Number of injured

The number of people injured is confusing. At first the CEO says 18 people were injured, a fire chief said one extra and then afterwards the airline says all 21 were released. Last time I checked, 18+1 does not equal 21. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 21:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To start with 18 ppl were identified as injured, that then increased to 21. Now all 21 injured have been released from local hospitals. - Delta plane crash: All injured passengers released from hospital SimplyLouis27 (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the correct answer. I rewrote that section to reflect that 21 were injured. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the problem with creating articles on recent news items. Things change. Also why we're WP:NOTNEWS. Canterbury Tail talk 21:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that is why the current event templates are used. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder about WP:BLPNAME

Please do not add any information about the crew of the flight (pilots and cabin crew) as well as airport staff such as air traffic controllers per WP:BLPNAME this information should be omitted until the final investigation report is complete (which will be in a number of months). Even after this is published, caution should still be applied before naming any of the crew.

The information currently adds 0 encyclopaedic value to the page.

Discuss, per guidelines, if you wish.

SimplyLouis27 (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E also applies in the case of this page.
SimplyLouis27 (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to also add that, while it is possible that the training of the pilots (such as how many hours they had flown in the aircraft, their pre-airline hours, etc) may be encyclopedic, their gender, race, etc. certainly aren't. As an example, 2025 Potomac River mid-air collision contains information about the fact that the helicopter was on an annual evaluation (i.e. training/maintenance of expertise flight) and that there was one pilot being evaluated and one pilot who was supposed to be the pilot evaluating that pilot (i.e. paying even more attention than normal to ensure that the other pilot was performing correctly). Even if the investigation determines that those facts weren't a primary (or secondary) cause of the accident, that information is encyclopedic because it gives context for why the helicopter flight was happening. However, there is no evidence at this time that this was a check flight or a new pilot on initial operating experience, for example, and as such, there is very little information about the pilots that would be encyclopedic to include at this time.
Especially in today's culture, trying to shoehorn gender, race, or other demographics into an article where they aren't directly related to the subject should be seen as attempting to push an anti-DEI ideology and should be handled as per contentious topics procedures relating to all of gender, American politics, and BLP. That said, there should be some leeway for legitimate discussion of those topics on the talkpage here - so long as individuals are not singled out. It does editors no good if their discussion is simply removed without actually being explained why it is not encyclopedic to add that information, especially since some actual reliable sources are publishing (purported) demographic information about the pilots. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Acroterion It happened again. The most recent revisions of this have the BLPNAME vios. Also, how would I formally report this? Thanks. guninvalid (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I've warned the IP editor and redacted the names. If it continues, blocks and/or protection may be warranted. As for reporting it, ANI or possible BLPN would work. ANI would be speedier, but more prone to debate, and only after warnings. In other times, this would probably not be obviously redactable, but in a climate where individuals are singled out for harassment based on perceived characterizations, we would take a harder line. Acroterion (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't there a lock in place here? Borgenland (talk) 09:58, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Air Flow Bump

Citation 14 and the reference to air flow bump is wrong. The air traffic controller warned the CRJ about a bump on the glide path because a private jet was inside the area were the radio signal for the vertical part of the ILS could potentially be interfered.

This is normal when not operating in low visibility and wouldn’t have any significant impact as normal procedures dictate that the pilot flying disengages the autopilot and conducts the final part of the landing using visual references instead of relying on the glide path indicator. Icenor (talk) 07:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well then it should be easy to find a reliable reference to support that. Canterbury Tail talk 12:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/19/americas/delta-plane-crash-toronto-canada/index.html
The Delta flight, on a trip from Minneapolis, was cleared for Runway 23 under a westerly wind, with gusts up to 38 miles per hour. “Might be a slight bump in the glide path,” an air traffic controller said. “There will be an aircraft in front of you.”
cnn quotes the the tower controller warning of a “bump in the glide path,” there’s no mention of an air flow bump that AP reported. Mouseketeer25 (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the AP is extremely off here, so I removed it. Tkbrett (✉) 17:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional pilot details

Delta released additional information about the flight crew, which I think could be incorporated into the background.

https://news.delta.com/notice/endeavor-flight-4819 Mouseketeer25 (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And it's an excellent reminder concerning BLP policy and why we don't publish rumor and speculation, not even on talkpages. Acroterion (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Added to Background under Passengers and Crew. guninvalid (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CBS News also has an article that offers further details that refute the narrative that the FO was unqualified. I’ve added those details, but I’m open to edits and suggestions.
Also, I didn’t add this, but I’ll also point out that the U.S. requirement of 1,500 hours of experience greatly exceeds that of other countries. For example, the first officer on Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, who was widely credited for making the right calls that his captain missed, had just 361 hours of experience… and was flying a mainline aircraft. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think it’s best to avoid getting into the weeds on the experience issue. There’s a ton of details we don’t know (for example, atp is 1500 hrs but it’s speculated that the copilot had an r-atp which only requires 1000). We could have a long conversation about relevant experience, turbine time, etc. IF training deficiencies or experience contributed to the accident, it will all come out in the accident report. Until then, I think it’s best to stick to the facts delta has released. Mouseketeer25 (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You need 1,500+ hours to get an ATP, that’s not really in question. You can get an R-ATP with various levels of hours depending on your experience. However in this case, the point I was trying to make was, the FO had crossed the 1,500-hour threshold long before being hired at Endeavor. RickyCourtney (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So that’s what we don’t know. The online speculation is the fo came through a part 141 school and was hired at endeavor on an r-atp with 1000 hrs. All of it is speculation, we don’t know who the pilots are officially. It’s definitely not true though that every pilot at endeavor has at least 1500 hrs. Mouseketeer25 (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I missed the cbs article reporting she had a full atp. If that’s the case it’s settled. Mouseketeer25 (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers

In the aftermath section, the Delta Air Lines offered US$30,000 in compensation... Since this article uses Canadian English, shouldn't the text be Delta Air Lines offered US$30 000 in compensation... ? I see it does say US dollars, but the article still uses Canadian English. Justjourney (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no change between what the page says and what you have suggested. Can you clarify what you mean? SimplyLouis27 (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, this [1] says that with money amounts, commas are used Justjourney (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Canadian government a comma is used in sums of money. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Delta_Connection_Flight_4819
No tags for this post.