Talk:UPS Airlines Flight 2976: Difference between revisions

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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale.

It is requested that a map or maps, showing flight path (departure from apron, actual flight; planned flight); debris field, be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians from or interested in Kentucky may be able to help!

@Tvx1: I disagree with your assertion that Nationwide Airlines Flight 723 and Omega Aerial Refueling Services Flight 70 have no relation whatsoever to this flight. Specifically, all three flights suffered an engine separation during takeoff, which seems like a relation to me. Of course, it isn’t as strong of a relation as American Airlines Flight 191, but it’s still more than no relation whatsoever. After all, the Concorde was also a completely different type of aircraft, but there seems to be consensus for keeping the Concorde accident in the see also section. May I restore Nationwide Airlines Flight 723 and Omega Aerial Refueling Services Flight 70?

Also, I shall mention that there has been speculation that debris from engine no. 1 struck and damaged engine no. 3, causing compressor stalls and reduced thrust, and Omega Aerial Refueling Services Flight 70 also saw one engine strike another and reduce how much thrust it generated (albeit the whole engine that time). Of course, this isn’t official yet, but if an NTSB report later confirms this, would that be enough of an additional connection to merit restoring Omega Aerial Refueling Services Flight 70 to the see also section even if there isn’t enough now? Thank you. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 04:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason whatsoever to reinstate them whatsoever. These featured completely different aircraft types from a different manufacturer. There is no connection whatsoever between these events. I don’t see a consensus regarding the Concorde acciden anywhere either. There’s just one user repeatedly adding it.Tvx1 22:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Nth User Those flights should be added if and only if the NTSB confirms a relation. Until then, it is pure speculation and does not belong on Wikipedia. Electricmemory (talk) 05:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some judgment is always necessary when deciding what to list under “See also”, but these have obvious similarities, and we should not cede authority to any particular (slow-acting) off-Wikipedia agency to decide what is relevant to discuss in a Wikipedia article. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BarrelProof “Obvious similarities” to you maybe, but not necessarily to everyone else. Material in Wikipedia must be sourced to a reliable source. Claiming a similarity between this accident and another without providing a source for that claim is speculation, and thus doesn’t belong on Wikipedia. We are not “ceding authority to an off-Wiki agency”, we are ceding authority to Wikipedia policy. Electricmemory (talk) 09:51, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should have read this section more carefully before commenting. The discussion here seems to be primarily about Nationwide Airlines Flight 723 and Omega Aerial Refueling Services Flight 70. I don’t have an opinion about those. My comments were especially focused on American Airlines Flight 191. Multiple independent reliable sources have written about striking similarities between that accident and this one; since some reluctance was expressed, I added citations to four of them. However, in general, there are very seldom any specific sources identified to justify including a link in the “See also” section of a Wikipedia article – that is generally not considered necessary when some similarity or relevance is clearly apparent. See MOS:SEEALSO, which is part of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style guideline; it does not say that citations are needed for including a topic under “See also”. Instead it says that “Whether a link belongs in the “See also” section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense.” Including something under “See also” for having some similarity does not imply a direct connection. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 09:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BarrelProof here. See also sections do not need sources to confirm similarities between two topics. That’s entirely up to editors’ judgement. – ZLEA ^TǀC 18:43, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BarrelProof@ZLEA AA191 can be added here because it’s a similar type (DC-10 vs. MD-11) and also occurred after the left engine separated, the problem is with claiming other flights are related because they were caused by engine separation. Doing so is speculation as to the cause of this accident. Point is, other accidents listed in See Also cannot be listed solely because they were caused by engine separation, as that implies engine separation was also the cause of UPS2976, which we don’t know yet. Electricmemory (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leave AA191 there, but I wouldn’t re-add the others. Electricmemory (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electricmemory The See also section is meant for similar topics, not necessarily related topics. An accident involving an engine separation on an MD-11 is obviously unrelated to an engine separation on an A320 or 747 (hypothetical examples), but such accidents are undeniably similar given they involved the separation of a pylon-mounted engine from a wing. – ZLEA ^TǀC 18:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The similarity is minimal though if you look a the entire picture. Tvx1 07:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Most modern airliners follow one of several basic designs, which inevitably leads to similar accidents. In this case, accidents involving pylon-mounted engines separating from the wing are undeniably similar, regardless of type and manufacturer. All that matters is similarity in aircraft configuration (in this case, aircraft with pylon-mounted engines) and circumstances of the accident. – ZLEA ^TǀC 16:14, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who says that’s all that matters? You? The why is important too. We don’t know what cause the engine to seperate. We don’t even know whether the engine separated from the pylon or the pylon from the wing. In the case of AA Flight 191, one pylon mounting failed because of damage it had incurred due to fault maintainance procedures. In this care here evidence points to the engine suffering a catastrophic failure before separating. And we have no idea whatsoever yet what caused that. The circumstances that we do know so far are actually more different than similar. One of the other incidents mentioned didn’t even end up in a crash. Also the two other contested events actually featured aircraft with actually very different engine and mounting designs from different manufacturers . Those two used Pratt&Whytney engines, whereas this MD-11 used General Electric engines of a pod design not used on the other two aircraft.Tvx1 14:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Similar” doesn’t necessarily mean having a common cause or direct connection. “Similar” just means … well … similar – e.g., “having characteristics in common” or “having a resemblance“. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you said before, whether a link should be included is down to editorial judgement. There is no rule whatsoever that dictates a link to another event must be included just when there is even the slightest similarity. That’s just not how it works. Tvx1 16:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule whatsoever that dictates a link to another event must be included just when there is even the slightest similarity. There is no rule whatsoever that dictates that we must use the narrowest scope of similarity possible. Under your scope, there is only a single “similar” accident. We shouldn’t have to explain why that’s unreasonably narrow. We don’t have to widen the scope all that much to add a few more similar accidents. – ZLEA ^TǀC 18:31, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, editorial judgement. And editors can perfectly judge there is not enough similarity between accidents for them to be included here. I can understand the inclusion of American Airlines Flight 191 here because that featured a similar aircraft from the same designer and munfacturer and it went down in almost the exact same manner. We don’t know whether the cause was the same yet, the former being caused by poor maintainance procedures and limited diagnostics opions at the time causing the pilots to inadvertendly misreact to the the engine separation.

As for the other two mentioned events, the similarity is just too limited. Both featured different aircraft from different designers and manufacturers and different circumstances. One didn’t even provoke a crash. The Concorde crash being included even baffles me because there are just no commonalities other than happening shortly after take-off.

An example of justified mentioning of one flight in the article of another is for instance listing Turkish Airlines Flight 981 on the article on American Airlines Flight 96 because both events were caused by the same poorly designed cargo door latching system used of the DC-10’s used to operate those flights and the combination of those events led to important changes to the industry. Tvx1 07:34, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BarrelProof AA191 absolutely meets those requirements, but I disagree about the others I removed. Electricmemory (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current article states that engine #2 (the tail engine) shows some sort of fault, but almost every other article that I’ve seen indicates that it was engine #3 (the right engine) that was showing evidence of compressor stalls, not the tail engine. Perhaps the problem is due to people not knowing how the engines on an MD11F plane are numbered.
~2025-33129-72 (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But it was the left engine that failed and separated, wasn’t it? So doesn’t that make it the #1 engine? Tvx1 08:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in the article, the tail-mounted engine also suffered a fault. – ZLEA ^TǀC 16:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I understood that in the meantime. Most sources agree though that it was the tail engine #2 and not the #3 engine on the right wing as the OP claims. Tvx1 20:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The NTSB have released their preliminary report. Mjroots (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OMFG. I’ve never seen an aircraft engine flip up… Much to digest here. We should be very clear about Rotation (aeronautics) in this context. I’m not going to summarize anything from the get-so, however. kencf0618 (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I read it at that URL earlier, but it’s now giving “Page not found”.

The Wayback Machine is offline; does any other archive have it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 20:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found a version here.

I have not been able to determine if it is exactly the same. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 22:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: – it is the same. Mjroots (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The preliminary report says on p2 ‘The airplane initially climbed but did not get higher than about 30 ft above ground level (agl) according to radio altitude data from the FDR.’ This contradicts the line in the article ‘The aircraft subsequently banked left and entered a steep descent.‘ The underlined words originated, I think, from erroneous flight tracking altitude data. (The three sources given after this sentence do not appear to have referred to a ‘steep descent’, and it was not supported by any video evidence or eyewitness statements, which had described instead that the plane struggled to get into the air). Anyway, now that the preliminary report is published, I suggest it can be used as a source to correct the sentence about banking left and a ‘steep descent’ to read ”The airplane initially climbed but did not get higher than about 30 ft above ground level (agl) according to radio altitude data from the FDR.’ The source then is the preliminary report (or a news story based on it. The paragraph starting ‘The jet’s main landing gear . . .’ follows naturally. Kalulu Sydney (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t find the ages of the flight crew in any of the cited sources. Did we once have a source for them, or can anyone suggest a source? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 09:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not able to open the link for citation 15 (WLKY) so I’m not sure if its mentioned there. I believe the primary source for the flight crew’s age was a briefing by the Louisville mayor where he listed the names and ages of all the victims. Some potential secondary sources are: USA Today, The Independent, Fox 56 News, Lexington Herald Leader SI09 (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. WLKY doesn’t have them, but I have now added a citation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 12:05, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]