This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Aviation: Accidents This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation This article is supported by the Aviation accident project. Disaster management 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. New York (state) This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York 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.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

Per precident, the title of the article should probably be Colgan Air Flight 3407; see, for example Comair Flight 191. There's no rush to move the article there, but I will likely do so tomorrow ... unless there are strenuous objections. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 06:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the media (including CNN live right now) are referring to it as a Continental Flight. I don't see why we wouldn't just use the formula Continental Airlines Flight 3407, operated by Colgan... Joshdboz (talk) 06:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Continental website doesn't even call it Colgan Air Flight 3407. They call it Continental Connection Flight 3407. The news reports call it Continental. So Colgan is a 3rd and worse choice.

[1] Read Seanwarner: Good night and good luck (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the medias wrong and so are you two. It was operated by Colgan Air, per policy it should be referred to as Colgan flight whatever —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanwarner86 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject naming guidelines don't trump general Wikipedia guidelines, which instruct us to use the most common and recognizable name in English. Joshdboz (talk) 06:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search under "Continental Express Flight 3407" and nothing came up so I started an article by that name only to find this one later. Why wasn't this one called by the correct title? Continental Express/Colgan is a separate airline from Continental. The two articles need to be merged now. Cla68 (talk) 06:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is not a Continental Express flight. It is a Continental Connection flight. 24.247.120.89 (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Associated Press got it wrong. Cla68 (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be called Colgan Air Flight 3407. Lets set this straight right now. This is not continental express. this airlie is not owned by continental airlines. this is a colgan air problem. Please call it properly. dont let the media dictate what an encyclopedic entry should be.--75.157.210.26 (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only part they got wrong is stating that Continental is Dallas-based. Continental is Houston-based. Colgan Air was the airline involved in this accident and is a regional carrier that is contracted by Continental Airlines to fly flights under the banner of Continental Connection. Additionally, I think the "Continental Express Flight 3407" article should be removed...as the only carriers who fly under the banner of Continental Express are ExpressJet and Chautauqua and neither of them were involved in the crash. 24.247.120.89 (talk) 06:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Continental Express Flight 3407 article cited the Associated Press and MSNBC and I've cited those refs in this article. --Pixelface (talk) 07:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. An move war over the name of this? Ridiculous! Both names redirect to the correct article. Make the article as good as it can be; the final name of it can be determined/decided later. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 06:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "Continental Connection Flight 3407" would be more appropriate then, as official airline sources use this name. --Resplendent (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps.... I made it as a redirect here for now. All will be sorted out. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 07:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please no name war now, it will be decided later thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 07:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is WP:V. What the majority of reliable sources call the flight, we call the flight. Since they call it Continental and not Colgan, it's not that complicated. The flight was "owned" by Continental. Colgan was just a subsidiary provider. Steven Walling (talk) 07:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V does not mean majority. Press reports are not necessarily reliable sources. And reliable sources (from those who know the difference) call it Colgan. HkCaGu (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article's name should be changed to Colgan Air Flight 3407...Basicly the flight works like a codeshare and it just happens to be that the flight is painted in Continental Connection livery. Just like how CO codeshares with Delta and if a flight were to crash the article should not be called Continental Flight XXXX. Spikydan1 (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be Colgan Air Flight 3407. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) According to WP:COMMONNAME, article title is correct as it is. Mjroots (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the news media itself has proven itself unreliable in aviation terminology. Just like all those tsunamis before the December 2004--everyone would call them "tidal waves" but they were tsunamis. In this case, nobody would even call the flight "Continental Airlines Flight 3407" at the airport or in the aircraft. It would be called "Continental Connection Flight 3407", or in the pilot/ATC world, "Colgan 3407". We're not talking about common versus technical here.HkCaGu (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have been using the callsign "Colgan 3407" (or CJC3407) which actually makes it in wikipedia terms Colgan Air Flight 3407. MilborneOne (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add although the name should be changed it would create more problems at the moment with all the edits and links be created. We have a redirect from Colgan Air 3407 so I would suggest leave alone for the time being. MilborneOne (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calling this a "Continental Airlines" flight is not only against what the more recent and corrected reliable sources are calling the operator ("Continental Connection", NBC now reports, for example), but it's simply a matter of being inaccurate.--Oakshade (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This flight was officially operated as CJC3407 and identified to Air Traffic Control as Colgan 3407. Calling it Continental Airlines Flight 3407, as this wikipedia article does is completely inaccurate, and as such, must be remedied.... Continental Connection Flight 3407 is an acceptable compromise until this gets settled.... but calling it Continental Airlines Flight 4307 is wrong as it's not a continental flight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.252.240 (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's silly that this is being called a Continental Airlines Flight, which makes it look as though a Continental Airlines plane in the mainstream fleet crashed. This flight was operated by Colgan Air, which is it's own entity. Just because a news organization who doesn't know the difference between a Mainline Continental Flight and a flight operated by a regional carrier doesn't mean we have to follow in their footsteps. So, I move we rename this to Continental Connection Flight 3407 or Colgan Air Flight 3407. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

N200WQ should redirect here. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need for the redirect. Aircraft registrations can be, and often are reissued. The unique identity of an individual aircraft is its construction number (c/n) or manufacturers serial number (msn). Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is highly unlikely that any other aircraft would be notable enough for an article so it is unlikely that another aircraft would appear here. And uniqueness isn't necessary for article names, which is why so many are disambiguated. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it before; see for example PK-KKW. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 07:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the aircraft that is notable, it's the crash. If you were to follow this logic, the license plate of Pricess Diana's limo would have its own redirect.--76.216.9.107 (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was Princess Diana's limo a $25,000,000 vehicle, and had a production run around 1000? Note that the current article name is also not unique and frequently reassigned since it's just a flight number, not especially related to a specific route or plane, and definitely not specifically referring to this particular combination of route, plane and date. However, the notable instance of this flight number is this particular instance. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent a bit) The fact is, often within the aviation community they identify a crash or other occurence by the aircraft involved - always named by the tail number. Quite why I don't honestly know, but that is fairly regular if rare when compared to talking of a flight number. The aircraft is not notable beyond the accident it was involved in, but people also often look up individual aircraft, and the way this is done is by tail number. It therefore stands to reason we should redirect to the notable information linked to that aircraft. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A map of the crash site would be nice. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google Street View Map was added by me and later removed by a mod? Dividends (talk) 08:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can't use non-free images. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 08:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which address is correct? 6038 or 6050 Long Street? TouLouse (talk) 10:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, the only ref in the article that mentions an address is Buffalo News. But I don't think the address belongs in the article. --Pixelface (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[2]Need to check the License.User:Yousaf465 Contacted photographer waiting for permission.User:Yousaf465 Crash site photos [3]

Can I use google earth for the map ?User:Yousaf465 Aviation Maps can be found here.[4] User:Yousaf465

ATC tapes edited from 31 minutes to the 4 relevant minutes are ava. at [5] User:Yousaf465

Prior to the crash, the voice of a female pilot on Continental flight 3407 can be heard communicating with air traffic controllers, according to a recording of the Buffalo air traffic control’s radio messages shortly before the crash captured by the Web site www.liveatc.net. Neither the controller nor the pilot exchange any concerns that anything is out of the ordinary as the airplane is asked to fly at 2,300 feet.

A minute later, the controller tries to contact the plane saying but hears no response. After a pause, he tries to contact the plane again.

Then the controller asks the pilot of a nearby Delta Air Lines plane to see if he can see the Continental flight.

“Delta 1998, look off your right side about 5 miles for a Dash 8 about 2,300 (feet). You see anything there?” he asks.

“Uh, negative,” the Delta pilot says

from [6] User:Yousaf465 Audio here [7]User:Yousaf465 ~

You'd think that the Delta pilot would have seen the fireball on the ground. What were the cloud conditions at the time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.130.47 (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 1stOfficer - Rebecca Shaw (sp?) from MSNBC circa EST 8:11am 13 Feb 2009 Fri 76.66.196.229 (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 50 people, 49 +1 non-crew pilot on transfer - from HLN 76.66.196.229 (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 50 people = 4 crew (2 pilots + 2 flight attendants) + 1 non-crew employee pilot on transfer + 43 passengers + 1 ground casualty -- from NewsNet 76.66.196.229 (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a list of crew members to the Flight Details section. Bloo (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should some info from the tower tape be added? [8] Like Delta 1452 seeing where Colgan 3407 crashed? 76.66.196.229 (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is already a paragraph about it under 'Crash,' but I'm sure a little more won't hurt. Bloo (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FlightAware > Live Flight Tracker > Colgan Air #3407:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/CJC3407

Route COATE V126 LHY ULW BENEE V164 (Decode) Date Thursday, Feb 12, 2009 Duration 52 minutes Status Unknown (track log)

Error: Unable to decode route (COATE V126 LHY ULW BENEE V164)

FlightAware > Live Flight Tracker > Track Log > CJC3407 > 12-Feb-2009 > KEWR-KBUF:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/C.../KBUF/tracklog

Time Position Ground speed Altitude Facility Eastern TZ Latitude Longitude kts Feet Location/Type

10:00PM 42.33 -77.73 297 14400 descending Cleveland Center

10:01PM 42.36 -77.84 292 13800 descending Cleveland Center

10:02PM 42.39 -77.93 287 13100 descending Cleveland Center

10:03PM 42.42 -78.03 287 12400 descending Cleveland Center

10:04PM 42.45 -78.13 287 11800 descending Cleveland Center

10:05PM 42.48 -78.22 287 11200 descending Cleveland Center

10:06PM 42.55 -78.27 256 10300 descending Cleveland Center

10:07PM 42.61 -78.30 256 9400 descending Cleveland Center

10:08PM 42.67 -78.33 249 8400 descending Cleveland Center

10:09PM 42.73 -78.36 236 7400 descending Cleveland Center

10:10PM 42.79 -78.40 231 6400 descending Cleveland Center

10:11PM 42.84 -78.42 207 5300 descending Cleveland Center

http://www.flytecomm.com/cgi-bin/trackflight

Airline Colgan Air Flight Number 3407 Departure City (Airport) Newark, NJ (EWR) Departure Time 02/12/2009 09:20 PM Arrival City (Airport) Buffalo, NY (BUF) Arrival Time 02/12/2009 10:12 PM Remaining Flight Time 00:00 Aircraft Type Dehavilland Dash 8 + DHC8-400 Current Altitude 0 feet Current Groundspeed 0 mph Flight Status Arrived

http://www.flightstats.com/go/Flight...ghtNumber=3407

Arrival Status Details Airport: (BUF) Buffalo Niagara International Airport Buffalo, NY, US Scheduled: 8:48 PM - Thu Feb 12, 2009 Actual: 10:45 PM - Thu Feb 12, 2009 Arrived at gate 117 min later than scheduled Gate: 26

Flight Events

This section shows the various changes that were made to the information about the flight including the time the source was changed as well as the data source that caused the change. The date and time of the event are displayed in UTC time.

Feb 13 3:02 AM FAA Time Adjustment

   * Estimated Runway Arrival Changed From 02/12/09 10:06 PM To 02/12/09 10:21 PM

Feb 13 3:12 AM ATCSCC Linked Airport Delay(s)

   * Link(s) created using departure date 02/12/09 19:10

Feb 13 3:23 AM ATCSCC Linked Airport Deicings(s)

   * Link(s) created using arrival date 02/12/09 20:48

Feb 13 3:23 AM FAA Time Adjustment

   * Estimated Runway Arrival Changed From 02/12/09 10:21 PM To 02/12/09 10:12 PM

Feb 13 3:24 AM FAA STATUS-Wheels Down

   * Actual Runway Arrival Changed To 02/12/09 10:16 PM
   * Status Changed From Active To Landed

Feb 13 4:42 AM Airline Time Adjustment

   * Actual Gate Arrival Changed To 02/12/09 10:45 PM

Feb 13 7:05 AM FlightHistory STATUS-Unknown

   * Actual Runway Departure Changed From 02/12/09 09:19 PM To 02/12/09 09:19 PM
   * Actual Runway Arrival Changed From 02/12/09 10:16 PM To 02/12/09 10:16 PM
   * Status Changed From Landed To Scheduled

Feb 13 7:05 AM FlightHistory STATUS-Landed

   * Status Changed From Scheduled To Landed

Feb 13 7:07 AM FlightHistory STATUS-Unknown

   * Status Changed From Landed To Scheduled

Feb 13 7:07 AM FlightHistory STATUS-Landed

   * Status Changed From Scheduled To Landed

Feb 13 11:50 AM FlightHistory STATUS-Unknown

   * Status Changed From Landed To Scheduled

Feb 13 12:21 PM Airline STATUS-Active

   * Actual Runway Departure Changed From 02/12/09 09:19 PM To 02/12/09 09:18 PM
   * Status Changed From Scheduled To Active  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.52.95 (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

"First Officer Rebecca Shaw, hired by Colgan on January 16, 2008, had flown 2,244 hours with the carrier." This statement from the article is unsourced and most likely completely incorrect! If correct, she would have flown more than 170 hours a month since hireing. That would be a gross violation to FAA rules about duty time for flight crew and breaking news by itself!--Towpilot (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this same note on a pilot's discussion forum. Consensus is that Colgan reported her total hours, not hours with the carrier.BK DC (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the hire date of January 2009, that is only 13 months, with 2 months minimum of training for a SIC type certificate in the Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 leaves 11 months or less of line flying. The maximum amount you can fly per month as an airline pilot is 100 hours, waivable by FAA to 120 hours per month under certain rules. I do not know if Colgan operates with the 100hr limit or the 120hr limit, but either one only allows a total of 1000-1200 hours per year of total commercial flying.

The wiki states that the First Officer was hired in 13 months before the crash, and accumlated 2000+ hours in that 13 months. This is not plausable. as it so obviously in inplausable gross violation of CFR14 parts 121 Air Carrier Operations and part 61 Certification of Airmen. It is also is not practically plausable.

Someone with more time and experience with wiki, please get the info corrected.72.183.54.153 (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both the CBS and WIVB stories state that she has flown 2,244 hours, so we have to go with what the references say. Dukemmm (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dukemmm, no one is in doubt that she may have had 2,244 hours as total time since first lesson to become a private pilot. It was the now removed statement here that she would have accumulated this time with Colgan only in slightly more than a year that by common sence had to be incorrect, no matter what CBS, WIVB or any other completely unreliable media source may say! --Towpilot (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Very well then. Dukemmm (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latest news this morning is that a major reason the fire was so hot and burned so long was due to a natural gas leak at the site. For example, see ABC News report here: http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/Business/story?id=6870612&page=1. Note that says 5000 lbs of fuel, too, which is undoubtedly a gross overstatement, but all the news outlets have seized upon that number for some reason.BK DC (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5000lbs of fuel is very plausable. Dash8Q400 has a stated capacity of 1724 gallons. JP5 has a weight of roughly 6.84lbs per gallon which works out to 11792lbs at full capacity. Jasgrider (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, with two alternate airports (a minimum of one was required, and most dispatchers would probably give a second) for the flight last night, the aircraft would have been planning to land with about 3000-4000 pounds of fuel on board anyway. Five thousand pounds seems quite plausible, if perhaps slightly high. I don't know typical fuel burn numbers for a Q400, so I don't know how high it might be, nor do I know what airports they might have been given as alternates (which would also affect how much fuel they'd have had). 66.251.50.6 (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've purged a few statements that the flight was on final from other articles, but wanted to make a note of that here. Transcripts [9] show that the plane was turning right up until the crash. See the Airfield traffic pattern and final approach articles for more details on landing patterns. Jelloman (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ATC transcripts don't show the position which the pilots and controllers both know. The primary proof that it is on final is that the crash site lines up with Runway 23. HkCaGu (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The plane had been cleared for the ILS and switched to the tower frequency. That usually happens moments before turning inbound on the localizer. Also, when the controller is trying to point out the aircraft to other flights, he refers to it as being at "the marker". The marker is the Final Approach Fix, so the plane was either on final approach or seconds before it. Ptomblin (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything points to icing as the reason why the accident occurred. Can I get confirmation on that please? Thanks--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation from who exactly? The FAA and NTSB will have an investigation to determine what caused the crash. Anything issued before their reports is speculation. Wikipedia is not the place for speculation. Jasgrider (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Jasgrider said. Based on the ATC tapes, it does not sound like icing could possibly have been the primary cause of the crash. 66.251.50.6 (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable media sources report that icing is the speculated cause for the accident it can be added to the article, but I have yet to see a reliable source say so. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In an article by the Baker City Herald No trouble call from Colgan to air traffic control, where the transmissions by the Buffalo's Terminal Radar Approach Control center (TRACON) and a controller in the Buffalo tower between the aircraft in the area, it can be seen that there was a big amount of icing in that particular area as reported, thus icing is the most possibl cause at this time.Gunner0095 (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It was the first deadly crash of a commercial airliner in the United States in two and half years"

Does that mean no one has died in a commercial airliner in the US in 2.5 years? OR should it says "It was the most deadly crash of a commercial airliner in the United States in two and half years" ? Kingturtle (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It means that there hasn't been a crash resulting in fatalities in the US since Delta 5191 in August 2006. Yes, it was the "most deadly" in two and a half years because no one died since the aforementioned flight. (Two previous crashes - the Continental flight in Denver and USAir in New York had no fatalities.) CNN.com said this was the most deadly US air crash since the American flight that crashed in Queens in November 2001, which I suppose it is, just barely (the Comair crash had 49 victims and 1 survivor). Then again, I don't know if I trust CNN.com, which had originally reported this crash as flight 3107, which landed safely in Grand Rapids, Michigan. 71.234.109.192 (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The exact quote from MSNBC was "It was the first fatal crash of a commercial airliner in the United States in 2 1/2 years." I'm sure an editor just changed fatal to deadly to rewrite it a bit. It looks like the current article doesn't mention it. I'll re-add it to the Crash section. --Pixelface (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We appear to be gaining a list of passengers/victims nearly all appear to be non-notable in wikipedia terms and this is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. MilborneOne (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section strikes me as a violation of WP:IINFO and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I just agreed with you with the comment above. MilborneOne (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to link out to an official list of passengers when available. MilborneOne (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the victims section per WP:IINFO and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should have a breakdown by nationality... IIRC I heard there was one Canadian, and all the others were American. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No there were at least two Israelis on the flight —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.22.112.202 (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really need a cite for every single sentence? I like that this article is well sourced, but there are way too many cites, making the article basically unreadable. For example, do you really need to cite a source to say that it took off from Newark and was attempting to land in Buffalo? Virtually every single article talks about that fact, you don't need to cite it, do you? -75.6.246.39 (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]