Jump to content

Talk:Flydubai Flight 981: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 147: Line 147:
There was no sources mentioned in the first post. Talk pages are for discussing/improving the article, not for general discussion about the subject...read the policy [[WP:NOTFORUM]]. [[User:AHeneen|AHeneen]] ([[User talk:AHeneen|talk]]) 01:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
There was no sources mentioned in the first post. Talk pages are for discussing/improving the article, not for general discussion about the subject...read the policy [[WP:NOTFORUM]]. [[User:AHeneen|AHeneen]] ([[User talk:AHeneen|talk]]) 01:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
{{collapse bottom}}
:They already heard the CVR and they are silent. This mean only one thing: probably Aristos Sokratous is the new Andreas Lubitz. What they heard on CVR are SCREAMS of frightened passengers - and again - knocking on the front door of the cockpit. This is what happens when no one takes a lesson from previous incidents. The flight lasted too long it is logical that Alejandro Cruz Álava can go to the toiled exactly in the moment when plane reject landing and gaining altitude again.

Revision as of 10:02, 23 March 2016

Czech Airlines divert

This is FlightRadar24 data of Czech Airlines flight OK914 / CSA914 from Prague to Rostov on 18 March 2016, which diverted to Krasnodar.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ok914/#9232f55 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.143.107.35 (talk) 09:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance ? MilborneOne (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None, it was a different day. Mjroots (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It arrived to Rostov shortly after midnight, meaning in the early hours of 19 March 2016 local time. It diverted to Krasnodar just a few hours before FlyDubai crashed. Relevance: ABSOLUTE. The pilots decided not to land in Rostov due to weather conditions. Had the pilots of FlyDubai made the same decision a few hours later, the crash would not have happened.
You are wrong because the crash did not occur due to wind, as seen from the video, ATC audio and Flightradar24. The aircraft was at 4000 feet when the incident occurred, the wind was not even a contributing cause. It made two landing attempts which is absolutely a reasonable decision in these wind conditions. Aeroflot's flight 1166 made three attempts before diverting. FlyDubai only made two. It would probably consider diverting to Krasnodar after the second go-around, or waiting in a holding pattern for some more time. The Czech flight is irrelevant because it did not attempt landing, unlike the Aeroflot flight which tried 3 times, and which we mention in the article. The Czech flight was merely waiting in the holding pattern and did not even descend to pattern altitude. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 11:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which is relevant. Because they correctly assessed the situation and did not even attempt to land in these conditions. This is what FlyDubai pilots should have done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.143.107.35 (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there was nothing wrong with the conditions at 4000 feet above ground, and Aeroflot made 3 successful go-arounds. So an aircraft that diverted due to the wind is irrelevant. It is absolutely a normal operating procedure to land with these wind conditions. The plane did not crash due to the wind at the airport. It's just as if the Czech plane would divert because of a medical emergency: irrelevant to this crash. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, if reliable sources indicate the Czech flight is related to the accident then we can report it, we cant make stuff up. MilborneOne (talk) 11:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I was just pointing to reliable data (FlightRadar24) showing the presence of another plane in the area, which diverted to Krasnodar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.143.107.35 (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute majority of sources only report the Aeroflot flight which made 3 attempts and which is a normal operating procedure. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to correct myself. The FlyDubai crash occurred at 01:41 UTC, which was exactly when the Czech Airline flight was arriving to the area and descending to 12,000f. The holding pattern of CSA flight took place shortly after the crash. So, the Czech Airlines flight is not relevant. My apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.143.107.35 (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

L:There is a relevance because hours apart with same weather one was safely dierted.Lihaas (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are presuming the cause of the accident was the weather, again it is not for us to jump to conclusions. MilborneOne (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Named pilot was Cypriot, not Greek

See [1], though it doesn't say he was the captain. 62.228.107.188 (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the TV aso mentioned the oddity. Just caught the name, I guess.Lihaas (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
EMERCOM have published the nationalities of everybody onboard here. 62.228.107.188 (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, user 62.228.107.188, you are very good at pointing out to the latest and very important development of this story. Daniel (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flight Aware tracking log

I am unsure how this could best be used for this article, however her is a link to the FlightAware flight tracking log for the subject: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/FDB981/history/20160318/1745Z/OMDB/URRR/tracklog .--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

British English

It's safe to say by this point that this article uses British English (localised, 24-hr. time, etc.), so I've added the British English banner to the top of this page. If anyone disagrees, please leave a comment here so that consensus may be established. Cheers! Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 22:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree , but would you be so kind check the text of this article from time to time, to ensure that its Britishness is not corrupted? :-) Daniel (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but if it's copyedited at some point, the form of English might change depending on the whims of the copyeditor. I've seen it happen before, either from British to American or American to British. The main thing to ensure is conformity throughout the article. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 22:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes non-native English speakers keep different input sources, they might not be conscious of that :-) --TerrainAhead ×TALK× 23:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flydubai or FlyDubai?

I noticed that BBC World Service, New York Times Washington Post, Associated Press, Los-Angeles Times and other reputable sources, cited in this article, all spell the airline's name as FlyDubai. So I suggest to use this spelling of the airline's name throughout this article. If anyone disagrees, please leave a comment here so that consensus may be established. Thank you. Daniel (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point; however, the Wikipedia article for the airline has the spelling as "Flydubai", and so does the company's official website. My opinion is that either spelling is proper, so you should edit as you see fit. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 23:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The airline appears to describe itself as "flydubai", not "Flydubai" or "FlyDubai". A {{Lowercase title}} template may therefore be appropriate for both this article and the flydubai article. Bahnfrend (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That template was added when the article was created but it kept getting removed multiple times by trolls..its actually 'flydubai' (no caps whatsoever)...--Stemoc 02:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The spelling of the phrase "flydubai Flight 981" seems counterintuitive to English spellers, but a case can be made that it is the proper spelling. Either Way, we should establish a consensus here.– Gilliam (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to Manual of Style/Capital letters/Trademarks, "for trademarks, editors should ... use the style that most closely resembles standard English text formatting and capitalization rules. For trademarks that are given in mixed or non-capitalization by their owners (such as adidas), follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules for proper names (in this case, Adidas)." Daniel (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
... and it then goes on to say "The mixed or non-capitalized formatting should be mentioned in the article lead ..." A similar comment is made in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks#Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter: "Conventionally, articles usually give the normal English spelling in the lead, followed by a note such as "(stylized as ...)" with the stylized version ..." But neither this article nor the flydubai article does either of these things. And I might add that I think this style rule is both inappropriate and discriminatory - why are we allowed to use "IBM" instead of "Ibm", and "Häagen-Dazs" instead of "Hagen-Daz", but not "flydubai" instead of "Flydubai"? Bahnfrend (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Despite your disagreement with this Wikipedia policy, are you ready to comply with it? Daniel (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not advocating non compliance. But I am saying that the policy is inappropriate, and that in any case this article doesn't comply with the style guide. Bahnfrend (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Manual of Style does not demand that a special notice about the peculiarities of the trademarks' spelling, should be placed in the lead of all articles, where this trademark is mentioned. I agree, that it is appropriate to point out in the Flydubai article itself, that this airline prefers to spell its name with a lowercase letter at the beginning, but such special notice is absolutely irrelevant in this article about the air crash. Daniel (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the adidas/Adidas example most closely resembles this situation and that we should begin the word with a capital letter. However, I don't think it's appropriate to add a capital in the middle of the word because many trademarks are compound words that don't capitalize the second word within the compound word. Thus, I think that "Flydubai" should be used, not "flydubai" or "FlyDubai". AHeneen (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, just like airberlin :) --TerrainAhead ×TALK× 00:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree and withdraw my suggestion to use FlyDubai, instead of Flydubai. Daniel (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New information

Aviation experts among Wikipedians might probably be interested in the following information which was published recently:

Daniel (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore the news about "fire on board" before the crash which is seen by the cameras

Thе bright light that is visible from the cameras before crash is only LANDING LIGHTS that are very powerful and camera distort this bright light to looking as "the plane is on fire". Only information that can be derives from this cameras is that it hit the ground with first left tail section, left wing and nose up (landing lights are directed to the cameras from right) with speed between 18000-24000 feet per minute vertical speed (about 0.3 sec on the cameras for 30-40 meters distance, i.e. 90-120 m/s or about 18000-24000 fpm ). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBJ32eVWVNc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.65.171 (talk) 10:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree This is just an example of sensationalism, so typical for tabloids. Daniel (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but we have the policy Wikipedia:No original research, so we can't say this unless a reliable source says so. AHeneen (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, it's not any sort of lights. It's a missile falling. Passenger flights don't fly at 60 degree angles and don't land at 60 degrees either, do they? Russians likely accidentally shot that plane somewhere else and made a cover-up. That would explain a lot of things like damaged black boxes. You didn't have damaged black boxes even on MH17 which Russian Buk missile shot. And they say this plane was nearly empty on fuel before impact. And the only video is from some place far far away. No cameras in the airport? Seriously? First bad landing of Flydubai? No, that one is yet to happen. Ibmua (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

short of the runway?

The article currently says "The aircraft crashed about 250m (800ft) short of the runway". If the landing had already been aborted, is "short of the runway" the correct term? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It actually crashed about 250m (800ft) from the edge of the runway, slightly to the left of it, which can be seen now from the photo of the crash location. Thank you for noticing it. Daniel (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"before the runway threshold" would work. AHeneen (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
it was after the threshold, not before. Daniel (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that now. When I made my comment, I was replying to the "short of the runway" statement in the first post. AHeneen (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since it fall from the sky, I would say it doesn't matter at what point of the runway. Wykx (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Runways are long. This particular runway is 2,500 metres (8,200 ft), so I think it's useful to point out the location on the runway. AHeneen (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flydubai's first crash

I don't feel like this trivia belongs in the introduction. Is there a better place for it in the article? 62.228.200.32 (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to WP:LEAD, the lead section should explain the notability of the article's subject. I think, that is why this piece of information was placed here. This crash was the only one for an airline with an excellent safety record. Daniel (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
? A passenger aircraft crash is notable irrespective of who the operator is. 62.228.200.32 (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There were a lot of crashes in the history and many of them do not have its own Wikipedia article. If you take a look on other air crash articles, you will notice, that it is always mentioned in the lead section if, i.e., the crash was the dealiest in history, or in this country, or in this airline, or the only crash of this type of aircraft, etc. Daniel (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No person is gonna read the first paragraph, where it says both plane and occupants disintegrated, and wonder, 'hey, why is this notable?', only to be enlightened by the revelation that this was the first Flydubai crash. 62.228.200.32 (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We can't predict what influences the air crash would make on the airline and yet to give a conclusion. This might be the most notable thing we have about the airline so far. After knowing the causes, we could add more details to it. Let's just wait :-) --TerrainAhead ×TALK× 20:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I guess. 62.228.200.32 (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flight path

Though the map was removed as a copyvio (the map layer was Google's), the last few moments of the flight can be mapped from public ADS-B data released by Flightradar24. 62.228.200.32 (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Better aircraft photo?

Searching through the commons and found 2 other photos of A6-FDN. These other photos show the 738 on final approach from an angle presenting the front of the aircraft, rather than the back. Are these better photos, or is the current one fine? A340swazzen (talk) 06:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current one is fine. Daniel (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we put a photo of the crash site in the information box and put the aircraft photo we have now by the description of the aircraft?--TerrainAhead ×TALK× 17:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it's necessary. According to the template, the image provided in this infobox should be a "picture of the accident or incident or its aftermath, or, if involving a single aircraft, that aircraft". So this image is perfectly OK. Daniel (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree You're right. The crash was so bad that the aircraft was totally smashed into small pieces :( Nobody is going to recognise the aircraft from those photos... --TerrainAhead ×TALK× 22:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

off the record

Comment Discussion speculating putting forth personal opinion about cause of crash hidden, per WP:NOTFORUM & WP:SYNTHESIS.

Do you want to know the reason for the crash? It is simple and clear.

Failure of Vertical Speed Indicator and Air Speed Indicator.

These devices are very sensitive to air pressure changes and vibration due to turbulence. In such weather conditions the likelihood that these devices be damaged and begin to report false data is very high. When the stall alarm is activated on 4,000 feet high in such condition, no one pilot can respond adequately. The first reaction will always be - REDUCE ENGINE POWER AND NOSE DOWN, no matter how experience are you. The low height and low response time that you think you have - determine your immediate and unthinking STALL RECOVERY MANEUVER. To the end these people have trusted devices and thinking that they are in Stall when they are not - and for this reason impact was in so high speed. There was no mechanical or electric problems. A mechanical problem with so cruel consequences would be only disintegration of rear part of the plane in the air. Severe electric problem will bring turn off the landing lights. The only other explanation except VSI-ASI misleading will be SUICIDE.

As you can see all kinds of lies have been written in the media about this case but truth like this one nobody even mentions it. Ask yourself "why?". Perhaps because it is much easier to blame the pilots or weather than aircraft manufacturers which using exclusively outdated technology as VSI,ASI devices along with high-tech computers and they think there is no problem.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.65.171 (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speculate. You must understand one simple thing that free fall human body from 4000 feet reach such terminal velocity that it hit the ground after about 30 seconds. Free fall plane CAN'T reach the ground in time interval that FZ981 do it except in the case pilots put it in position of engine trust and optimal angle. Do you understand? Even disintegrate plane don't able to reach such terminal velocity, what about plane with only mechanical problem but with construction integrity. The planes are not stones, real STALLING will have much more time interval for hitting the ground. And question is - WHY PILOT PUT THE PLANE IN SUCH STEP ANGLE? As I say answers can be only two: SUICIDE or MISLEADING VSI-ASI DATA. By the way I'm the man who solve the case of Germanwings Flight 9525 under 1 hour after crush, when investigators have no idea what happen and where they are on earth. If you want ask AAIB, my name is Emil Enchev. Now we wait one-two day to see even I speculate or not.
P.s I'm shock how Wikipedia accept quotes from tabloids like Daily Mail but call experts that they speculate?! Obviously there is something deeply wrong with Wikipedia especially since someone put title "off the record" in talk page, not in main article.
P.p.s I put this "speculation" here because I think that you would be curious to find out the truth before others. Personally, if someone told me something in advance I would be grateful.
P.p.p.s And really I don't understand this speculation things on WIKI. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrojet_Flight_9268 have sections call it "Other hypotheses - Tailstrike and maintenance hypotheses - Missile hypothesis" Question is: Are these section SPECULATIONS in MAIN ARTICLE according to WIKI rules or not - and why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.65.171 (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is based on reliable published, secondary sources of information. You need to read the policy Wikipedia:No original research (especially the section "Synthesis of published material"). There is also the closely related policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is basically:

Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.

There was no sources mentioned in the first post. Talk pages are for discussing/improving the article, not for general discussion about the subject...read the policy WP:NOTFORUM. AHeneen (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They already heard the CVR and they are silent. This mean only one thing: probably Aristos Sokratous is the new Andreas Lubitz. What they heard on CVR are SCREAMS of frightened passengers - and again - knocking on the front door of the cockpit. This is what happens when no one takes a lesson from previous incidents. The flight lasted too long it is logical that Alejandro Cruz Álava can go to the toiled exactly in the moment when plane reject landing and gaining altitude again.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flydubai_Flight_981&oldid=711512795"