Talk:Aircraft upset

Jet upset, list of examples

This section seems lengthy and the examples overly detailed. The examples could be edited to be shorter and more clear. The section includes hyperbolic language, such as "amazingly", "matter of seconds", and "near disaster". Would appreciate input from other editors on the content of this section.

We currently don't seem to have many editors participating on this talk page, thus the purpose of this banner is very clear; to invite people to participate in the discussion. Please leave the banner up until some consensus is reached on this matter on this talk page.

Thank you.

PolarYukon (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If you think some of the 5 examples are "overly detailed," then show us on this talk page, precisely what you are talking about, and why you think they have too much detail, and what you would eliminate, without removing relevant information. Please be SPECIFIC.

I will leave up the second banner, if you think it will help to attract attention of other editors that might be able to improve the article. But, I see nothing in the section that amounts to "excessive, poor or irrelevant examples." Apparently, you do not either, because if you did, you could articulate which examples have any of those traits, giving SPECIFIC reasons why.

It is improper to post a banner that is not relevant to the section. There are 5 examples in that section, that were put there in response to the banner below that section, which said the article needed to be expanded, and then requested editors to expand it. It amounts to contradictory banners, to say that the article needs expanding, and then saying at the same time, that it should be cut back. Again, if there is information in any of the 5 examples, which is not relevant and germane to providing real-world cases of "jet upsets," then spell it out in detail.

If you cannot articulate why any of those 5 examples are "excessive, poor or irrelevant," then you have no business posting a banner that alleges that they are. If you think you can improve the wording of any of those 5 examples of jet upset, then go ahead and give it a try. But, don't post irrelevant banners, that allege problems that you cannot articulate yourself.

In response to this statement:

The section includes hyperbolic language, such as "amazingly", "matter of seconds", and "near disaster"

I changed the word "amazingly" to "fortunately." It was rather amazing that the captain was able to return to his seat at all, considering the high G-forces that were being exerted on the plane and all on board, but if it will make you happy, I can live with "fortunately."

I will not remove the phrase "matter of seconds," because that is a precise and accurate description of what happened to the NWA 720, during the final dive. It took only 17 seconds for the severe updraft to cause the plane to climb 2,000 ft. Then, the severe downdraft hit the plane, and it took only 15 seconds more for the plane to dive from 19,000 ft. to 10,000 ft., and it never recovered. The plane began to come apart in the air, only 20 to 25 seconds after it began that final high dive. Clearly, that all occurred within a "matter of seconds," so the statement is accurate and it should remain. Had you bothered to read the accident report, I wouldn't have to explain why your complaint about that 3-word phrase is without merit of any kind.

I also will not remove the phrase "near disaster," since that too is an accurate description of that UAL 720 jet upset. There is no hyperbole in that phrase. A sudden upset and high dive, from 37,000 ft., to a recovery altitude of 14,000 ft. amounts to a very close call for the plane and all on board. If the pilot had tried to pull back too hard on the yoke, that plane would have come apart in the air too, just like others that weren't handled with the great skill of that UAL pilot. It was in fact, a "near disaster." You have only to look at all the other jets upsets, that did end in disaster, to realize how dangerous is ANY upset and subsequent high dive.

If you want to improve this or other articles, then try to do some actual editing yourself. So long as the changes you make are accurate, and they do not remove relevant information, than have at it. Any banner that is posted, should be an accurate description of what actually exists in the article at the time. But, placing banners that are not germane to what is already posted in an article, amounts to editorial slander and that is quite improper. EditorASC (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I am proceeding with edits for cleanup. Your adversarial tone isn't necessary; this is a professional forum.

Regards,

PolarYukon (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Some edits have been completed to make the list of examples more brief, and more readable for lay persons.

I have also read and reviewed Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and Wikipedia:Civility, reminding me of a few points. As well, I kindly suggest these as "refresher reading" for anyone who hasn't read them recently.

Regards,

PolarYukon (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The following edits ([[1]]) to the Jet upset section were posted in the article before all being undone by EditorASC without discussion. This list of examples is intended to readable to lay-persons, brief, and encyclopedic in nature.

Would appreciate feedback from other editors on this list of examples.

Thank you, PolarYukon (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

To the contrary, you are the one who has avoided significant discussion, even after I asked you to give reasons for what modifications you want. I have asked you to be SPECIFIC about it, but your response has been little more than "for brevity."

Some of your edits have been useful, and I have left those either alone, or expanded or tweaked them a bit. But the vast majority has been wholesale cutting out of information that is relevant to explaining what "jet upset" involves (a variety of factors). That is why I gave 5 examples of past jet upset accidents. I could have given a couple dozen more, but sought only to give enough examples to make it clear that a variety of factors can be involved, at the same time that related factors are frequently found in a variety of those jet upset accidents too. Your wholesale cuts of information that helps to make that clear, damages the article and in some cases, misleads the lay readers.

Here is how those 5 examples read now. (Some of your edits have been retained) [2]

Since you want other editors to see our differences, here is how it looked, before you started making drastic cuts of important information.[3]:EditorASC (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't fill the talk page up with text, your point can simply be made by using 'diffs' or 'compare revision history', this is a random example from this article [4], the changes are highlighted in red. There are some problems in this article that do need fixing. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have replaced that text, with links, per your request. Thanks for that suggestion. EditorASC (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, it saves the servers and makes the actual differences between edits much easier to see. I have not looked at this article very closely but one thing that occurs to me is that an incident involving an aircraft that is mechanically disabled like the Turkish DC-10 is not really a 'jet upset', as I understand the term, I don't think that this accident (and the other similar ones) should appear here. Clarifying the article, rather than adding detail would be a good aim here. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Extra article text removed from my comments above; thank you for the tip!

PolarYukon (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not often that I get thanked around here!! Noted! I don't even know what your personal opinion differences are because of the length of this page. I could archive it and you could start again using the new found 'weapon'. I hope that you can work together to clarify this article. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully the thanks are a good sign for the New Year :-)

Understandable that the discussion history is long; summary form:

• I support that the list of jet upset examples be dramatically shortened, or removed altogether.

Thanks again for your input!

Cheers,

PolarYukon (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You only have to use spacing colons once at the start of your post (less typing)! I have archived previous discussion (archive box at top of page). First job is to nail exactly the definition of a 'jet upset' I see cites in the lead for this but have not read them. If system failure is part of the definition of a 'jet upset' then you will have an enormous list of aircraft accidents in here. I think you need to look further back in time for the original definition. It's a fairly rare term but I believe that it exists. If you visit the NTSB (or equivalent) reports for some of the listed incidents you might find a different cause given. 'Pilot error' is likely with a serviceable aircraft. Weather? Ice? What does that leave? Have a go at wikilinking the aircraft types or even the accidents if we have articles on them (we probably do) and see what the cause is there. But don't use other WP articles as a reference, just a pointer in the right direction. Have fun. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the definition of "jet upset" is already accurately stated in the article: "...where a jet airliner was "upset" and went into a high dive." The jet upset recovery syllabuses of NASA, NTSB, FAA and Boeing/Airbus, are all designed to train pilots on how to prevent upsets from occurring, as well as how to safely recover the plane, before it impacts the ground, after an upset occurs. There have been a variety of causes of jet upsets, but the term "jet upset" describes an inflight situation that exceeds certain defined attitude parameters (which are listed in the article). The causes are not part of that definition.

Anytime a jet plane unintentionally upsets and goes into a dive, a "jet upset" has occurred. Turbulence, engine failure, icing, autopilot malfunction, loss of control integrity, a variety of system malfunctions, bomb blasts, convective up & down drafts from T-storms, pilot error, and more, have all been causal factors in jet upset accidents. But, whether or not a jet upset has occurred, is determined by the attitude of the plane exceeding well-defined parameters, not by the reasons why it occurred.

I do agree that some of the accidents which are now in the "related accidents" list, should not be there, simply because the plane did not upset and go into a dive, and/or because enough control was retained to enable the pilots to land safely. I have already removed one from that list (AMR DC-10 at Windsor), and I will remove some others, when I get the time. Philippine Air 434, is another example of one that should also be removed. EditorASC (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the examples are a good idea but I dont think the related accidents section gives any value to the article and I would suggest they could be deleted. Perhaps consideration should be given to a Category:Aircraft accidents and incidents involving aircraft upset or similar so the user could find related articles. MilborneOne (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the related accidents section can be deleted and the suggested category created to provide relevant links. PolarYukon (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that makes for an interesting turn of events, since Polar Yukon is the one that created that "Related Accidents" section, and the one that selected the list of accidents that resides there now. If he wants to now delete his own work, and replace with a new section, as suggested, then I will not object. EditorASC (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

A new section is not proposed; we are proposing deleting the current section, and placing the list of flights into a Category:Aircraft accidents and incidents involving aircraft upset. Cheers, PolarYukon (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine. But I would expect that once that new article is up, there will be calls for merging the two, so I think we are talking about doing it all the hard way, in the long run. That new page will probably go thru much of the same kind of evolutionary editing that has occurred here: It will likely be loaded with inaccurate statements, as well as lists of accidents that do not meet the criteria of "jet upset," and then someone who knows the details of the accidents, will have to invest a lot of his time to remove the inaccurate information. EditorASC (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The suggested red link is not an article but a category, it would appear like this; Category:Aircraft piston engines. Editors decide whether the category should be added (or removed) from an article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have reviewed the Wikipedia:Categorization article, and it seems to imply that to create or change the category of a page or section, that a page or section has to exist in the first place. That is why I am confused when PolarYukon says "A new section is not proposed; we are proposing deleting the current section, and placing the list of flights into a Category:Aircraft accidents and incidents involving aircraft upset"

I hate to appear dumb, but I simply do not understand how we can put a non-existent page or section into a new category. If we delete that section (as PolarYukon wants), and do not create any new section or page, which contains that list (again, according to PolarYukon), then how do we change the category of a list which is not located anywhere in Wikipedia? Or, is there a way to move the list to something other than a page or section, so that when a reader clicks on that new proposed category, it will actually take them to that list of "related accidents"? EditorASC (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Section or Category?

This is becoming very confusing. Milborneone said: "I dont think the related accidents section gives any value to the article and I would suggest they could be deleted."

Then, Polar Yukon said: "Agreed, the 'related accidents' section can be deleted..."

EditorASC then responded: "If he wants to now delete his own work, and replace with a new section, as suggested, then I will not object."

PolarYukon then replied: "...we are proposing deleting the current section, and placing the list of flights into a Category:Aircraft accidents and incidents involving aircraft upset."

Now, Nimbus227 says: "The suggested red link is not an article but a category, it would appear like this; Category:Aircraft piston engines. Editors decide whether the category should be added (or removed) from an article."

Seems to me all voted for that section to be deleted. So, I deleted it. But now, Polar Yukon has reverted that delete. If no one was suggesting that the section be deleted, then why was the word section used, when saying it should be deleted?

If it is now agreed (I will go along with any consensus of the others), that the "related accidents" section should remain in the article (NOT deleted), then I will proceed to eliminate the ones in that section that are not cases of loss of control and/or "upset." I will also continue to add brief summaries on those that remain, in the same manner as I have already done. But, would like to know for sure, if that section is to be retained or deleted, before I do anymore work on it.

As to Nimbus227's comment that the category (for that "related accidents" section), should be "Aircraft piston engines," I am afraid I do not understand why. None of the accidents listed in that section, were piston-engined aircraft. They all had jet engines powering them. Would appreciate some further explanation on that. Thanks much, EditorASC (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, my use of the aircraft piston engine was just to show how a category looks when it is populated, it has nothing to do with this article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. EditorASC (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion is that the section related accidents be deleted - it is still under discussion above, an additional suggestion was that accidents related to aircraft upset be added to a category (refer to Wikipedia:Categorization). As Nimbus said the piston engine remark was just to show you what a category looked like as you did not appear to understand. If you need more clarification then please ask, but please make any comments on the suggestions in the above section as not to further confuse. MilborneOne (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, additional comments are back in the previous section of this talk page. EditorASC (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Definition

The introduction to the article describes the effect of aircraft upset, but doesn't define it. As it is, the reader doesn't learn what an aircraft upset is until a later section of the article. The term should be briefly, but properly defined in the first paragraph of the introduction. Cousin Ricky (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Aircraft upset. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090227160239/http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/training/media/Appendix%203-E_HighAltOperations.ppt to http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/training/media/Appendix%203-E_HighAltOperations.ppt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aircraft upset. 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/20111030043659/http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2000/TM-2000-209810.pdf to http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2000/TM-2000-209810.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id%3D19631129-0

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)