Talk:Pan Am Flight 214

Positive lighting?

It has only been suggested that Pan Am 214 (crashed December 8th, 1963) was hit by positive lightning (airplanes are designed to survive a normal lightning strike).

http://www.panam2001.com/panam3.htm - "My father-in-law, George F. Knuth, was the captain of Pan Am Flight 214 which was struck by lightning and crashed on December 8, 1963 over Elkton, Maryland"

http://cchistory.org/whigairplane.htm - "On a cold, rainy night in 1963, as flashes of lightning punctuated the December darkness, five airliners waiting for orders to land in Philadelphia circled in a holding pattern over the area. Suddenly, lightning struck one of the craft, Pan Am Flight 214 circling above Elkton. It plunged toward earth in flames, carrying 81 people to death in a muddy field."

World record

I removed a section that stated that this accident held a World Record for "most fatalities for lightning strike to this day". I followed the given link and could not find such reference. Also, see LANSA Flight 508 for an accident with more fatalities also caused by lightning (in 1970). Crum375 02:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

World record (Clarification)

Crum375, if you're interested in the Guinness Book of World Records entry regarding Pan Am Flight 214, visit this link: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=53285

I don't know why LANSA Flight 508 didn't make the Guinness Book of World Records like Flight 214, but I am guessing it was because while more people died on Flight 508 when it was hit by lightning, the investigation ultimately ruled that it was pilot error, since the crew chose to fly despite the hazardous weather. In contrast, the investigation into Flight 214 found no evidence of pilot error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.66.184.134 (talk • contribs) 04:48, September 3, 2006

While I see the Guinness entry and understand your theory as to Flight 508, I think it stretches logic somewhat. I can see the accident as a whole being categorized as 'Pilot Error', but then so are the vast majority of accidents. The Guinness record should be simply the actual event that brought down the plane, not the original poor decison making by the crew that exposed the plane to that event. When I have time I will dig deeper into the Guinness issue. Thanks, Crum375 07:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the reason is fairly obvious...14 of the passengers of the LANSA flight didn't die from the initial crash of the plane, but died awaiting rescue, thus the lightning strike didn't actually kill them. Ttony21 (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't know the medical condition of the passengers who survived the initial crash and died while awaiting rescue. From an aviation accident point of view, they were still killed by the crash, which was caused by lightning. By your logic, any passenger who dies in the hospital after a crash could be considered as killed by poor medical care, not by the original crash. We don't go into such details in aviation accidents — if you die from causes related to the accident within a few days of its occurrence, you are considered a crash victim, regardless of the quality of rescue efforts or medical care. Crum375 (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the LANSA Flight 508 article on Wikipedia, and I think I found the answer as to why this incident wasn't designated as the highest death toll from a lightning strike by the Guinness Book of World records. The Peruvian investigation attributed the crash to two causes: lightning strike and pilot error. By contrast, the investigation by the Civil Aeronautics Board attributed the crash of Flight 214 to just one cause: a lightning strike. And003 (talk) 08:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a very old discussion, but I thought I'd add to it just in case it came up again- the current GBWW lists the Lansa Flight as the highest death toll caused by a lightning strike, [1] so I removed that fact a little while ago. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:B707-PAA-Porto Rico.jpg

Image:B707-PAA-Porto Rico.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Information about aircraft protectors?

lightning discharge wick does not point to a section about aircraft protectors. —141.150.23.67 (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pan Am Flight 214. 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/20130526222124/http://dotlibrary1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=%2AP%3A%5CDOT%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C120863.pdf to http://dotlibrary1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=*P%3A%5CDOT%5Cairplane%20accidents%5Cwebsearch%5C120863.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120707104455/http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetGOJG/081263.htm to http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetGOJG/081263.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080827192334/http://dotlibrary1.specialcollection.net/ to http://dotlibrary1.specialcollection.net/

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) 21:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Contradiction on Location of Left Wingtip

In the "Aftermath" section, it states "The complete left wing tip was found a little under two miles (3 km) from the crash site." and in the "Investigation" section, it states "The wing tip had been found about three miles (5 km) from the crash site..." in direct contradiction to the previous statement.

Since the references given for these two sections are different, and the first statement references the actual accident investigation report, I'm inclined to trust the statement in the Aftermath section instead of the one in the Investigation section. Can someone closer to this article decide which is correct and fix the article? Bz8x8c (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Technically, both statements are correct. The statement in the investigation section is based upon the New York Times article stating the investigators were telling them that the wingtip was found "about three miles away", whereas the final investigation was more precise with its 1.8 mile measurement. However, I agree, having the different distances is confusing, so I changed the article to say that within a few days of the accident, investigators said they found the wingtip a few miles away, which I think is accurate to the sources without confusing the reader. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Artwork of Pan Am 214.jpg
• Pan Am Flight (Clipper) 214 N709PA Boeing 707.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Three Pan Am Boeing 707 awaiting delivery.jpg

@Khang To please note that the image you keep restoring, File:Three Pan Am Boeing 707 awaiting delivery.jpg may not be labeled properly in commons as far as it being public domain. That's why it was removed from the article. What would be very useful is for you to spend some time researching where that image was originally published; if we can satisfy ourselves that it is legitimately public domain, then we can put it back. Until then, however, we can't use it. I should also mention that we have a three revert rule, which basically says once you've reverted something twice, you're done. If you revert it a third time, you can be blocked. Please don't let that happen to you. RoySmith (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

RoySmith: I made the same mistake. The addition of the File:Three Pan Am Boeing 707 awaiting delivery.jpg is actually the first time this user has added that particular photo. The other substitutions were of File:Boeing 707 "Stratoliner", 3rd 707-121 production airplane, N709PA, later delivered to Pan Am.jpg, which should probably be nominated for deletion on commons because of the doubts about the copyright tagging. I don't know how, since they do things their own way over there. As to the choice of photos, I don't personally think that the three 707's awaiting delivery photo is an improvement to the article even though it technically contains the accident aircraft, but it's so tiny in the background that I'd have to take the caption's word for it that it's actually the involved aircraft. The color photo of the uninvolved, but similar, 707 seems to me to be a better choice because it is a single aircraft, so less confusing, and accurately depicts what the involved aircraft looked like. RecycledPixels (talk) 06:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Boeing 707 "Stratoliner", 3rd 707-121 production airplane, N709PA, later delivered to Pan Am.jpg

@RecycledPixeIs Should we nominate for deletion the image or not? In your opinion, PP-US of this image seems suspicious. Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 12:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Tô Ngọc Khang. Actually, this image is in the public domain and there in nothing suspicious about it. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 14:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be nominated, I don't believe the PD tag and I spent a fair amount of time trying to verify it during the FAC process. The user that uploaded it to Commons was a very prolific image uploader and they have several pages of deletion notifications from that time period for uploading copyvio images. That doesn't prove anything by itself, but it makes me trust the uploader less. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I see on source of the photo has text: "my_public_domain_photos" Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The PD justification was that it was published in the United States between 1929 and 1977 without a copyright notice. The photo was uploaded to Commons from Flickr in 2014. The linked Flickr page shows it was uploaded to Flickr in 2010 with an All Rights Reserved copyright tag, and no history of other licensing tags used, so it definitely isn't going to include an explanation of where and when this became public domain. The uploader didn't provide any justification for the PD tag with where it was published without a copyright notice, which is fishy because they stated right on the upload form that they got it from Flickr, and it didn't even have a PD license there. I've done other searches looking for the photo on other Internet pages and archives, and I can't find any PD justification other than where they say they got it from Wikimedia Commons. The Commons user who uploaded the image was globally banned a bit (for reasons other than copyvio issues) over a month after uploading the image, and their talk page history on Commons is flooded with notifications of copyright violations and image deletion notices (not every one of them ended up being deleted but there are a ton of redlinks). The image is tagged as public domain, and the person who put that tag on it has an image upload history that doesn't make me trust that tag. I think it should be deleted. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm confusing it with another image, but I believe that when I was searching for this image elsewhere, I found a color version of the same picture, so the sepia tint on the photo is likely false as well. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

If so, please nomitate for deletion to see what happens? Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok then, you've convinced me. Lets nominate it for deletion! Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 12:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Pass. As I've said before, I don't know how commons works enough to do that. But I think that's the right thing to do. RecycledPixels (talk) 07:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I have requested to delete the photo. And it wasn't deleted. So could we use it ? Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Delaware Turnpike

@Minturn: Regarding the change of the accident location from "Delaware Turnpike" to "John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway". I'm not highly invested in either one of those names. They're different segments of the same highway, but Delaware Turnpike is the name used in the New York Times article published a day after the accident. I looked through my news clippings, and I found that the Newcastle News article (UPI wire article) from February 25, 1964, writing about the CAB hearing, says, "The witnesses scheduled to be called today included First Officer G.C. Sutliff, co-pilot of a National Airlines plane which was nearby when the Pan-Am Boeing 707, flight 214 from San Juan, P.R. to Philadelphia, crashed in flames in a cornfield near U.S. Route 40". The CAB report states the crash site as two miles east of Elkton, which, looking at a map, looks closer to US-40 than I-95, which runs north of Elkton. The Newark Post article cited in the references, states that the crash site was off Delancy Road, which on Google Maps today runs between US-40 and State Route 281 near the state line, and conforms with the "east of Elkton" direction from the CAB report. So it's possible that we're both wrong. But in case it was I-95, this reference, states, "On November 15, 1963, just one week before his assassination, President John F. Kennedy opened the 11 miles of the Delaware Turnpike and the 47 miles of the Northeast Expressway (later renamed the John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway) at the Delaware-Maryland border." The "later renamed" statement suggests that the Maryland segment of that highway might have been named the Northeast Expressway at the time of the accident on December 8, 1963. Thoughts? I think it would be better to cite the UPI wire story and state that it was near US-40 instead of I-95, or just omit it altogether. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Google Maps actually shows the location of the crash (Wheelhouse Road near Delancy Drive, now within the Elkton city line) if you zoom in enough, although the description of the debris field makes it clear that there was not a single "location" of the crash, so there's a bit of a misnomer. The recent opening of the (soon renamed) JFK in Maryland suggests why the NYT reporter would have mentioned the DelPike instead. And yes, the site is considerably closer to 40 (current location) than to 95. The roughness of the news, no?

The curious might want to know something locational, and I would suggest east of Elkton, "between US 40, I 95 [with links] and the Delaware border" or some such. This allows for a little vagueness to account for the spread of the debris. Calling it the Northeast Expressway with a piped link to I-95 in Maryland would also work. I'm fine with any of those. Cheers! Minturn (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Photo of N709PA

I have requested to delete the photo. And it wasn't deleted. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Boeing_707_%22Stratoliner%22,_3rd_707-121_production_airplane,_N709PA,_later_delivered_to_Pan_Am.jpg. So could we use it ? Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 04:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@RecycledPixeIs Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 06:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not the Wiki Police. I stated above why I think the image is not public domain. The fact that the "RecycledPixels thinks it's not PD" rationale on the Commons deletion nomination wasn't accepted doesn't surprise me, but I don't think it justifies using it. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

This is the opinion of @Dual Freq, a user knowledgeable about copyright issues:

"idk. Because it's an air to air photo, I guess it was probably a press hand out photo from Boeing. Maybe they didn't put it out with a copyright notice like the license suggests. It's impossible to know now. Alamy also has it as PD, but they may have copied it from Commons. That's the danger of allowing copyrighted works on Commons. After a few years, they get spread around as public domain and you can't do much to get rid of them after that. At this point, if Boeing wants to contact Commons and say that the photo was copyrighted, that's probably what it would take to remove that photo. The way to prevent this from happening in the future is to not upload works that you are not sure about. Don't copy photos from Flickr users that share photos where they are not the photographer."

So could we use it ? Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, you could have at least pointed that user to this discussion so they could see the entire context, rather than, again, " In @RecycIedPixels, PD-US is seem suspicious and this user want to delete it." @Dual Freq: pinging so you aware how your opinion is being applied in this context and all the previous discussions on this page. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't have anything further to add. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)