Talk:Afriqiyah Airways Flight 771

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Survivors[edit]

1 survivor reported by AFP, rumours on Pprune of a 2nd, but unconfirmed as yet. Mjroots (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MJ I moved the info about the possible survivor to the lead, think it reads better that way? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, GF editing is to be encouraged. Mjroots (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okey doke! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Registration[edit]

I've removed 5A-ONG as the reg of the a/c involved. Aviation Safety Network is reporting it as an A330-202, 5A-ONG is an A330-243. We should wait for confirmation before adding this info. Mjroots (talk) 08:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5A-ONG confirmed now which btw is an A330-202, see: http://www.planespotters.net/Production_List/Airbus/A330/1024,5A-ONG-Afriqiyah-Airways.php - not sure how to add that properly to the article 85.179.69.122 (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Registration is either 5A-ONF or 5A-ONH, but which of the two is unconfirmed as yet. Mjroots (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aviation Safety Network now reporting 5A-ONG, but some sources say that that is a -243, not a -202. Have e-mailed them asking clarification. Mjroots (talk) 10:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.airbus.com/crisis/index.html confirming MSN 1024 5A-ONG. And on a side note, seating capacity for all Afriqiyah A330s is total 230 (30 in Business, 200 in Economy) http://www.afriqiyah.aero/about-us/fleet.html 85.179.69.122 (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed re regn. Now, I've a feeling that the Airbus page above will disappear fairly soon, so we needed a cached url to ref that. Not sure how to do that myself though. Mjroots (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalities[edit]

How many Dutch on board, 62 or 64? The Telegraaf states that two holiday companies had tourist on board. - De touropetarors Kras en Stip reizen melden echter dat zij respectievelijk 26 en 38 mensen aan boord hadden. De Nederlandse toeristen kwamen uit Zuid-Afrika en zouden in Tripoli overstappen op vluchten richting Brussel en Düsseldorf. The lede states 62, but 26 + 38 = 64, although it doesn't categorically state that they were all Dutch nationals. Can anyone provide further info? Mjroots (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BBC now says the Dutch tourism board say 61. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It also says "other African nationals" (as well as Libyans, that is). The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that 61 total, or 61 dead? Mjroots (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
61 dead (also according to Sky News here)... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters also say 61 Dutch killed, plus one survivor, giving 62. Mjroots (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
South Africans

I'm not 100% sure, but Beeld (Afrikaans) is saying "minstens nege". Now, minstens negen in Dutch is "at least nine". Can anyone confirm. Anchen Dreyer (or is it her brother???) is mentioned by Beeld, seems we have a Wikinotable person involved. Mjroots (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article says at least nine people from South-Africa died on this flight. One of them was Frans Dreyer, Anchen Dreyer's brother. Leime (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, the article does not say they died, but it says they were on board of the flight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leime (talk • contribs) 18:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We know there was only 1 survivor, so 9 dead is a reasonable deduction. Mjroots (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, I just wanted to be accurate on what the article actually says and what we can deduce from that. :) Leime (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Matthee an active member of the South African 4x4 community (including Tracks4Africa) was a South African amongst those who died. Ref 1. Ref 2 (with additional names) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefishy (talk • contribs) 08:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The SA count has been reduced from 9 to 7. It should be 8 as one had dual nationality and is covered elsewhere. Mjroots (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of contributors to this article, the South African casualties are reported as follows by Beeld newspaper, May 14, 2010.[1] JMK (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Frans Dreyer, businessman from Pretoria; Ms Cathrine Tillett, training official of Global Aviation; Mr Norbert and Mrs Paula Taferner, former employees of Global Aviation; Mr Nigel Peters, senior manager of AirQuarius Aviation; Mr Robert Weber, employee of BKS Global; Mr Hans Wolfaardt, entrepreneur from Valhalla, Pretoria; Mr Anton Matthee, managing director of telecommunications firm VASTech; Ms Bree O'Mara, writer from Hartbeespoort; Ms Priscilla Collick, recently a resident of Swansea, Wales; Ms Faeeza Patel, teacher in London, previously from Durban
  1. ^ Keppler, Virginia (2010-05-14), "'Pa se vliegtuig het geval'; SA slagoffers", Beeld, Johannesburg, p. 1
Belgian

1 Belgian also on board according to Belgian newspaper HLN. source --145.53.28.75 (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added that ref to the table. Mjroots (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finnish

The BBC report at least one Finn aboard. Why is this deemed not reliable enough to appear in the table. The airline's list isn't definitive.Mjroots (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was listed here initially, but later reports, like HelsinginSanomat consider that very unlikely lav (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Place of the crash[edit]

Judging by press photos on which a small mosque is visible, the crash happened somewhere near 32°39′34″N 13°07′04″E / 32.65944°N 13.11778°E / 32.65944; 13.11778. GdB (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is some way short of the runway. Mjroots (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, my estimation was based on this picture: http://www.corriere.it/gallery/esteri/05-2010/libia/1/tripoli-esplode-aereo_133eabd8-5da5-11df-8e28-00144f02aabe.shtml#7 The GE coordinates of the minaret are 32°39′38″N 13°07′09″E / 32.660579°N 13.119173°E / 32.660579; 13.119173. The bush is probably at 32°39′37″N 13°07′08″E / 32.660286°N 13.118835°E / 32.660286; 13.118835. GdB (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have found an image which resolves the uncertainties. The tail of the wreck is located at 32°39′41″N 13°07′10″E / 32.66139°N 13.11944°E / 32.66139; 13.11944. Which means that the plane was nearly 200 metres off the approach route. For an explanation, see http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showthreaded&Number=1331796 GdB (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sole survivor category[edit]

I know this isn't the best place for this discussion but this will get far more traffic than the infobox talk page. Do we really want a category for "sole survivor"? It appears that this was added to the template today for when survivors = 1. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need that cat. Annoyingly, it is still showing for me, even after a cache purge. Mjroots (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the infobox, have you removed it from there? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do you mean "it's in the infobox", can't see any Category: links except under External links. Mjroots (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted it, was an addition to {{Infobox Aircraft occurrence}}, which I've reverted. This needs discussion at WP level really. Mjroots (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry I wasn't clear enough. I agree, it should be discussed in a wider forum. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Raised at WT:AVIATION, Heymid (talk · contribs) informed. Mjroots (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article of citation about the survivor[edit]

One of the rescuers informed me about the condition the boy was found. This condition hasn't been released to the press, since the rescue worker isn't allowed to talk to the press. He and another rescuer can confirm the condition the boy was found.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdb10usa (talk • contribs) 15:12, 12 May 2010

What you are saying constitutes original research. We can only report what reliable sources have reported. Mjroots (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

scheduled flight[edit]

can someone add info on the scheduled flight, what it was supposed to do, were there no accident? 70.29.208.247 (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben van Ashout[edit]

Ruben was the survivor. I've created a redirect from that title, but I'm not convinced that an article should be created per WP:BLP1E - bearing in mind that we would also be dealing with a BLP of a minor. However, I'm open to others views on this. If there is consensus that he should have an article then one can be created. Mjroots (talk) 05:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment. His information can be adequately covered in this article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI on List of sole survivors of aviation accidents or incidents. His name is given as "Ruben van Assouw", quoting a Dutch source brabantsdagblad. A new editor has just (≈20 mins ) created a stub on him. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 08:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Damn it. I fully protected a redirect here from another spelling earlier this morning. I've redirected that one here, but I won't protect it because it would be improper, imho. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have welcomed Bartuseviciusj, advised them of this conversation, and the re-direct of Ruben van Assouw. Hope thats OK. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 09:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've fully protected the new name. Both should remain as redirects as both names have been given in reliable sources.

Past tense?[edit]

I realise the article is, as of now, about a current event, but I think it would be easier if we wrote everything in past tense. WackyWace talk 12:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Another Ip 195.240.16.66 is adding (twice) that the kid was starkers. Coming from the Netherlands(?), may be blocked user:Mdb10us (mentioned above) again. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I saw you've got them. Good job! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 13:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Total airframe hours[edit]

According to Airbus, this is 1600, not 2600. http://www.airbus.com/crisis/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.195.38 (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In which case you should be bold and fix it then! (I've done it this time, but just pitch in if you spot an error like this). Mjroots (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has been updated back to 1,600, apparently as per Issue 2 of the Above Airbus 'crisis' page. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic article[edit]

Someone who knows Arabic needs to start an article on Afriqiyah Airways Flight 771 ASAP. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean on the Arabic Wikipedia? Mjroots (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, on the Arabic Wikipedia. Judging from the interwiki links, so far no article on that one exists. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Arabic article about Afriqiyah has a section here: ar:الخطوط_الجوية_الأفريقية#.D8.AD.D9.88.D8.A7.D8.AF.D8.AB but it needs to be expanded and split into another article. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now there is an article at ar:الخطوط الجوية الأفريقية رحلة 771 - Thanks, guys! WhisperToMe (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

METAR[edit]

In the article the METAR is already reported, giving meteo conditions on the airdrome. Note that NSC in Metar means "no significant cloud" and VRB01KT gives (if I understand correctly) wind speed = 1 knot. It could be useful to add some decoded information in the article.Truman (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, complete decoding is already in the note.Truman (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'd already got that covered. Mjroots (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh nationality[edit]

The 'nationalities' box needs to be refined a bit more...it lists the nationality of one victim as 'Welsh'. However Wales is not a sovereign country and does as such not issue own passports. The victim ought to be counted among the British. ViennaUK (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'd say. There remains the question of the Finnish national reported by the BBC too, but which keeps getting removed. Mjroots (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted that Finnish 'removal' once myself, and just reverted the Flag/Nationality from England-English back to United Kingdom-British. One editor insists on the Airline issued lists as the source over the BBC etc. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South African English?[edit]

I disagree with the banner at the top of this talk page. I've been contributing in British English. If any banner is to be used, it is the {{British English}} one. 05:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Banner gone, no need at all for this to be in "South African English". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Banner back. There is indeed a need for this to be in "South African English" because the aircraft departed Johannesburg, in South Africa - Since Libya and the Netherlands are not English speaking countries, as per ENGVAR (which says "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the English of that nation.") South African English is the national variety of English used to write the Afriqiyah Airways Flight 771. "I disagree with the banner at the top of this talk page" is not a sufficient rationale to oppose the ENGVAR selection process. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The factors that tie an aircraft accident or incident to a particular language or variety of a language include:

The nationality of the airline
The points of departure and/or arrival
The nationalities of the largest groups of passengers on board
Communications released by the airline or by the accident investigation authorities

Going through the list:

The nationality of the airline was Libyan - No variety of English
The point of arrival was Tripoli - No variety. The point of departure was Johannesburg - South African English
The largest nationalities on board were Libyan, Dutch, and South African. Of them, South African corresponds to a national variety - South African English
So far Afriqiyah released communications in English, but I haven't tied them to a particular nationality yet. The communications use Commonwealth spellings

WhisperToMe (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English is the de facto second language of the Netherlands. I'd say that British English would be the variety they would be most familiar with. Mjroots2 (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that English is spoken a lot in the Netherlands, but it doesn't have a particular connection to any national variety. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is taking engvar too a pointed extreme. The article was initially written in Briteng and has international appeal so I can't see a compelling reason to mandate a version of English which will just lead to endless pointless and petty arguments over spelling. The Rambling Man (talk)<
Well, the article still has international appeal, but the subject has strong ties to South Africa due to the fact that the flight originated there. The South African government is also sending people to assist in the investigation. Of all of the English speaking countries, South Africa is the only one that has a significant connection to this accident
Airlines and accident investigation authorities consider the destination and arrival points. For instance when AF 447 happened, Air France took care to write news information not only in French and English, but also in Portuguese as well (flight originated from Brazil, and many passengers were Brazilian) - And later Air France and the BEA also started writing content in German (many Germans were aboard AF 447) - Therefore national connections have been established to Brazil and Germany in addition to France.
From my understanding, formal written South African English mostly corresponds to formal written Queens English, so there would only be, maybe, a few words of vocabulary that are different between the two. I treat South Africa articles like I do articles about the UK, and I try to use Queens English when writing about South African subjects.
WhisperToMe (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:ENGVAR. I see no strong ties to any kind of English. Granted, the plane departed from South Africa, but is that alone sufficient for a "strong tie", in my view a strong tie would need at least 3/4 out of the 5 listed above (which are not all inclusive as Whispertome states "include". Other ties, for example the nationality of the plane manufacturer (mainly French, but many English parts); the organisation that cleared the aircraft for commercial use ; the investigating agency etc. may support British Spelling.
In any case, as Whispertome stated, arrival, airline, largest group of passengers have no own English variety leaving only the unspecified communications (some kind of commonwealth) and point of departure. While based on this SA may be a slightly "stronger" tie this is not the same as a "strong" tie. Ties to any kind of English are weak in this case (i.e. 1 out of an incomplete list of 5 criteria is hardly a strong tie).
Therefore I would opt to retain existing variety. As the article was originally in British English, I think that should stay Arnoutf (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The investigating agency is the Libyan Civil Aviation Authority of Libya - The organization may choose to use any one of a particular set of varieties of English, but the country itself has no ties to any variety of English.
Airbus is a pan-European company headquartered in France. It has some facilities in England, though.
"the organisation that cleared the aircraft for commercial use" - which agency would that be?
WhisperToMe (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably something like European Aviation Safety Agency, the primary authority in Europe clearing an aircraft type for use. In any case, the strong ties to SA are based on only one thing, airport of departure; and that is pretty weak to me.
On a more pragmatic note. Many editors know British and/or US English or at least have some grasp of the differences. I doubt however whether most editors know the peculiarities of SA English, so in a case where the ties may not be that strong, I would opt for one of the more commonly used types of English. Arnoutf (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And do we want to really check the article against a checklist like [[[edit]List of South African English regionalisms|this]]? Engvar argument is tenuous at best and in practical terms, adopting SA Eng because that's where the aircraft originated will result in endless petty arguments over dialect. I propose this banner is removed once again as we appear to have a consensus against it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added the UK English template, as the consensus seems to be in that direction WhisperToMe (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passengers and crew[edit]

The Afriqiyah bulletin 6 of May 12 is in conflict with the (later) official statement of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs that 70 people of Dutch nationality are killed. And is also in conflict with other given references in the table, e.g. the Belgian news paper Le Soir says (on May 15) that the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirms that two Belgians have died in the crash. So the Afriqiyah bulletin 6 seems to be outdated. -- Crowsnest (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crowsnest: Passengers often have dual citizenships, and pax may be counted differently by different agencies. Afriqiyah accounted for all of its nationalities. The pax list should be from an airline, but with notes about passengers having dual nationalities. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, WhisperToMe. -- Crowsnest (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British victims[edit]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/7723204/Libya-plane-crash-British-victim-named.html

Is this man the victim listed as 'Zimbabwean'? Surely there should be a footnote explaining his dual-nationality? 90.194.244.28 (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbabwe born doesn't necessarily mean Zimbabwean nationality. Other sources have stated 2 British victims, so this could be a possibility. Mjroots (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch article question[edit]

This talks about the plane missing someone's house. Would this be a good article to source anything? (I don't know Dutch!) WhisperToMe (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that the house was damaged by the crashing aircraft, but the owner, his wife and five children escaped unhurt. The house and mosque are scheduled to be demolished so that the airport can be extended. Mjroots (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I added that info to the section about the flight. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More stuff[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://content1a.omroep.nl/3718da8da151e56c13147b77fa9c2d95/51775ee0/nos/docs/280213_onderzoeksrapport_afriqiyah.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6G6weiVD3 - alternate final report links- WhisperToMe (talk) 04:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DSB links[edit]

Archived so future generations can use them

English content:

Dutch index:

Dutch videos:

Dutch news releases:

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect reason for the crash[edit]

"Spatial disorientation (somatogravic perceptual illusion) during go-around" i cannot find any explanation in the accident report about "spatial disorientation". I think it's an incorrect conclusion and this should be removed. Regards Saschaporsche (talk) 02:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking at the Libyan final report? Spatial disorientation is discussed in detail in appendix 6 (Study of Spatial Disorientation) of the Libyan final report and the somatogravic illusions are discussed throughout the main report. (Somatogravic perceptual illusions cause spatial disorientation) Somatogravic perceptual illusion is listed under probable cause on page 83 which I've reproduced below:


'3.2 Probable Cause .... Based on elements from the investigation, the accident resulted from:

  • The lack of common action plan during the approach and a final approach continued below the MDA, without ground visual reference acquired.
  • The inappropriate application of flight control inputs during a go- around and on the activation of TAWS warnings
  • The lack of monitoring and controlling of the flight path.


These events can be explained by the following factors:

  • Limited CRM on approach that degraded during the missed approach. This degradation was probably amplified by numerous radio-communications during the final approach and the crew’s state of fatigue
  • Aircraft control inputs typical in the occurrence of somatogravic perceptual illusions
  • Inappropriate systematic analysis of flight data and feedback mechanism within the AFRIQIYAH Airways.
  • Non adherence to the company operation manual, SOP and standard terminology. '

a good explanation of somatogravic perceptual illusions is at http://aviationknowledge.wikidot.com/aviation:somatogravic-illusion

cheers Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your complete answer to my question! I'm surprised that the investigation committee came to this conclusion, but i will have to accept it. Regards Saschaporsche (talk) 09:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidence or bad info??[edit]

Seems odd that all three crew members, including the non-flying pilot, had exactly 516 hours on the Airbus 330 but very varied total hours. Cross Reference (talk) 14:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Afriqiyah Airways Flight 771. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Afriqiyah Airways Flight 771. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Afriqiyah Airways Flight 771. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Afriqiyah Airways Flight 771. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Afriqiyah Airways Flight 771. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Afriqiyah Airways Flight 771. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Afriqiyah Airways Flight 771. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the second person that initially survived the crash?[edit]

(Note, I'm from the US and I speak American English) So I saw that there were intially 2 survivors: Ruben Van assouw and another person (who's details are not mentioned). Any information on that initial second survivor?Tigerdude9 (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why a rewrite is needed[edit]

A lot of information in this article is still looking like it's part of a current event. I myself have done edits to help make it look less like that, but still, a lot of info still feels like it was just written recently. Post any other comments and questions below. Thank you. Tigerdude9 (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Side-stick from the crash report needed[edit]

Appendix 8 of the crash report has photos of the side-stick with the Captains priority button not fully serviceable despite the aircraft only being 9 months old. I propose that one is uploaded under wiki fair use policy.A5afety (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@A5afety: what would a picture of that particular sidestick convey that a picture of any other Airbus sidestick wouldn't? Are there any suitable pictures of sidesticks at Commons? If there are, we should use a picture from Commons. Fair use images are very much a last resort. Mjroots (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC) It was a damaged/faulty side-stick despite being almost new which helped cause the 2nd deadliest Airbus A330 crash. Of all the pictures of sides-sticks for any aircraft type, there is none showing a damaged/faulty side-stickA5afety (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC) I can't find any on commonsA5afety (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Afriqiyah_Airways_Flight_771&oldid=1213064554"