made its first report after becoming airborne at 3:25:51" and "At 3:27:11 the plane struck a flock of Canada geese.." So that looks to me like 1 minute and 20 seconds later? Meanwhile, the main graphic gives "3.26 takeoff" and "Bird Strike 13:27:11" and that's actually only 1 minute and 11 seconds. Any suggestions? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that "almost immediately" is appropriate since, in the context of air incidents / accidents that strongly suggests seconds rather than minutes. But surely the exact time after take-off is a simple and basic fact that ought to be fully known and well reported? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I just wanted to gloss over the problem for the meantime. EEng 23:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the graphic is wrong, can it be altered? Mjroots (talk) 04:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see the original uploader on Commons was ChrisnHouston. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who agrees it's time to take an axe to the popcult section? EEng 22:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's a bit much. - Samf4u (talk) 13:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The goal of this article is not for it to be as short as possible. While the story summarizes as "A plane landed on water and all hands survived," there is more to the story.

It is a sad moment that I see all the vandalism to this article removing various referenced facts, especially those surrounding what firms and individuals performed the rescue.

Deleting the names and ages of the people involved, as well as quotes from the various air and sea pilots, reduces the quality of Wikipedia. While Wikipedia has its qualities, there are too many "deletionists" who seem to derive excessive self-pleasure from removing facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.215.141 (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect without going through the edits that those "facts" that have been removed are probably not noteworthy in an encyclopedia. So not really vandalism just editors making sure the article meets the norm for this type of article. If you have anything specific then raise it here and it can be discussed. MilborneOne (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... "excessive self-pleasure"?? Not sure where you've conjured that up from. I suspect many regular editors are "fed up to the back teeth" with deleting unwanted trivia. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't normally name non-notable participants in events unless they're referenced elsewhere in the article. Not among Wikipedia's jobs is giving credit where credit is due and so on – there are whole books on the event that do that. Now excuse me while I go self-pleasure. EEng 16:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. Well, you know, there will always be exceptions to any rule. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

In terms of the opening sentence, does this incident relate to an aircraft or a flight? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both. The dispute currently raging relates to the choice between

US Aurways Flight 1549 was an Airbus A320 which, on January 15, 2009, struck a flock of Canada geese...

and

US Aurways Flight 1549 was an Airbus A320 flight which, on January 15, 2009, struck a flock of Canada geese...

See WP:ASTONISHME#commission. EEng 11:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the second use of the word "flight" is unnecessary. A flight consists of an aircraft going from point A to point B at a specific time. The reader can infer that Flight 1549 consisted of an Airbus A320 traveling between a starting point and an intended destination at some specific time, with details to be supplied later in the article. Following the logic of the proposed edit, since the flock of geese was struck by an airplane, not by a "flight", the new wording should be something like

US Airways Flight 1549 was a flight in which, on January 15, 2009, an Airbus A320 struck a flight of Canada geese...

The original wording is more concise. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 12:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah no, that's not the "logic" here. Your flight of geese is a flying straw man. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To say that "US Airways Flight 1549 was an Airbus A320" is incorrect, surely. A flight employs an aircraft. A flight is just a scheduled service that may be serviced by any available aircraft? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Flight 1549 could have been serviced by any available aircraft, but in fact, on the day in question, it was serviced by one particular Airbus A320. I think the reader can equate the two and accept Flight 1549 as a shorthand way of referring to the Airbus A320. It was the Airbus A320 which struck the flight of geese. It's inconsistent to say that Flight 1549 can only refer to the flight and not to the aircraft but then say that the flight struck the flock of geese. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pecisely. EEng 22:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point. But if we are aiming for consistency, this shorthand might apply equally across all other similar accident articles? Perhaps this is a question for Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This common-sense (and formally perfectly appropriate) principle does indeed apply equally across all such articles, but since they're guarded by breathless airfans (one of whom, I see, has restored the flight was a flight idiocy to Flight 1380) that's not a hill I'm willing to die on -- for now I'll content myself with keeping just this one article from opening with a lead that looks like it was written by robots. EEng 15:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the second "flight" is redundant. Per WP:REDUNDANCY, "Keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence. Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information that is not already given by the title of the article". (Emphasis in original.) Since "flight" is mentioned in the title, we should not repeat it in the first sentence. - BilCat (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^I would think that "US Airways Flight 1549 was operated by an Airbus A320-214 ...." appears a lot better than the current or alternate versions. MilborneOne (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's as necessary as saying The World Cup was won by the members of the team competing for Brazil when you could simply say Brazil won the World Cup. Everyone knows that the country of Brazil can't itself kick a ball, but they understand nonetheless. Operated by is excess verbiage that adds nothing to the reader's understanding, even if it does bolster airfans' warm inner glow at the feeling of having mastered industry lingo. EEng 22:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you'd have to say "Brazil won the World Cup", disambiguated with piped links, at the very least. MilborneOne's suggestion looks quite reasonable. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a first time reader of this article, I was left with a couple of unanswered questions. If you guys know the answers, you may want to consider adding this info to the article.

• This article could use a paragraph or section with details about the water rescue. What government agencies were involved? Who arrived first? What ship took the majority of passengers?
• This article could use more details about what happened inside the aircraft during the evacuation. Was it orderly? Did anybody take charge? What percentage of people donned life vests? How many people were immobile and required assistance?
• How much time did Sully take off after the incident? Did he fly at all again before retiring in 2010?
• You may want to make the "Sully" move its own section, and go into detail about the differences between the movie and what actually happened in real life.

Hope that helps. Thanks. – Novem Linguae (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All great ideas (except maybe the stuff about the movie, which should be in the article on the movie). Do you have any idea where sources exist for these points? EEng 06:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can we at least mention that a few innocent geese had their lives taken by "hero" Sullenberger in this fateful event? These geese had families, and a bright future (that was not Rolls-Royce foie gras). 2600:1012:B027:972:28FE:1C8E:FCE:CBD0 (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation maps show the airspace around LaGuardia as restricted, yet the geese flew there anyway, without obtaining clearance; I have little sympathy for such rulebreakers. Furthermore, your stuff about their having families is just your own WP:OR and an attempt to inflame the passions of the jury. EEng 19:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should we use infobox plane1 on this article and many simlar articles with one aircraft ? I think use plane1 then the image will be in a more visible position Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles for aircraft accidents have images of the aircraft involved in the occurrence. It seems to be standard practice. The advice at Template:infobox aircraft occurrence is (emphasis added): "Picture of the accident or incident or its aftermath, or, if none is available, of the aircraft involved." So provided there's one of the incident, there's no need to have another one? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're trying to say is that we shouldn't have an image of the aircraft involved? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 16:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that because there's one as a lead image in the infobox, the template advice suggests that another one is neither necessary nor desirable (at least not in the infobox). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the standard practice is the contrary. Looking at FAs and GAs on similar occurrences, Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 (FA), Air India Express Flight 812, American Airlines Flight 191, American Airlines Flight 327, American Airlines Flight 587, Hughes Airwest Flight 706, USAir Flight 405, United Air Lines Flight 736 and XiamenAir Flight 8667 (all GAs) have both the accident image and the aircraft image in the infobox. S5A-0043🚎^{(Leave a message here)} 10:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps the infobox advice needs to be adjusted. I have to say that the lead image illustrates the accident very well, but is not a very good image of the aircraft. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should see: Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence#Bringing the aircraft picture inside the infobox (in some cases) Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks for the link. I had no idea this had been an ongoing proposal since December last year. I'm surprised it's not been raised as an WP:RfC. If and when that change is agreed, then it looks like your addition would be justified. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. A change to template documentation, agreed upon locally, is not a content guideline. The content of individual articles is determined by the editors of that article, and different articles have different needs -- uniformity with other article being no argument at all as to what best serves the readers of this article. My question is: what do readers of this article learn from what is essentially a stock image of a particular model of plane? Almost everyone has seen a passenger airliner, and those few who haven't can click on the link to Airbus A320. (If there's some special attribute of the plane's exterior that had a role in the accident, which would be pointed out in the caption, that would be different.)

To be blunt, the drive to incorporate these images-of-the-actual-plane in articles is just a manifestation of planespotter fandom, cluttering articles to no benefit, especially in the lead. Pierre Curie was killed by a horsecart, but his article doesn't show a picture of a horsecart. The article on Edward Teller relates that In 1928, while still a student in Munich, he fell under a streetcar and his right foot was nearly severed. I've gone to the trouble of identifying the particular model of streetcar involved, and presente3d it here at right. Do you think I should add it to the Teller article? Won't readers be fascinated and thrilled and informed thereby?

If you want to add a new image, I'd argue that an image of a Canada goose, with something to give a sense of scale versus a jet engine, would be far more informative than "Gee, oooh! That's the actual plane!" To repeat: people know what airliners look like. EEng 19:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This discussion has been canvassed, and that's a real no-no. EEng 19:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody had landed that streetcar in the Hudson River (with no fatalities), I'd say it would deserve a place in the corresponding article. Yes, local consensus is possible. But if everyone followed the template advice, there might be fewer arguments. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC) p.s. I think the goose was unavailable.[reply]

Per this ARBCOM case, on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus should be taken into account. Since there is no global consensus on this matter, the local consensus provided above is valid. If you wish to contest that, then feel free to start an RFC to get the global consensus.

The streetcar case is not a good comparison because, well, since you already said you've gone to the trouble of identifying the particular model of streetcar involved, then it likely means it isn't reflected in a wide variety of reliable sources. The specific plane, on the other hand, has been covered by a wide range of sources: You have the NTSB, then you have American Airlines itself as the successor of US Airways, and you have various news outlets. Plus, that's quite an example of WP:OSDE. I'm going to counter with some sort of WP:OSE: different articles have different needs - can you address what are the different needs of other similar articles like the GAs and FA I listed above that has the need to add an aircraft image, while this article doesn't have the need? S5A-0043🚎^{(Leave a message here)} 23:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see the image has been restored as of the time of my comment. Per WP:BRD, I suggest all parties leave the image undisturbed until we've come to a consensus as to whether it should stay or be removed. I'll also add a ^[discuss] in the image captions. S5A-0043🚎^{(Leave a message here)} 01:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The B in WP:BRD was an IP moving this stock image into the lead template ten days ago. I've retuned things to the status quo prior to that. EEng 02:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Your "local consensus above" -- a discussion on a template's talk page about what the documentation for that template should say -- is valid for that template's documentation. It's in no way a guideline for what should or should not be included included in individual articles. If you think otherwise you're in for a rude surprise.
• can you address what are the different needs of other similar articles like the GAs and FA I listed – I don't know what those other articles need, and there's a lot of crap in plenty of articles, including GAs and FAs. We're talking about this article. You want the photo jammed into the lead, so you need to answer my earlier question: what do readers of this article learn from what is essentially a stock image of a plane? (The photo in question's been in the article, lower down, for some time, so I'm not going to fight that battle right now.)
• The specific plane, on the other hand, has been covered by a wide range of sources: You have the NTSB, then you have American Airlines itself as the successor of US Airways, and you have various news outlets. – There are plenty of sources giving the plane's registration number (or whatever it is), but guess what? I checked (a) the source you linked above; (b) every source with the string "NTSB" in its title; and (c) about 1/3 of the remaining sources in the article, and not a single one includes a photo of the plane prior to the accident -- including the 213-page NTSB report [2], which has about 10 images, or this package of NTSB documents having about 35 images. So I'd say the weight of the sources is against you -- all of them recognize that people know what a plane looks like.

However, in an almost custom-made validation of the wisdom and perspicacity displayed in my earlier post, it turns out that that last NTSB source I just linked does have an image of a Canada goose! So we definitely should include a picture of a goose. EEng 02:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can offer more arguments, but you've seemed to come to the compromise that the image can stay within the article but not the infobox like previously, which is a solution I'm also satisfied with, so I'll leave it at that and not make a mound out of a molehill for myself. S5A-0043🚎^{(Leave a message here)} 02:58, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about the goose? EEng 03:06, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The two images are not mutually exclusive, and I don't mind the addition as well, though I'd rather a different image be chosen as the current one has the goose slightly blending into the background which isn't ideal in my opinion. Maybe File:Canada goose on Seedskadee NWR (27826185489).jpg would be a better image choice with a blue background. S5A-0043🚎^{(Leave a message here)} 03:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, should we add the image of the aircraft involved ? It was deleted from Infobox twice by EEng with reason this user think is reasonable: no, it's perfectly reasonable. "Ooooh, look, that's the PARTICULAR PLANE involved in the incident. It looks just like every other US Airways plane, but this is the ACTUAL EXACT PLANE as taken by some planespotterfan years earlier. Oooooh! Look at the LIVERY." It adds absolutely nothing to the reader's understanding of the topic of this article, and is visual clutter. Open a discussion on the talk page if you think this should be included. Othwerwise, this user had been blocked many times before and can be seen on User Page.

If in this user said, this means we have to remove all images of the aircraft involved before the accident on other articles ? Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@S5A-0043@Aviationwikiflight@Ivebeenhacked@Maungapohatu@Deeday-UK Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 09:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think ? Can we add the image of the aircraft involved in the accident which was taken before the crash ? Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The article already has an image of the plane involved, just as this talk page already has a thread on the question you raise. And pinging editors you think will agree with you is WP:CANVASSING. EEng 09:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Which image ? Image on infobox is the image of the aircraft after the accident, to be more precise, is the aftermath of the accident, image of the aircraft involved before the accident was removed by you. Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 09:51, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you mean the aftermath image ? As I don't find any other images of the aircraft before the crash while the image I added was removed by you. Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing aside (this article is on my watchlist anyway), I do disagree with the statement that the image in question "adds absolutely nothing to the reader's understanding of the topic". The opening image shows barely half of the aircraft involved. The uninitiated reader should not have to click on links and navigate away from the article just to see an image of what exactly ditched into the Hudson. Just about every aviation accident article on WP includes a before-crash image of the aircraft involved precisely for that reason: because it is key to illustrate the 'what' of the article. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit of grammar correction here. I changed "regularly scheduled" to regularly-scheduled because both "regularly" and "scheduled" combine their meaning together to modify "US Airways flight". Pablowikicommons (talk) 01:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So should the phrase be landed "onto the Hudson River" or "into"? I could presume that perhaps both are technically correct. ~2026-35756 (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]