Talk:1991 Los Angeles runway collision

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 1, 2013.

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 articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Disaster management Low‑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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

California: Los Angeles Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force.

Untitled

I have merged the page Los Angeles International Airport air disaster into this page as both articles covered the same event. Both pages contained nearly identical information, however this page had slightly more detailed information about the incident, and appeared to be a more complete page. In addition, the title of this page is less cumbersome.Supaluminal 12:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody fix this page. On the right it says there were 83 passengers and 6 crew with 77 survivors (implicating 12 deaths), for a total of 89 souls aboard. In the article it says there are 99 and 22 perished. Obviously, the right hand column should be fixed to say 93 passengers.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.175.154.213 (talk • contribs)

A source typo, and the number of passengers on the 737

@Shelbystripes: there were 89 souls on the 737, 83 were passengers. You'll find that in the source [1] on PDF page 37 (page 30 in the paper document). You'll also find that broken down in a table on PDF page 15. It does say in the Executive Summary that there were 89 passengers. That appears to be a typo and is to be ignored. The error was most likely a miscommunication on the meaning of "passengers", resulting in the crew being counted twice. It's surprising to see this in an FAA accident investigation report, but there it is. Geogene (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Geogene:, that's interesting. The rest of the report does line up with 89 total aboard, on the pages you mention. I went ahead and changed the description in the body of the article to match this as well. I am uncomfortable just saying that something in an official report "is to be ignored", though. When information is inconsistent (within the same source, no less) there should be something to point to that makes clear to the reader why the information presented is correct. I'm surprised by the mistake, but more surprised the NTSB didn't issue a corrected report (if they did, I can't find any evidence of it). I will think about how to address this in the article, so that future readers aren't confused when they look at the source material. Shelbystripes (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was really expecting to be proven wrong here. Yes, a footnote, hidden comment, or both are probably called for so the article doesn't endlessly shift between the two. Geogene (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a detailed footnote, and included a New York Times article that quoted USAir officials. They were reporting 83 passengers, 6 crew to the media, as well. Shelbystripes (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on USAir Flight 1493. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091011065232/http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-us1493.shtml to http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-us1493.shtml
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140417220524/http://www.planecrashes.org/usair-1493.html to http://www.planecrashes.org/usair-1493.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article Title

Hey, I was wondering why this article wasn't titled 1991 LAX Runway Collision. The current title of USAir Flight 1493 seems to undermine Skywest 5569 at a first glance. I couldn't find any archives about this, so I'm bringing up the question here. Tntad (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your suspicion is correct. According to WP:DISASTER, the article title should have the event and location instead of the flight number if multiple aircraft are involved. I'll move the page to a more appropriate title shortly. Funplussmart (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal prosecution

I assume that controller Wascher would be arrested and charged with either negligence and/or manslaughter. Any information on that? Tigerdude9 (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need Editing Help

I need to edit the article to include the controller's name,Robin Wascher. Anyone know how editing works? Minecraft Fake pro (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

push the Crayon/Pencil PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Controller Flight Load

Has anyone been able to determine how many flights Wascher and other controllers were responsible for at a given time? 2601:440:C080:D270:A87C:C1E1:3F63:5626 (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 October 2024

It has been proposed in this section that 1991 Los Angeles runway collision be renamed and moved to 1991 Los Angeles Airport runway collision.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

Los Angeles runway disaster → 1991 Los Angeles Airport runway collision – The current title is not a common name and WP:DISASTER generally recommends that the titling of an article should not include "disaster". WP:NCE#Aviation recommends that if two or more aircrafts are involved, a where and what should generally be followed, which in this case is Los Angeles (International) Airport and runway collision. And as for consistency, most articles on events where two or more aircraft collided generally use a <year> <location/airport> <(runway) collision> format. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject California, WikiProject California/Los Angeles area task force, WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force, WikiProject Aviation, and WikiProject Disaster management have been notified of this discussion. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCE. New title suggested states the year the accident took place. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 15:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – It's more descriptive, makes more sense. --Deeday-UK (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose specific title – I think including the year 1991 and adding "airport" are good ideas but I don't think changing disaster to collision is necessary. There are several other articles that use these words in their titles, like the Tenerife airport disaster (as opposed to the 1977 Tenerife Airport runway collision), the Linate airport disaster (as opposed to the 2001 Linate Airport runway collision), the Green Ramp disaster (as opposed to the 1994 Pope Air Force Base mid-air collision), the Ramstein air show disaster (as opposed to the 1988 Ramstein Air Base mid-air collision), and many others. Los Angeles runway disaster is the WP:COMMONNAME for this event, no other names are very often used by the media. I think renaming this page to either 1991 Los Angeles runway disaster or 1991 Los Angeles airport disaster would be better options. Poxy4 (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There really aren't any sources calling this a disaster with its usage generally being avoided per WP:DISASTER. Regarding the other articles cited, "Tenerife airport disaster" is not used in mainstream english-language sources, same goes for "Linate airport disaster". "Ramstein air show disaster" is borderline and the same goes for the "Green Ramp disaster" (albeit more used). Searching for specific examples of "Los Angeles runway disaster" does not bring up any usage in news sources and I suspect that the titling of this Wikipedia article as "Los Angeles runway disaster" among many others have influenced how events are named. This concern (specifically the naming of events in sources) was first raised at Talk:1991 Merion mid-air collision#Requested move 27 May 2024. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]