Talk:American Airlines Flight 191

Judith Wax

If one searches for Judith Wax, one is redirected to this page. Judith Wax was a writer who was among the passengers who died on this flight. But this page has nothing about Judith Wax, so I don't see the point of the redirect. Maybe the redirect should be deleted. Krakatoa (talk) 06:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

American Airlines Flight 191 v. Delta Air Lines Flight 191

Starting the discussion about whether these two pages should have {{distinguish}} templates at the top for each other. I'm of the opinion that a reader might reasonably look for the crash of flight 191 and mean either of these pages - both incidents involved a flight 191, a crash very close to the airport, and ground fatalities. On all of that, the link makes sense to keep on both pages. Thoughts? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 19:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

(We've had this discussion before). I understand your point about both accidents happening near airports but even so, I'm not really sure if we do need those distinguish links. Why? It's redundant because if Delta Air Lines Flight 191 and American Airlines Flight 191 are two of the most well-known aviation accidents, there really shouldn't be a problem distinguishing both accidents. Like you said earlier back in January, if someone's simply looking for "flight 191 crash", they could mean these 2 accidents above but they could also mean other accidents with flight numbers "191". So if people are still lost a bit, their best action is to look at the disambiguation page of Flight 191 so linking this page instead would be better instead of simply Delta Air Lines Flight 191. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 01:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh goodness egg on my face. Thanks very much for the response (and the reminder, not quite sure where my brain is these days). I like the idea of the DAB page for 191; would you be opposed to a hatnote pointing readers in that direction? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 14:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't oppose a hatnote for the disambiguation page. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 15:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I see no need to clarify. These are both MAJOR airlines, though in particular, their names/spelling (and call signs) are nowhere near one another.

Suggesting to decline the clarification tag and to archive this thread.

Gobucks821 (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

So, how do we add David Booth's premonition?

A man named David Booth from Ohio apparently had the same dream 10 nights in a row where this very crash played out. I feel like it should at least get a passing mention. 149.115.66.106 (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I feel you probably shouldn’t - this is an encyclopaedia. Maungapohatu (talk) 07:31, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

First off, before we can even consider if or how we should include a bit of information, we need to make sure that the information is properly sourced. For example, are there any news articles about Booth and his premonition? Maybe it's mentioned in a book about this incident? That's the starting point for Wiki inclusion.

I will add, though, that most major disasters (and honestly, a lot of minor ones) have someone saying they predicted something about it. Here's a discussion about Aaliyah possibly dreaming a premonition about her own fatal crash (which is ultimately not included in the article), and the section in Assassination of Abraham Lincoln about Lincoln's premonitions has five different sources (a direct quote from Lincoln, Skeptical Enquirer, and three different biographies). This might give you an idea of the standard of sourcing needed, and also the relative size/importance of any premonitions. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 14:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Erroneous runway number (?)

The intro to the article claims that the aircraft was departing from RWY 32R. However, KORD doesn’t have such a runway nor any within a few degrees of it. Should this be “22R”? 22R is an actual runway there.

Gobucks821 (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Edit: I’ve confirmed that this was a RWY open at the time. It was since closed around 2015. I will add this clarification for readers. Gobucks821 (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

UPS Flight 2976

Given the striking similarities between the accidents of American Airlines Flight 191 and UPS Airlines Flight 2976, I think it would be worth adding a paragraph about in the Legacy of the DC-10 section, especially given that American 191 is mentioned in both the Wikipedia page for UPS 2976 and in the NTSB’s preliminary report for the flight. MLGGrievous (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

UPS 2976 is already mentioned on this page, in the "See also" section under the subheading "Similar accidents caused by engine separation". NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:08, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but given the fact that it is the exact same failure mechanism on the exact same part on a direct derivative of the DC-10, it is worthy of mentioning in more detail within the article itself. MLGGrievous (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources backing that up? We'd be looking for multiple sources, ideally major news outlets or similar, that go into detail about the similarities between UPS 2976 and AA 191. Now, if it comes out that the root cause of the failure was the same (improper maintenance), then I think we'd have a little more cause to add further detail. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 14:29, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

This is the only case in existence of another accident on a direct descendent of the DC-10 where the aft pylon bulkhead on the left engine failed and caused the engine to flip over the wing of the aircraft. It is also coming out now that numerous other reports had been made by airlines to Boeing about stress fractures on the spherical bearings in the aft bulkhead, but had deemed them not to be a safety issue despite American 191 clearly showing what could occur from a failure of the component. The fact that American 191 is even mentioned in the NTSB preliminary report is already extremely unusual, for the NTSB to reference previous accidents that early on is extremely rare. These two accidents are inextricably linked, you cannot talk about UPS 2976 without talking about American 191, and in my opinion, any discussion of American 191 would be incomplete without discussing how such a similar accident occurred later because the warnings from American 191 were not heeded. MLGGrievous (talk) 06:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I will also add that despite American 191 showing the consequences of damage to the pylon aft bulkheads and the fact that previous stress fractures of the spherical bearings had already been shown to cause damage to the lugs themselves, the spherical bearings were never classified as a principal structural element, and Boeing had actually extended the interval between inspections. So while the accident has not yet been shown to be related to maintenance procedures, it has been shown that Boeing and the FAA were negligent by failing do what they could to prevent the same failure of the same part on the same family of aircraft from causing the same kind of accident. As for sources, I can just direct you to the NTSB reports NTSB Preliminary Report for UPS flight 2976 NTSB Investigative Update for UPS flight 2976 and a YouTube video from Pilot Debrief The DEADLY Truth About UPS 2976! MLGGrievous (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2026 (UTC)