6
$\begingroup$

Inspired by the OP's reaction to the closure of this question:

Off topic? And this one is? aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/47989/ Where is the consistency here?

I can see where the confusion comes from.

Should we use one of our special close reasons to specifically address accidents and incidents under investigation? If yes, what should be the text?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I don't know as much about the history of Aviation.SE, but on other stacks, comparisons in the meta between closed and open questions is often seen as not useful. One reason is that for many stacks, a lot of questions were asked during the beta that are later deemed to be off topic, but it's not always feasible to go back and close all the questions that were asked in the beta that would be closed if they were asked today. On Music.SE there's almost a boilerplate meta text on addressing claims of inconsistency this way. No question justifies any other question. $\endgroup$ – Todd Wilcox Apr 19 '18 at 21:09
6
$\begingroup$

I don't see a problem here.

Yes, we talk about accidents, but as mentioned in help, after an investigation is completed. Why? Because then it eliminates speculations. Unless one of the members of this community is working on an active investigation with NSTB or similar boards, all we can do is speculation before the investigation concludes.

Sometimes (hint) the investigation does not complete even after years. That is a different scenario and not a common occurrence.

So to answer your question, we don't need a special close reason. Pondlife's comment clearly explains the reason to close it, is the very first comment, is voted and links to help center where the reasons to close questions are listed.

$\endgroup$
6
$\begingroup$

On these type of questions the correct close reason is not "off topic" but "calls for opinion." I don't see a specific need for a special close reason. People just need to select the right one.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

If we start getting a stream of questions asking for the cause of an incident that is under investigation, we might need that closure reason.

For the moment, I don't see the need to do this. Surely they come once in a while, but the current approach works well.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ "The current approach" I see what you did there. $\endgroup$ – a CVn Apr 22 '18 at 10:55

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .