Talk:TransAsia Airways Flight 235/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Probable cause of the crash

Reason for the crash is reduction of thrust in one(or two) engine(s) in the critical phase of climb at an altitude. The pilot could not react in time and plane has fallen in STALL. Aircraft descend with about 3500-4000 fpm and speed 40-50 knots! Max high from dash-cam 500 ft. (in the bridge descend 3570 fpm, and speed 44 knots )

Source - Dash-cam footage calculations. Plane has certain dimensions and time can be derived to tenths of a second from video.

Now it is only calculation - not original research.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.65.171 (talk) 11:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting, but see Wikipedia:No original research. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments at the bottom. It is impossible to understand the thread if your responses come before what you are responding to. I do not think the calculations you describe are "routine calculations" as described at WP:CALC. We are not aircraft accident investigators and it is not our job to determine the "probable cause of the crash". ―Mandruss ☎ 13:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with MilborneOne below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enchev EG (talk • contribs) 22:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not in a hurry we can wait for reliable sources to come to a conclusion so we dont need original research or speculation, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You are right. I'm not reliable sources enough. As you see I don't write in main article only here in talk. But my information is more accurate from that is put in article - question is why? Why you put 25°3′40″N 121°37′15″E for coordinate - what is your source?! Look again Street View for coordinate that I give you 25.062866, 121.617007 or 25°03'46.3"N 121°37'01.2"E. Look to the left - do you see specific building that is two colors Black and Light? This building plane go around before hit the taxi (Dashcam video http://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2015/02/04/vo-taiwan-transasia-crash-dash-cam-video.tvbs-taiwan). I show you my source - what is yours for 25°3′40″N 121°37′15″E - can you show me?! I don't make speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enchev EG (talk • contribs) 22:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

If you have an engine failure on one side at low speed and low altitude then any turns you make should be in the direction of the 'good' engine, i.e., if the port engine fails then all turns should be to starboard. Otherwise the aeroplane will often lack the rudder authority to prevent the wing and nose dropping.

The wing on the inside of a turn has less airflow going over it and with a propeller stopped on the same side the airflow over the wing is further reduced, so at low airspeeds the 'inside' wing may stall well before the 'outer' wing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.15 (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

By the way - Turn left just before the bridge is not due to STALLING as many experts say. This is a desperate attempt by the pilot to ditch plane in this water channel 25.064577, 121.616963 or 25°03'52.5"N 121°37'01.1"E (even if it seems foolishly, having in mind its size). This video (http://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2015/02/04/vo-taiwan-transasia-crash-dash-cam-video.tvbs-taiwan) clearly shows how right Aileron is going down (more shadowed) during a turn on bridge ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aileron_roll.gif). It's almost a sure sign that the aircraft was operated by left standing pilot - i.e. captain. Copilot (standing on right place) would try to make a right turn to the main channel of the Keelung River if he managed aircraft - especially when the aircraft path is entered at an angle to the right in river.

It is interesting why the so-called experts do not look ailerons?! As I said it is clearly visible that right aileron is down - left up before and during turning left and when plane bank angle become too sharp on left, captain trying turning right and two ailerons go to neutral position before plane vanish from cam. To say that this tilting to the left due to the stalling and it is not a deliberate act by the pilot it is so stupid - because if it was due to the stalling pilot will would make an immediate reaction by turning right and RIGHT AILERON will be UP - something that would be seen more clearly in the video even from as it was down.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Enchev EG (talk • contribs) 12:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. Alakzi (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I know but when I trying to delete all my comments here they don't allow me even my comments are contrary to the rules of WIKI. This is section TALK, not WIKI ARTICLE. The rules should be slightly soft. If you think "Probable cause of the crash" is not suitable - DELETE IT - I allow you.

Latest BBC News item on crash here: [1]

As you can see I'm a couple of steps ahead of them. Look now the section "The reasons for the crew's action" in the Talk here for "wrong engine shutdown". Enchev EG (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

From that BBC source:

"Investigators are trying to establish"
"Officials are trying to work out"
"Data from the "black box" suggests"

There is no hard information there, only speculation. We will wait until something more is known. Several of us have been editing Wikipedia for years. You have been talking on this page for less than three days. I would suggest that you stop telling us how to edit Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss we realized that I do not write here to make corrections in main Article. Just for the information of the people. There speculation soon will become official source. You do not understand that the media have a key role in contemporary investigations of plane crashes, not Investigation Agencies. For example, my comments are closely monitored by the CIA and each of them is interpreted by their analyst. Then their lies are coordinated in such a way with my comments, that they do not contradict with them - before being sent to the media. I very rarely write on the Internet - for example when I write to MH370 theme in CNN, they change the news almost after every my comment. Do you want fresh example: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/06/asia/taiwan-transasia-plane-crash/

(CNN)The pilots of TransAsia Airways Flight GE235 grappled with problems with BOTH engines before the plane clipped a bridge and crashed into a river, killing dozens of people, Taiwan's Aviation Safety Council said Friday.

Now read again my comments from "The reasons for the crew's action". Basically he is made yesterday. Do you see how similarity take a shape. Wait for day or two and you will see how CNN will start my song but in slightly different version, followed by Investigation Agencies. Of course, they will never say that the cause of the crash is low-quality fuel.

Do not worry about my comments. When the case completed - they will disappear. If you want we can bet. And you will see that they will not delete by me, but someone else - which can delete even you ;)Enchev EG (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

IF YOU WANT TO TEST AM I A MADMAN YOU CAN EASILY CHECK IT OUT! DELETE ALL MY COMMENT HERE - I PERMIT YOU! Seriously - DELETE THEM ("Probable cause of the crash", "The reasons for the crew's action") I WAIT FOR THIS NOW :))Enchev EG (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with those who point out it is not proper for us to be speculating on the cause of the crash, on this page. However, it can be very helpful to all editors to discuss the advisability of referencing so-called "reliable" sources, when THEY try to speculate on the cause, well before it is determined in an official accident investigation.

We can get burned badly if we simply assume it is OK to regurgitate RS, just because they say it. IMHO, one of the weakest editing rules in Wiki, is that we can only repeat (paraphrase, quote or just summarize) what reliable sources say. Too often, that is interpreted to mean we SHOULD reference RS media just because they say something that seems to be on a notable subject.

It is rare, if ever true at all, that so-called RS media are accurate in their reporting of the facts, all of the time. To the contrary, my many years of collecting and researching popular press articles, reveals they are more likely to get it wrong, a significant amount of the time, especially when it comes to reporting on airliner accidents shortly after the time of the crash.

For example, while David Learmount often writes very informative articles about aviation accidents, he at times also just writes articles that are little more than regurgitations of press releases by very biased, political-agenda groups.

The Chicago Tribune is usually regarded as a WP:RS for supporting statements in Wikipedia. Yet, it was that newspaper that said there was one injury on the ground when UAL flt 585 crashed near Colorado Springs (the Tribune, dated March 4, 1991).

It said: "Only one person on the ground was reported injured, 8-year-old Michelle Summerson, who was standing in the doorway of her home when she was blown backward into a wall by the force of the blast. She was treated at a hospital and released."

The problem with that report, is that there was no blast. No explosion of any kind, that would have produced a pressure wave severe enough to throw a human body through the air, which was standing in a doorway at least 150 feet (if not more) from the impact site. There was no damage of any kind to any structures that were near the crash site. A sudden pressure wave strong enough to fling a human body, would have broken a lot of windows. Almost all of the plane was compacted into the crater, which was only 39 ft. wide.

That same newspaper article said that one witness looked out her apartment window and saw a female passenger frantically beating on the window of the plane, "seconds before the plane hit the ground and exploded."

Of course, many media sources were giving accolades to the pilot for choosing to crash the plane in an area that would not hurt anyone on the ground... Other newspaper articles had stories and quotes that were even more absurd.

Press reports, right after an airliner crash, are notoriously unreliable. Sensationalism, for the sake of beating the competition, seems to be the guiding motivation as to what is printed and what is not. That makes it part of our duty to discuss on this page, when it is not appropriate to add incredibly stupid reporting, which comes from sources that Wiki often regards as WP:RS. EditorASC (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. We should be judicious in our use of mainstream media sources. Only yesterday, the BBC was reporting that the right engine had not, in fact, malfunctioned. That was later proven to be a bogus claim, but I'd already foolishly added it to the article. Also, a lot of the misreporting on this event is amplified by the language barrier. Alakzi (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Journalists are trained how to fact-check, and they have access to the resources to do it. I understand that we need to know something about the reliability of our sources, but how do you suggest that we decide whether a reliable source has it right? We can't call someone in Taipei and ask for confirmation. Even if we could, we don't have the time. We are unpaid volunteers. EditorASC, it sounds like you have bought into the common misconception that Wikipedia is about truth. How can we "get burned badly"? We are not CBS News, and no head is going to roll if we get something wrong, for a short time, because we believed a reliable source (nor should one). Many of us like to pretend we're journalists, but that is NOT what we are and Wikipedia is NOT a news organization. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I am well aware of the argument that Wikipedia is not about truth, but about what so-called reliable sources have to say about a notable subject. I don't have a problem with that, PROVIDED we exercise some common sense in judging what constitutes a reliable source. I am simply saying that Wikipedia's "intergrity" can and will be injured significantly if we simply assume that we should quickly regurgitate what a source has to say, simply because we have recognized that source as being reliable in the past.

It may sound wonderfully idealistic that journalists are trained in how to check facts, before publishing, but anyone who has bothered to read what has been published by the MSM in the last few decades, can find many instances where other kinds of motivations have intruded and had a negative effect upon the laudable goal of accurate reporting.

Do you think, for instance we should have quickly reported there was an explosion that allegedly occurred when UAL 585 hit the ground, and it actually threw a human being across the room, slamming her into a wall, JUST BECAUSE the Chicago Tribune was assinine enough to actually print that? I don't think so. Doing that simply makes us look, not like a legitimate encyclopedia, but more like another Internet rag that thrives on gossip regurgitation. I think MilborneOne gave sage advice:

"Wikipedia is not in a hurry we can wait for reliable sources to come to a conclusion so we don't need original research or speculation, thanks." MilborneOne (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

EditorASC (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Like - Mjroots (talk) 11:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

For something like your explosion example, if it wasn't in NYT or WaPo too I probably would have included it with attribution. If NYT and/or WaPo reported it, too, I would include it without attribution. That would be about as far as I would care to go, and if two major newspapers get it wrong I'm not going to lose any sleep over getting it wrong, too. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Observer / "senior pilot"

@Alakzi: - I reverted your description of Hong Bing-chung as senior pilot. The Taipei Times reported that the Civil Aeronautics Administration stated that "Copilot" Hong was "an observer on the flight because he was upgrading skills acquired through operation of ATR 72-500 planes to operate the ATR72-600 aircraft". That seems to contradict the report by the Aviation Herald that Hong was an instructor. I would think that the Taipei Times is more reliable in this instance, unless you have extra, more reliable sources. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Persistent removal of table by user Mandruss

Dear wikipedians, can anyone please let me know if there is any guideline against adding a summary table with totals and subtotals of "passengers and crew" by nationality in this type of wikiarticle? I've added such table to this article's section "Passengers and crew" as IMHO clearly summarizes information without having to read the details in the corresponding section; and in a similar way to other similar wikiarticles (e.g.: TransAsia Airways Flight 222), and it was reverted (twice!) by user:Mandruss under the rationale that "it does not add information". While this is technically true, what adds is clarity; and obviously has been used in similar articles, so to me seems an arbitrary decision by this user with which I do not concur.
Can anyone please help with this, to prevent further conflict? Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Save the histrionics, this is not WP:AN/I and you are not filing a complaint against me. This is called a "content dispute", which is a routine part of Wikipedia editing. Don't have a coronary. I'll let others take it from here. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Where fatalities are limited to two nations, past practice seems to include a victim summary table, such as Nepal Airlines Flight 555 and TransAsia Airways Flight 222. It's true that the info is also available in the article text, but I lean towards keeping the victims box as a concise and easily-readable summary. WWGB (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Are you aware of any policy or guideline related to this specific editing topic? Maybe project-specific? Regards, DPdH (talk) 09:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:PROSE is the relevant guideline. There is no need to add a table with only two entries in it. It looks silly and is redundant to the text of the article. --John (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the contribution. I've checked the guideline and it refers explicitly to "lists with no content", so it doesn't seem to support your case. And the fact that the table has two "entries" (actually 2 rows with 4 columns) is no detrimental to the clarity that it intends to convey (the table's aim is to summarize, not to add new information). Regards, DPdH (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome and I am sorry you seem to have misread it. I will include a bold excerpt from the link: Articles are intended to consist primarily of prose, though they may contain lists. Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another. It is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain. Basically we have a prejudice in a non-list article towards writing in prose rather than lists. There are some things that are best suited to lists, but a table with two entries would not be in there. --John (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi is an evil layout breaker!

[copied from my user talk]―Mandruss ☎ 17:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

How does it break the layout? Alakzi (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's your version and mine.

Which is more reader-useful right next to a description of the flight? A flight path map, or a map showing the departure and scheduled destination airports?
I don't know about you, but for me your version pushes the External video box down into the Rescue and recovery section. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The flight map shouldn't be separated from its source. This is a sketch on the basis of preliminary information released on 6 Feb. Layout issues can be ironed out. Alakzi (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome to copy this over to the article's talk page for feedback from other editors, if you'd like. Alakzi (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

[end of copy from user talk]

That is NOT the map's source. It is information taken FROM its source. If we need to cite the source in the caption for the map, fine, we can easily do that, just as I did with this map. There is zero justification for moving the map down and standing all principles of good layout on their heads. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

That is NOT the map's source. It is information taken FROM its source. Yes, you know what I mean. Information that pertains to the map is found in the investigation section; in contrast, the location map is of little relevance to the invesigation. Alakzi (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The location map is also of little relevance to the description of the flight, as I said above. I can only refer others back to my opening argument, with the addition of one thing I omitted: In my version, the "External video" box, containing links to the dashcams, is right next to the description of the dashcams. Again, putting stuff next to the prose where it has the most value. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's of more relevance to 'Flight' than it is to the investigation, since the flight's route is mentioned there. Perhaps we could place it under the external video box? Or float it to the right? Alakzi (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

As you probably know, I was opposed to that map in the first place as not worth the space required in an article where image space is at a premium. This is the kind of problem you end up with when you do that. You may have to stick it where there's room for it, instead of where it would make sense in a larger article. I think it's the least important image currently in the article and warrants the least consideration. That said, what do you mean by float it to the right, exactly? How about sandboxing that for me? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I've tried it just now: it got shoved under the infobox, pushing all the other figures down. So that's a nope. This is what I'd prefer. Alakzi (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The only problem with that is that the flight path map is not next to the prose where it would have the most value to the reader, the description of the flight. Move it back up there and I'm happy. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The flight section is meant to present definitive information about the flight; it would be (is) misleading to place the map there. Alakzi (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Awaiting other opinions. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect Events in Flight Plan Map

The left and right engines appear to have been reversed in File:TransAsia 235 Map in English.png: the right engine failed, but the left one was shut off instead, as per these sources:

http://www.asc.gov.tw/main_en/docDetail.aspx?uid=318&pid=318&docid=669

http://avherald.com/h?article=48145bb3

I have commented out the picture until the error is fixed.

Kage Acheron (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

See #Map / chronology disagreement above. Alakzi (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It's been commented out again, and perhaps that's for the best until we finalize it. It's still a work in progress. Above thread continues~~, no need to add more here~~. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

By the way Kage Acheron the engine numbers isn't reversed for sure as I copied the text directly from the official report. PhilipXD 10:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me quote the official report for you PhilipXD: "After 5 seconds, (1052:38.3), master warning sounded in the cockpit associated with right engine(2) flame out procedure message on display unit. The crew called it out. At 1053:04.0 the recorded parameters indicated that the left engine power lever(1) was progressively retarded to flight idle. At 1053:24, the left engine condition lever(1) was set to fuel shutoff position resulting in left engine(1) shutdown". Unambiguous that the right engine alarm sounded, but the left engine was shut off instead.

In addition, the first image that you uploaded has the engines correct (right failed, cutting power to left. Then the error was made in your third revision, and has been wrong ever since.

By the way I find it rather ironic that we are arguing over which engine was faulty, considering the cause of this crash. Kage Acheron (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit: I just looked at the newest version of the map, thanks for fixing the engine identities. Kage Acheron (talk) 10:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It's clear we're working from different sources and this is rapidly turning into a mess. For example, the information Alakzi provided above says "10:52:42 — Power to the left engine is reduced". Per your information, that occurred 22 seconds later at 10:53:04. Twenty-two seconds is a big difference for a flight that lasted about three minutes. I'm not familiar with the available sources, but clearly at least you and Alakzi could work together to decide which source(s) to include and resolve discrepancies. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are discrepancies between the ASC presentation and press release. If you look at the FDR graphic, you'll see that power to the left engine was reduced four times. The first time it was reduced only slightly. Alakzi (talk) 11:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so "power reduced" and then engine idled 22 seconds later. So the question is whether to merge sources, including both items, or to choose one source and ignore the other. Is that a fair assessment of the question? ―Mandruss ☎ 11:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Where does it say that it was idled? Alakzi (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Above. "At 1053:04.0 the recorded parameters indicated that the left engine power lever(1) was progressively retarded to flight idle." ―Mandruss ☎ 11:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

But it wasn't at idle at 10:53:04. Alakzi (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Huh? ―Mandruss ☎ 11:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

What they meant to say is that, at 10:53:04, the power level began being progressively retarded. Power to the left engine was reduced twice more after that point. Alakzi (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I see, thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Map / chronology disagreement

I hope we can all agree that User:Philipxd's flight path map is an improvement. But it also introduces a problem, as there are significant discrepancies between it and the "sequence of events". I don't think it would be very encyclopedic to leave that unresolved, and we need to decide how to resolve it. I assume Philipxd is going to remove the Chinese language characters (no response from him yet), so a solution could include other changes to the map.

Most of the discrepancies are in times, and one option would be to remove the times from the map.

The map also shows "right engine powered off" that is not in the "sequence of events" or anywhere in the article for that matter.

What thinketh thee? ―Mandruss ☎ 10:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

So if the times are wrong how do we know that the markers/labels are placed correctly on the map? Alakzi (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

We don't, although I think we can trust that they're close and in the right sequence. That's probably the best we'll ever be able to do, if we keep the labels, and I could live with that. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

A similar map is provided by the investigators on p. 28 here that we could replicate. Alakzi (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I've asked the original uploader of the Chinese map to upload a map with no labels so I could translate it into English, also the original record does say that the right engine powered off dunno why it isn't shown in this article (which is the main reason people say the pilots might accidentally turned off the wrong engine), as for the time, I didn't add them so Im not sure about it. PhilipXD 11:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok I've got the map and the right times, I'll update the map. PhilipXD 12:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Philipxd: That's progress. However...

"Crew receives take-off clearance" should be at the left end of the line. This occurs just before the start of the take-off roll.
"receives" is misspelled. "take-off" should be hyphenated.
"Master Warning" should be "Master warning".
I don't know what "Crew mentions about retrieving left engine" means. There is nothing at that time in the sequence of events.
Mayday times disagree by one second, sequence of events says 10:53:34.
"Crew calls for restarting engine" should be "Crew calls for restarting left engine". ―Mandruss ☎ 13:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, why not base this on the official map? There's quite a lot wrong with this one. Alakzi (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Fine with me, if Philipxd is up to it. I would suggest that we agree on the exact text of labels here first, so that it might be finished in the first attempt. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Sry for the typo-- Well the time, words are based on the official report (the official report didn't state which engine the pilots are restarting), from the site Alakzi linked above, so Im pretty sure its the timeline below is wrong not the map. PhilipXD 14:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Philipxd: Did you see Alakzi's link and comments about the "official map" above? What do you think about starting over and using it for a basis? If you agree, let's nail down the exact text for each label before you proceed. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit the following as you see fit:

10:52:38 — Right engine failure alert sounds; master warning sounds for 3s
10:52:42 — Power to the left engine is reduced
10:53:10 — Stall warning sounds for 18s
10:53:24 — Left engine is shut off
10:53:56 — Stall warning sounds for 4s
10:54:06 — Stall warning sounds for 4s
10:54:13 — Stall warning sounds for 8s
10:54:20 — Left engine is restarted
10:54:24 — Stall warning sounds for 10s
10:54:36 — Impact

Alakzi (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The image is commented out pending completion of work on it. Here is a link to the file page.

First, the current map is cluttered. That's not only a problem of aesthetics, but a lot of the underlying map is obscured by labels. I would suggest moving the label text to a numbered list to the right of the map (in the same image file). Then put corresponding marker numbers in the map itself. The marker numbers should be no larger than is necessary for readability at full image size. This technique would not only eliminate a lot of clutter, but would also allow for more points to be included. It would also allow for events that are included in the list but not shown on the map; obviously the numbers would be omitted for those items as unnecessary.

The marker for the take-off clearance needs to be as far left as possible on the blue line, because that event occurred just before the start of the take-off roll. There should be no blue to the left of that marker. Ideally, the map would extend slightly to the left of the beginning of the runway, but I understand if that's not possible because that's not included in the original image.

Omit "GE235 Flight Path" as unnecessary.

Here is my suggested list, obviously open to further discussion and revision. This is only six markers, one fewer than in the current map, but there is room to add up to four or five more as desired. And remember, one of the things we're discussing is the exact label text, not simply the events that they represent. If you think it should say "18 seconds" instead of "18s", now is the time to say so, not after the image has been produced with "18s". Philipxd could become weary of all these changes at any time!

10:51:13 — Take-off clearance
10:52:38 — Right engine failure alert sounds
10:52:42 — Power to the left engine is reduced
10:53:10 — Stall warning sounds for 18s
10:53:24 — Left engine is shut off
10:53:56 — Stall warning sounds for 4s
10:54:06 — Stall warning sounds for 4s
10:54:13 — Stall warning sounds for 8s
10:54:20 — Left engine is restarted
10:54:24 — Stall warning sounds for 10s
10:54:36 — Impact

―Mandruss ☎ 09:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Like this? File:TransAsia 235 Map in English.png PhilipXD 10:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Um, no, but I would suggest holding off on any image changes until we finish this discussion. You are welcome to participate in the discussion, obviously, since you're the mapmaker. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Philipxd: If you like, you could spend some time experimenting with how to add the list on the right and the marker numbers, on your computer, but there is no need to upload that until we finish here. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

What -- I changed the labels to what you wrote above whats wrong. Making it a list is too complicated and you can just add annotions in the article beside the image PhilipXD 10:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

How about, I upload an image with just numbers and the arrows, and you guys can add the map to the investigation section enlarged with annotions beside it that so anyone can change it. PhilipXD 10:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I strongly feel that the map should be in the Flight section. That question is under discussion here and there has been no discussion except for me and Alakzi. If "making it a list is too complicated", I'm sure we can get you some help in that area. We have graphics experts, probably well familiar with the very software you're using. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Or, we could find someone to make those changes to the image. Either way, the list format does not present insurmountable technical problems. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Kegworth

Could we hold off on including this as a see also, until more details are firmly established? It may well be that this accident has similarities with that crash, but there should be no rush to judgement. --John (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

On reflection, I am going to completely remove the See also section. We should not be making comparisons like this until there is a settled narrative for what happened. I have read this talk page and I do not see any consensus for any of these items. --John (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this action. Alakzi (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Reliable sources (such as the BBC) are reporting that a fully functioning engine was shut down after the other lost power. That is identical to what happened at Kegworth. Both Kegworth and the previous TransAsia crash should be there in a "see also" section. Other accidents can be discussed as to their suitability for inclusion. Mjroots (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Are the reliable sources explicitly making this comparison? --John (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Reuters are, and they meet RS. Mjroots (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I would still rather hold off until a serious aviation source compares the two or (preferably) gives us a confident cause. I still think this is premature. If we were to have it, I would prefer it to be in the body of the article, with the source as a ref, than in some lame See also section. --John (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we should at least have the previous transasia crash - it seems odd not to. Secretlondon (talk) 11:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the lead and See also is for things which aren't otherwise mentioned. --John (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

FORUM and thread removal

This incident is have nothing common with Kegworth. The pilots of flight 235 are not wrong when they trying to restart the Left Engine. As I said in above section reason for there decision is "Compressor surge" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFLqOtlyyqI and it has be reported even from survivals on the plane http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/06/asia/taiwan-transasia-plane-crash/index.html which because of the noise from "surge" moved to the right of the plane. Is there a pilots or people who understand from airplanes at all?! Why Wiki don't use moderators with some knowledge in the field?! And you talk to me that I'M MAKING SPECULATIONS?! I have a feeling that soon WIKI will become the twin brother of twitter where ignorant idiots with monkey vocabulary will REWIK mindless 140 signs articles. WTF?! Admin or moderator - as they call you here - DELETE ALL MY SECTIONS, PLEASE "Probable cause of the crash", "The reasons for the crew's action" and "Compressor surge" - I want to know whether CIA will react to this action of yours. I'm serious. I tried deleting this sections but someone of you has them restored. Now try you - good luck. Enchev EG (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Enchev EG:, as you've been told before, talk page comments are not removed without good reason. That you want them removed is not a good reason to remove them. it's all to do with the terms and conditions that you edit Wikipedia under. Mjroots (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

They could be removed as a courtesy (where others haven't replied). Alakzi (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh for Pete's sake. I fail to see why removal would be so important to the user. But how about this. I'll set up archive sometime today (does 10 days sound about right?). Then if someone has that one-click-archiver thingy, they can archive whatever the user wants removed. Or we can just leave those threads alone for 10 days and it will happen automatically. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you see why it is important to them. No harm will be done by removing their speculation, so why hesitate? Alakzi (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Per Mjroots. There is a strong preference for archival over removal. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

(Btw, wanting "to know whether CIA will react to this action of yours" is not a good reason for removal. I hope we can agree on that.)―Mandruss ☎ 01:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Archive has been added, 10 days. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking at User:Technical_13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver, it seems each page has to be configured to support OneClickArchiver, I wasn't aware of that. That seems excessive for this purpose, so I suggest waiting for automatic archival of the subject threads. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

User WWGB has reduced the archive age to 5 days. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Compensation offer

TransAsia has offered lump sum compensation, as reported here. I think something about the legal/financial impact should be included, my only question is whether it would be premature to include this now, since we don't know how many families will accept the offer. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Your source says that not all families have accepted it, so we could simply say the same. Alakzi (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, and should that be in Reactions or a new section about legal/financial impact? If the latter, what should be the section heading? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a new "Aftermath" section? The paragraph about pilot type-checking could be moved there too. Alakzi (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Done ―Mandruss ☎ 02:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

"had been manually shut off by the pilots"

I changed this to "one of the pilots", as it seems more likely that only one pilot would do this. But this was reverted with the edit summary "gives the impression one of them acted without the other's consent; who did actually flip the switch is not important". I disagree, on both counts. But I don't see any support for the statement, however it's written, in the SCMP source given. And I don't see the quote there either. Any views? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Either we used a different source that's been accidentally removed, or the article has been updated in-place. I know this because I was the one to rephrase that sentence. You're welcome to disagree "on both counts", but you do actually need to explain why. Alakzi (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Saying "one of the pilots" is a simple statement that does not ascribe, or imply, any kind of blame. Depending on the analysis of the flight recorders, it might be possible to determine which pilot shut down the engine and possibly why. But it's too early to say categorically that it "is not important". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Unless CRM broke down spectacularly, of which we have no indication, nobody other than the captain would've instructed an engine shut down. To say that "one of the pilots" did it would, indeed, imply a CRM failure. Alakzi (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You now seem to be saying that the description should read "shut off by the pilot", otherwise we are ascribing some kind of blame? I'm very surprised that you think that. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that. There's an engine shut down checklist they'd have run through together. You don't just cut the fuel to the engine. Alakzi (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

They may have run through the checklist properly. They may not have had time. They at least knew they had a flame out. In times of panic it is perfectly possible for a pilot to "just cut the fuel to the engine." I'm suggesting that it's extremely unlikely the physical action of shutting down any engine was made by both pilots. I think it would be easier just to say "had been manually shut down". It might be better to use as a source that one that I added but you deleted? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It is possible, but it's also not the expectation. Unless we know that they didn't follow procedure, there's no sense in saying that one of them did it. Alakzi (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I think what we have now is a safer wording. And it's now fully supported with sources. Thanks for doing that. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Alakzi (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Sensational drivel in news articles

In support of my contention that much of the early reporting by so-called "reliable sources" frequently contains sensationalist, idiotic drivel, which is obviously designed to attract attention and beat the competition, AND that we should not repeat such garbage in Wikipedia articles: Examples from USA Today and Reuters:

"when it lurched nose-up between buildings"

"They were still trying to save this aircraft until the last minute," Taiwanese media quoted unidentified prosecutors involved in the crash investigation as saying.

"Causes [for the flameout] could include a lack of fuel or being struck by volcanic ash, a bird or some other object."

"The pilot of a doomed TransAsia plane, hailed as a hero for his actions in the final moments before a crash that killed 35 people, still had his hands on the controls when his body was found, media reported on Friday. [changed from previous terminology used by Reutures of "joystick."]

"The pilot, identified by TransAsia as 42-year-old Liao Chien-tsung, has been praised by Taipei's mayor for steering the plane between apartment blocks and commercial buildings before ditching the stalled aircraft in a river." [A "ditching" is a planned landing on water, by a pilot who still has control of the aircraft. The plane crashed into the water, upside down, precisely because all control had been lost.]

"'They were still trying to save this aircraft until the last minute,' Taiwanese media quoted unidentified prosecutors involved in the crash investigation as saying."

Also included is the alleged story about a surviving flight attendant, that SHOULD HAVE BEEN on the previous TransAsia Airways flight 222, that crashed 7 months earlier. It is alleged she told that story to another newspaper, but no way to verify either the accuracy of her claim, nor the "fact" that she said it. I want to remove that statement, on the grounds that it is sensationalist crap, which is not notable and has no relevance to this crash. Would anyone object if I remove it? EditorASC (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Informing the reader about possible causes for a flameout is a legitimate and useful function for the media, not sensationalism. That is not to say that we should include it, necessarily. "Lurched nose-up" is just ridiculous nonsense, since airplanes don't lurch. Bad writing is not sensationalism. Anyway, I'm not clear as to your point, since no one has proposed including most of the above. Let's talk about specifics, not editing philosophy. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Re the flight attendant thing, it has been removed by Alakzi. It would be sensationalistic to say "In a weird and bizarre twist of fate...". Since there was no way to verify it, it could have been left in as: "The same flight attendant said she was scheduled to be on TransAsia Airways Flight 222, TransAsia's previous fatal accident, but did not board the plane due to a shift change." The significance is very debatable, and I would probably oppose it on that basis, but I wouldn't call it sensationalism. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't calling it sensationalism; I was calling it uncorroborated trivia. Sensationalist was the bit about how the pilots were still clutching on to the controls, and their legs were broken. Are we supposed to conduct an armchair autopsy with that information? Alakzi (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

And I wasn't saying you did. I was addressing the OP whose section title is about "sensational drivel" and who says nothing about anything resembling "uncorroborated trivia" (which is very much like "the significance is very debatable"). I'd say you and I are on the same page here. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh all right, sorry for the confusion. Alakzi (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: "ditching". I think the dismissive comment that " The plane crashed into the water, upside down, precisely because all control had been lost" is extremely unfair. The pilot may well have steered the aircraft away from buildings to avoid the risk of further casualties. He may even have steered it towards the river. It seems unlikely we will ever know, but to describe this as "sensational drivel" really does seem unnecessarily harsh. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

"extremely unfair?" The alternative is to conclude that the pilot still had control, but that he was so incompetent that he failed to keep the plane right-side-up, while deliberately ditching. Whether or not the pilot deliberately steered the plane away from buildings, is beside the point. If he still had control (the wings had not stalled), then he would have kept the plane upright, with wings level to the water. If THAT had happened, then it would have been proper to describe it as a "ditching."

My point was that kind of writing demonstrates how INCOMPETENT are the WRITERS of such articles, because crashing upside down indicates all control had been lost and the only valid nomenclature is "crash," not "ditching." Just as incompetent as the writer who suggested one possible cause of the flameout was volcanic ash.

As I have mentioned before, I think one of the significant weaknesses in Wikipedia's "anyone-can-edit" policy is that too often so-called "reliable" sources are regurgitated without hesitation, simply because the company that published the article has been deemed to be WP:RS in past articles. The result is that many times Wiki articles include sensationalist crap which is not notable or relevant and certainly not encyclopedic.

I am simply urging us to think a little about how the source article is written -- the factual claims made and the specific nomenclature used -- so we can better understand how competent/professional the writers of a specific article may be on the subject of aviation accidents. Don't assume whatever they say is valid WP:RS, just because other articles have been used as valid RS citations. Be especially wary if the article lauds the pilots as heroes because they steered the plane to crash where it wouldn't hurt those on the ground. That kind of unbridled sensationalist speculation has been repeated time and again, in the first few days after many airliner crashes and is almost always proved wrong, when the final investigation reports are released.

Wikipedia's integrity could be improved significantly, if we all would take some time to judge the competence of article writers, before we decide to use their statements in Wikipedia. EditorASC (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not condoning adding sensationalist speculation from sources that are not WP:RS. But in that one instance I found your assumptions as unfair as those of some of the "drivel" writers. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC) p.s. I think there may be a "control gradient" in the final moments of an aircraft crash.

This data from FDR are FAKE!

This data from FDR do not correspond to the real FDR data that can be gathered from REAL PLANE PERFORMANCE. They are totally FAKE!

http://i.stack.imgur.com/AYVsH.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enchev EG (talk • contribs) 09:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

For stuff like this, the investigation agency is the source to be used. Does the website you quote pass WP:RS? I would be sceptical at best on that question. Mjroots (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

FAKE? You base your claim on that one jpg link, that has no source for the alleged "data" shown there? What on earth do you mean by "real FDR data?"

The best source of "REAL PLANE PERFORMANCE" is the Flight Data Recorder (FDR), along with data saved on removable memory cards from Flight Data Interface Management Units (FDIMUs), which are part of Mandatory Data Acquisition and Recording systems known as "Digital Flight Data Acquisition Units (DFDAUs)."

They are integrated monitoring/recording systems which work in conjunction with the FDR and are for the purpose of regular analyzing of the performance of engines and other critical systems. They used to save the data on cassette tapes, but nowadays they use removable PCMCIA cards, similar to those found in digital cameras.

There are no other sources available, which can measure/record a multitude of actual aircraft performance parameters/data, as precisely as those integrated systems. Those are the sources that will be used in all official accident investigations, whenever the actual recording units have been salvaged, following an accident. EditorASC (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Enchev EG has been blocked for a while due to using this page as a forum so please do not encourage discussion not related to improving the article, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about his being blocked. I am mystified, however, how the comments from Mjroots (talk) and myself -- which clearly refuted absurd info posted about what constitutes valid WP:RS sources of actual flight data -- constitutes "discussion not related to improving the article."

If rejecting the use of sources by other editors -- which clearly ARE NOT WP:RS, isn't a valid subject for this talk page, then what is?

It seems to me that remaining silent and allowing such absurd statements -- which supported IGNORING valid WP:RS flight profile data that is now being released by official accident investigators -- to stand without counter information that supports Wiki RS rules -- would be encouraging more of that kind of wild, absurd and improper commentary. EditorASC (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Tend to agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

My comment were just to discourage replying to Enchev EGs forum type posts, that doesnt remove your right to refute them but it doesnt really help improve the article. If nobody else had commented it is likely that the original post would have been removed. MilborneOne (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Which is exactly what the poster wants. The data may be incredible (as in hard to belive it is true when it is true), but it certainly isn't fake. There's only one source we should accept for stuff like this - the investigators. Mjroots (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The editor was warned multiple times about misuse of this page, and they continued anyway. There was zero chance of their viewpoints having any effect on the article, so there was no need to respond to them. The appropriate response, blocked or not, was none at all. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Both were captains

@Mandruss: From Taiwan crash: Hero pilot was Kiwi citizen (ref 18):

Mr So said Mr Lau was a flight captain and was on leave when he got called in to take the co-pilot shift of the TransAsia flight to Kinmen Island.

Alakzi (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is a navbox "aviation lists" relevant here?

Consensus is not to retain it on the page at the current time. Mdann52 (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I had removed navbox {{aviation lists}} from this and similar articles about disasters, because WP:NAV clear says, only articles listed on a navigation template has the template placed on its page. But my edits were reverted. Is it a correct tranclusion of this navbox here? 46.200.35.170 (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You were quite right, that navbox has no business here. Thank you for drawing this to our attention. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

[Update] I see from the article history that other Project members disagree with me. Time will tell. Thanks again, anyway. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:NAV is only an essay and holds no policy or guidance weight. We have a long standing consensus to use this nav box on all aviation-releated articles because it replaces long lists of "see also" subjects and provides consistent linking to main articles. - Ahunt (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:NAVBOX: "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional". Alakzi (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Previous consensus is that the template is used on aviation articles in place of see also entries so an issue that effects thousands of pages, nothing in policy that says it has to include a link to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I support the removal of this navbox from most articles as it's unlikely (IMO) that readers will want to navigate from an article such as this to a list so this navbox just adds to the clutter at the bottom of the page. Would those who support this article having a "Lists related to aviation" navbox also support it having a "Lists related to Taiwan" navbox (and for an incident such as hijacking a "Lists related to crime" navbox)? (if not, why not?) Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide/Layout_(Aircraft)#Navboxes, would need to be changed if we are to remove the use of this navbox from aircraft articles (but that's getting a bit off the topic of this discussion). DexDor^(talk) 22:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Removing the navbox will just move the links to the see also so hardly likely to change clutter at the bottom of article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree. I can see only one relevant list in there to include in a See Also section, the List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft. Not only would that reduce bandwidth, it would be visible. IMHO burying it somewhere in a collapsed template of almost entirely irrelevant schmuck is grossly unhelpful. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be kept. Removing it would clutter up the page. Rider ranger47 ^Talk 00:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Can somebody please quantify this alleged "clutter"? Exactly which of those lists are relevant to an article about this particular air accident? I have suggested that only one is, and by no stretch can that be described as "clutter". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I think they should be removed personally. Looks too cluttered down there with them in place. (Judging from old versions; the navboxes have been removed since the start of this discussion). GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Please note that a request for comment about the general use of the template has been raised at Template talk:Aviation lists#RfC: Should this navbox be removed from non-mentioned articles.3F. MilborneOne (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Remove If it doesn't link here directly, then there's no need for it, per the point of nav-boxes. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.