Talk:2016 Lockhart hot air balloon crash

Missing info

We need the registration of the balloon involved, which will then give us the model and enable a suitable photograph to be sourced. Unfortunately, the NTSB website keeps timing out for me so I'm unable to see what info they have put out about this accident. Mjroots (talk) 05:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Very little information on the website http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/2016-lockhart-tx.aspx we will probably need to wait until the main investigation team has arrived. MilborneOne (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Balloon type identified, still no registration though. Mjroots (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Registration now confirmed as N2469L. Before anyone complains about the Aviation Safety Network Wikibase being uses as a reference, the actual reference is the NTSB video housed on that page. As detailed above, I'm having difficulty accessing the NTSB website, therefore I have no objection to the reference being changed. I will say that the ASN Wikibase entry is well referenced, and should be reliable enough to use in the absence of any other reference. Mjroots (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

CFIT

Why is this categorized as CFIT? There's been no accident report released, the investigation just got started. And would it even count as "controlled" since it is a hot air balloon ? -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Good question. I'll remove the category. Balloon flight is at best "semi-controlled". Mjroots (talk) 10:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2016

The sentence "Witnesses described hearing two "pops" which was thought to be a gun going off." should be changed to "One witness described hearing two "pops" which she thought was a gun going off.", in accordance with the source provided. 80.2.106.75 (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Fixed Mjroots (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Ta. 80.2.106.75 (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Open - Unacceptable Response

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.recsearch/Recommendation.aspx?Rec=A-14-012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.225.136.61 (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Relevance ? MilborneOne (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: - this relates to previous NTSB recommendations that Balloon operators in the USA are placed under a tighter regulatory regime. Something the FAA rejected. Not sure that it has any bearing on this accident from what has been reported so far. Mjroots (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Photo

Photo is of a Kubicek balloon, but does not come close to resembling the accident balloon. Actual balloon is: http://www.kubicekballoons.eu/w/1400/img/catalog/gallery/gallery22/1076.jpg?v=0 and is of different style and size from that pictured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.216.70 (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

We could use an image of the actual balloon under fair use regulations. Other than that, it's a case of picking an image from Commons:Category:Kubicek Balloons. Mjroots (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Two not aboard?

Initial report I heard live on Fox News had said the hot air baloon company had been calling the passengers, they said two of the passengers were scheduled to be on the flight but missed it. They even added the company called the couple were driving on the road, google cant help me back this up... Anyone remember this too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.227.170 (talk) 05:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Pilot's background

There is quite a bit of negative material coming out re the pilot's background. I would suggest that unless there is proof that his background had a direct effect on the events, we keep it out of the article on the grounds of it being irrelevant clutter. Also, there is no need to name him as far as I can see. Mjroots (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree; there is almost never a need to name the pilot, we should only do it when it is absolutely essential to understanding the subject (e.g. MH370 or the Germanwings crash). YSSYguy (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@YSSYguy: or when said pilot is given a medal or similar honour (e.g. BOAC Flight 712, USAirways Flight 1549). Mjroots (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Mobile article

The mobile version on this article has a wacky format with the words surrounding the second picture. Anyone know how to fix this? Beejsterb (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of the second picture, where did the first picture go? I think it was appropriate, at least way more appropriate than the picture I originally put in.

Pilot had taken dangerous drugs and warned of weather conditions

[1] Looking like the pilot could have been at fault and we should name him. Bachcell (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing, but why? How would that enhance understanding of the subject? YSSYguy (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bachcell: No objection in principle, but there's WP:NORUSH to get the info into the article. It may be better to wait until the NTSB releases its final report and the report is analysed and widely reported upon. There are likely to be changes to the operation of hot air balloons in the USA due to this accident. Mjroots (talk) 07:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

BFA action

New Commercial Hot-Air Balloon Safety Program — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.41.198 (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)