Jump to content

Talk:2006 New York City Cirrus SR20 crash

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.53.67.74 (talk) at 00:58, 12 October 2006 (→The Belaire). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"The airplane — misreported as a helicopter in some early reports[3] — struck the 40th and 41st floor of The Belaire building at 524 East 72nd Street, a 50-story????!!!!

Name of the Air Plane

Ummm... reading this it says the name of the air plane was "penis"? I think that should be left out and that it is irrelevant, if its even any more than vandalism. 68.205.191.217 

    Actually, this looks like vandilism.  I've removed it. IndigoAK 00:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Belaire

It seems trivial to include details about the building (what it is used for, what amenities it has) in this article. This should be specifically about the attacks. If people want to know what the Belaire building has, they can visit that page. --5ptcalvinist 22:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What "attacks" are you speaking of?!? J-Dog 22:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen anything that references the crash as being an "attack". On the building, I suggest keeping the 50-story residential information (Noting residential as it's not a likely target to terrorism, which seems to be the conclusion many have jumped to, and the height simpily because that's a factor in flight/during plane crashes). The other information on the building should be removed. --Mauron 00:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"What "attacks" are you speaking of?!?".

Mr Freud has the answer.

Photos request

Newyorkers, please take some photos and put them on commons :| --TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moves and naming

Lets calm down on the page movement, please. --myselfalso 19:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest 2006 New York City plane crash once my erroneous article there is speedied. Belection06 19:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Okay, you're right. Belection06 19:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2006 October 11 New York City plane crash is more correct and specific.--Cerejota 19:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be more in line with other articles to have the title be October 11, 2006 New Your City plane crash? - Seinfreak37 19:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
October 11, 2006 New York City plane crash would be most in line with other articles and follow the USA date format. --taestell 19:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is good enough for now. Anyone with a better idea, please suggest it below.

Thanks. --Uncle Ed 19:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of damage

Based on the current photo (and one other I've seen), there doesn't appear to be significant structual damage to the building. No doubt, the residents will evacuate, but the side of the building has no crater - all the window frames appear intact. --Uncle Ed 19:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The video feed on Finnish television agrees. Damage appears negligible, save for the direct impact area. Shit happens. --Kizor 20:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death Toll

Sky News has just reported 4 deaths. Archibald99 20:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CNN has reported that Lidle was the only person on the plane. SFrank85 21:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's too early to have exact details. Various sources (including AP, Reuters, NPR, The Guardian, and BBC) are reporting all kinds of things, including only two on board, three on board, at least two on board, at least three on board, four on board, etc. In addition, Reuters is quick to point out that only CNN is claiming definitively that Lidle is dead, making Wikipedia's front page blurb somewhat irresponsible. AP is being more diplomatic, stating only that it is likely he was on board, and if so he is probably dead (they claim an anonymous source confirms, but they still won't say who or how many are dead). The synthesis I'm getting from all this confusion is that Lidle's plane took off from New Jersey, got lost in the fog, and turned into the building with possibly two trained pilots on board, one of whom might have been Lidle. --Canonblack 22:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military response

  • NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) said it had put fighter aircraft into the air over numerous U.S. cities, though they said they had no reason to believe the event in New York was anything more than an accident, sources told CNN's Barbara Starr. [1]

Cause of crash

It's too early (less than 3 hours after the crash) to speculate on causes. Let's just pass on reports as we get them.

But I can tell you this: running out of fuel doesn't usually make you hit a building.

And I have a question: under what circumstances is a plane ever allowed to fly over Manhattan? Especially since 9/11. Does anyone know where Lidle's plane was heading to? Did the pilot file a flight plan? --Uncle Ed 21:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparantly, according to Gov. Pataki, on WNBC, private planes are allowed to fly over the East River, where this plane was before crashing. Bmitchelf 21:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course planes are allowed to fly over NYC -- the U.S. is not a police state. Trucks and busses are also allowed to drive through the tunnels, barges are allowed to sail under the bridges, etc., even though any of them could potential carry much more explosive payload than an airplane.
As far as cause goes, the pilot reported a fuel problem, but complete fuel exhaustion is extremely unlikely, given the post-crash fire. He might have run one tank dry, but we'll have to wait for the NTSB report. David 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could weather be a factor? I live in NYC and it's raining right now and its been overcast all day. --Blue387 00:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date concerns?

Is this really the place to put a ridiculous comment like: "This happened exactly one month after the 5th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks." This is no place for conspiracy theories. --RavenStorm 21:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The FAA and NORAD have almost definitively shown that this was not an act of terrorism. Even if NORAD scrambled some fighters, they didn't really believe it was a terrorist attack either. PullToOpen talk 21:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. --RavenStorm 21:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also remove "The date of this incident, 10-11-06, written upside-down is 9-11-01", based on the same reasoning RavenStorm gave. (Furthermore, the statement is actually wrong; it's "90-11-01".) --Idont Havaname (Talk) 22:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind; another editor got to that right as I was writing the above comment. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 22:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That'll be me =D --Ravenstorm 23:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be locked

There's a few n00b sayin' it's Bin whatever--NFAN3 21:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine now, do you think we should still protect it?Cameron Nedland 21:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a lot of back-and-forth editing right now relating to the specific details and wording. There are really no significant edits that can be made until we get some more information (i.e., was Lidle piloting the plane, etc.) --taestell 23:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable article

Plane crashes involving famous people happen all the time, think of how many famous people have died in a plane crash and there is no Wikipedia article about it. In addition small plane crashes also happen all the time, we don't have Wikipedia articles about them either. This is exactly what Wikinews was made for. I would gently suggest to the editors of this article to invest your time and energies in a quality Wikinews article. -- Stbalbach 21:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no limit to the amount of specific detail Wikipedia has concerning any subject. A perfect Wikipedia would have an article about everything, in my opinion. It's not necessary to ever remove anything unless it's not true or POV. --RavenStorm 21:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that it hit New York City, an already nervous city, it is probably going to make headlines. Its worth having an article for now, even if it does get merged into the "Death" section of Cory Lidle sometime in the future. PullToOpen talk 21:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, being national news and being on every news network all day sure isn't notable. I mean, sure, plenty of famous people die in plane crashes, but not all get national attention.--andrewI20Talk 21:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not just the fact that a famous person died in an aviation accident. Its the fact that it happened in New York City, in a high-rise building. Its a big deal. 4 people are dead. --Shuyin05 21:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing notable is that it crashed into a building, that freaked me out.Cameron Nedland 21:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What freaks me out is that any old shmo can jump in a plane and fly around in it. Lidle wasnt even a qualified pilot, and he was allowed to fly un-attended in new york city. sheesh... --Shuyin05 21:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was qualified. Please educate yourself before commenting. 65.127.231.4 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He had been flying for just a few months --Shuyin05 21:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So? He was still qualified. 65.127.231.4 22:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things that makes Wikipedia "work" is a common understanding of what an encyclopedia is. "Unlimited specific detail about any subject" is not an encyclopedia. Just because it's in the news doesn't make it notable enough for an encyclopedia (have you seen the AP/UPI wire? Every day there are literally 10's of thousands of "news stories"). We make judgments based on rationals - not hard-line interpretations using arbitrary black and white rules - which is why we have the AfD process.

But clearly, this is exactly the type of article that belongs on Wikinews - this is exactly what Wikinews was made for. Why is there resistance to focusing energies at Wikinews? Any Wikinews article can be linked to from any Wikipedia article so it's not like it doesn't get "Wikipedia-like eyeballs" if that's the concern. I honestly think people don't use Wikinews because they've never heard of it, or never tried. Wikinews has a different set of rules that allows for articles like this that can be of better quality and interest -- it's like fitting a square peg into a round hole trying to work it into Wikipedia. -- Stbalbach 21:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does the method of death increase notability? 4 people die all the time. There's no other story here. Terrorism is not involved. It's just how he died. NN. --Macarion 22:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Stbalbach. If Cory Lidle wasn't involved, it problably wouldn't make the news, or maybe just a small mention in the local news. It was a small aircraft this has nothing to do with terrorism. And how can this be made into a article? Say someone famous got into a car accident, would a article be made? October 2006 auto accident?? This article is making it sound like a major event like the 9/11 attacks--Coasttocoast 23:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this story was on the news for quite a long time before it was even revealed that Lidle was involved. It made the news because it was a plane crash in New York City. --taestell 23:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was big news here (nyc) before anyone knew about Lidle or anything other than the fact that a plane hit a building on the upper east side; pretty much every other person on the street could be overheard talking about it. At that point, yeah, probably doesn't deserve an article. But I don't see how, now that there are 4 confirmed deaths, including one well-known athlete, that we can say that this was a non-notable incident. Preposterous. --Tothebarricades 23:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Date Concerns"

"The date in US terms is 10/11 (11/10). Exactly 1 month after the 5th anniversary of 9/11. In another coincidence 9/11/01 mirrored horizontally and vertically is 10/11/6"

^ Come on man, are you f-ing kidding me? --Shuyin05 21:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's marginally neat, but certainly not encyclopædic. --J Morgan(talk) 21:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It might be encyclopedic to state that, between the date and the site of the crash, some people worried it was terrorism, but preliminary investigations suggest otherwise. I don't think it's worth its own section, though—perhaps just a couple sentences under "Initial concerns". —Brent Dax 22:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You all sure about that? 10-11-06 upside down is 90-11-01 and backwards is 09-11-10. Although harmless, it is original research. --Uncle Bungle 22:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about if we look at it like this? File:10-11-06 9-11-01.gif --Henrickson 22:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about if you get a life? J-Dog 00:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theories are NOT FACTS. Wikipedia is a factual encyclopedia. If you have any proof that a majority of people believe in these theories, it is to be noted as: "Conspiracy Theories regarding this incident" and not as "Date Concerns." And anyways, just because all of those little things are true, what does that mean? To go on a short rant here, it makes no sense. Even if all of this was planned in accordance to 9/11, why would the conspirators behind all of this leave such noticeable evidence? Do they WANT to get caught? And who would be able to convince the plane's pilot to crash into a building for absolutely no reason? I repeat, theories are not proof. --Ravenstorm 23:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People that choose to go this route have no class. Get a friggin' grip on reality people. If I'm out of line with this comment, tough crap. J-Dog 23:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This sounds like a recycling of the whole "New York Yankee 9/11 curse" thing all over again.

Lidle: Confirmed or Not?

There's a sort of low-level edit war going on between people who think Cory Lidle's death is confirmed and people who don't. Can someone produce a quote from a reliable, official source stating unequivocally that Lidle was on the plane? —Brent Dax 22:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[2] It's the main headline at the moment on ESPN. PullToOpen talk 22:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but if you RTFA, it cites an anonymous Washington source. Is that strong enough for us to make that claim? —Brent Dax 22:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters is pointing out that only CNN is confirming him dead. AP claims an anonymous source has confirmed he is on board, but AP won;t go so far as to state that he is dead. ESPN is taking their cue from CNN. No other source that I've read (NPR, The Guardian, BBC) is confirming his death, although it seems likely he was on board. --Canonblack 22:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this point virtually all sources are reporting that he is dead. The only source not confirming the identies is the mayor's office as they have not as of yet been able to contact the next of kin. That follows their policy, but they are not the only reputable source on this. The Yankees, MLB, and NYPD have all reported that his passport was found on the street. That seems pretty official to me, no? If there is to be only one authority on this I would say that it should be the coroner's office. As far as I know I have heard nothing from them J-Dog 22:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ominous trend

In my opinion, restrict these articles -- or else invent a means of cataloging them. --VKokielov 22:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by cataloging? - RoyBoy 800 22:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Destination?

My mum just told me that the news here in Nashville said that the final destination for the plane was to be Nashville. Does anyone have any idea if this is true? It seems like such a tiny plane would have a hard time getting here from New Jersey, but I'm not an aviation expert. Allie 23:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sprtscenter just said that they had no clue where the plane was headed, so who knows. J-Dog 23:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It was just confirmed on channel 7 that it was returining to a Newark, New Jersey Airport. - Kreepman

"Similar incidents"

I just removed two articles linked in the "See Also" section as similar incidents, since we don't really know what this is similar to until we know what caused it (unless any general aviation crash is "similar," in which case why these two particular articles?). Certainly we have no reason to think it's like one of them, the Tampa one, which was a deliberate crash into a building. —Cleared as filed. 23:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More appropriate in Wikinews?

Wouldn't an article about an accident that killed four people be more appropriate in Wikinews? Davodd 00:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_New_York_City_Cirrus_SR20_crash&oldid=80922302"