Talk:FedEx Express Flight 087

FedEx Express Flight 087 is currently a Transport good article nominee. Nominated by Zaptain United (talk) at 14:33, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and then save the page. See the good article instructions.

Short description: 1999 aviation accident in the Philippines

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

no consensus, 25 April 2025, see discussion.
delete, 6 June 2021, see discussion.

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 has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Tambayan Philippines Low‑importance

	Philippines portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines 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.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I need help with this

I need help organising the article from the japanese version. UnitedFixing (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

@Zaptain United: Notability concerns have still not been addressed:

Source 1 is the FAA's aircraft registry database;
Source 2 is just the final report;
Source 5 only contains a passing mention of the accident in the context of another plane crash;
Sources 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 16, are all pieces of contemporary news coverage;
Sources 6, 12, 17, 18, and 19 only contain short/passing mentions of the accident;
Sources 3 and 7 are database entries;

WP:LASTING is not met since, whether or not we consider the fact that it wasn't solely this accident that led to some changes ("...as a result of the Subic Bay incident and reports of airspeed anomalies by other MD-11 operators..."), and even if we were to disregard that, the crash was not "... a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance...". Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, look I am trying to get this to be a good article. I want to get more experience in nominating articles to become good articles. The reason I even joined Wikipedia was because of this article. I wanted to improve it. Zaptain United (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaptain United: the paragraph you just added does not reflect the source that you cited.

You wrote:

Expanding the airstrip and tarmac at Subic Bay International Airport as a response to this accident was too costly.

The book says:

FedEx could not fill its biggest planes to maximum capacity for transpacific flights because doing so would make the planes too heavy for safe takeoff on the short Subic Bay runway. Problems also occurred during landings. At one point a FedEx plane, fully loaded with cargo, slid off the runway and into Subic Bay, unable to decelerate before reaching the end of the airstrip.³⁷ This was a costly problem, but to solve it by expanding the tarmac was cost prohibitive. The airstrip was hemmed in by hills and water. There was simply nowhere to go except out to sea, and doing so would be expensive.

According to the book, the problem was both the airstrip being too short and the inability to expand it. Solving the problem (the airstrip's length) was too expensive, but this was not as a result of the FedEx crash.

And it's possible that the book is wrong, since they're saying that the plane crashed because of the runway's short length, even though the final report makes no such assertion. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 06:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been able to find two more sources. From an ATSB report:

In 1999, a McDonnell Douglas MD-11F freighter crashed on landing at Subic Bay, Philippines.⁷⁵ There were no fatalities. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Board (Philippines) found that drain holes in the captain’s pitot tube were likely blocked, leading to erroneous airspeed indications on the captain’s display. The investigation stated that the available flight crew indications (the display of an amber ‘IAS’ on the PFD and three alerts associated with other systems) did not directly lead the flight crew to commence the appropriate ‘Airspeed: Lost, Suspect or Erratic’ checklist. The NTSB also stated that the flight crew did not make use of the standby airspeed indication to determine the reliability of the other indications. The investigation report detailed other air data anomalies in related aircraft types.

~~And this journal article, of which I'm unsure of the level of coverage.~~ Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've been able to verify the article and there's no coverage of the accident. The final report is just cited. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding from the criteria, the article might QF for the GA process.

1. Article is "semi-well-written", if you will, but it seems vague a bit.

2 and 3. The verifiable part and the broad coverage part doesn't seem to be met, due to the secondary sources issue.

4. Article does seem neutral.

5. Article history isn't stable.

6. And illustration kinda seems fine, but I'm not sure. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 23:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more sources pass 1999. One-third of all the sources are pass 1999. Sure, most of them only have brief mentions, but it been continually mentioned since 1999 should show notability. Also, we have sources from 2004, 2018, and 2025 explaining the accident in more detail. I think there is enough secondary coverage. This accident was recently listed in an article yesterday that I have just added. Zaptain United (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with your assessment, @Ivebeenhacked. I think this is a QF based on the heavy reliance on primary sources and the lack of stability. The infobox picture was still changing after this was nominated for GA because the image showed the wrong kind of aircraft. That's not something that really instills a lot of confidence in the accuracy of the article. @Zaptain United, I know I've spoken to you elsewhere about slowing down and being more patient with these processes. I recommend you apply that advice in this situation... Let this article incubate and stabilize after addressing the primary source reliance. No need to rush to GA status here when it's not ready. nf utvol (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article information has stabilized, and I do have secondary sources in this article. Now, that we have actual image of the aircraft, the article's history will calm down and there hasn't been much activity on this article in a few days. Zaptain United (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think I have addressed the primary source issue. Here are sources years later discussing the crash and the notability tag has been removed.

https://www.aerohabitat.eu/uploads/media/Jadec_-_Accident_-_review_MD-11.pdf

https://www.caa.co.uk/media/4n3bpi3y/atsb-pre-flight-preparation-a330-18-07-18.pdf

https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/e687a535-6eac-4cb0-a681-7d5358f59254/content Zaptain United (talk) 03:19, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To me, stable implies no substantive edits or content debates over a period of weeks, not a few days. You've done good work finding additional sourcing, which is important, but it is only part of the problem. Again...patience is needed here. nf utvol (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

more sources

https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/e687a535-6eac-4cb0-a681-7d5358f59254/content

https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/news/md-11-safety-record-hull-losses-guide/ Zaptain United (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]