Talk:Air France Flight 447

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 index 5 4/Archives/ 3

Bomb threat

Not sure about whether we should mention the bomb threat - linking it to this incident is kind of speculative at this point. Evercat (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Since I can't find any evidence that the two incidents are related, I think mention of the bomb threat should be removed. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 10:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

How about removing it at least until some other source suggests a possible connection? Evercat (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think that would be best. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 10:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea I think. Speculation doesn't help at the current moment. Shall it be removed?--78.16.224.140 (talk) 10:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• It has now been removed. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed, should be removed as no known connection, but someone keeps adding it back. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I've added an edit note to the article. Any further instances of addition can be reverted and a vandalism warning issued. Mjroots (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
      • When you say "keeps adding it back", do you mean the one ocassion that I reverted the removal by an IP who did not leave an edit summary? Is talking about vandalism warnings perhaps a little heavy handed? Plastic Cupcake (talk) 11:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Thank you. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 11:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
      • OK. It's not vandalism though, it's more like original research. But if other sources start making this point it can legitimately be put back. Evercat (talk) 11:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
      • The edit note specifically states not to add unsourced speculation. If something is verifiable, then of course it may be added. Mjroots (talk) 11:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What if the sources are themselves speculating? I could draw a similarity between this and the Qantas Learmonth incident in 2008, also involving an a330, thankfully the pilots regained control. But I can't suggest this connection because a news wire has not speculated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.50.180 (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Image

This image is CC and nicer than the current image. I don't know how to use Wiki yet though! see: http://www.flickr.com/photos/phinalanji/1765234793/sizes/o/ Interesting though as that flickr page says it is an A320-203, not ~200? Sergei Perrin (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that image ok? OtisJimmyOne 11:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

We'd really prefer one in Air France colours. If we can't get that, Airbus colours might be OK. Evercat (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As the aircraft almost certainly no longer exists, we can use a copyrighted image under "fair use", subject to correct licencing and rationale being given. Mjroots (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've pinged bruno muthelet who claims the copyright over this photo (linked from article infobox)... hopefully he will be able to make it available under a suitable license, however in the mean time perhaps we can use a low-res version under fair use? That would certainly be better than having some other airline's logo/colours. -- samj _in^out 11:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the actual plane by the way, according to its tail number. Bad taste aside, Mjroots is probably right - I'll get to it. -- samj _in^out 11:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any bad taste in using the most accurate image. Evercat (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the bad taste was about the objective, but not very empathetic phrase "As the aircraft almost certainly no longer exists, we can use a copyrighted image under "fair use"". Arnoutf (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh. In any case, I think if we must use a copyrighted image it should be made much smaller than the current 1024 pixel one... Evercat (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Working on it. -- samj _in^out 11:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

But to be honest I think our fair use claim is suspect. No doubt with sufficient effort we could either acquire permission to use some image, or get a new image of an identical plane. I would support deletion. Evercat (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I support deletion as policy says "the amount of copyrighted work used under fair use should be as little as possible" Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 11:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a photo of a plane and we need... a photo of a plane. Were it a photo of 10 planes we could cut the other 9 out, but it's not so we can't. Would you prefer half a plane? -- samj _in^out 12:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Permission has been requested but in any case I believe fair use is applicable regardless of whether permission could be obtained (that being the point of fair use after all). It's not an "identical plane" that we're looking for but the plane. -- samj _in^out 11:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

But the article doesn't really need a photo of the exact plane. A photo of an identical plane would be just as good. Evercat (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree Evercat. I don't really think there is a strong case to keep the image but anyway see how it goes. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 12:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No, a photo of an "identical" plane (aside from not being identical) would not be "just as good", especially when none is offered and we have one available to us under fair use. -- samj _in^out 12:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The current photo has already been tagged for deletion due to copyvio. I scanned Commons and Flickr, but found no suitably licensed images of Air France A330's. Might be worth pinging one of the Flickr authors for permission. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea mate. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 12:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

CSD F9 specifically excludes "images used under a claim of fair use" and as such was inappropriately tagged and will almost certainly be removed by an admin in due course. -- samj _in^out 12:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

How about just using the wikinews image? Jddriessen (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC) ...actually, it looks like theyre having similar problems

Because it's poor quality and not even the aircraft in question. Our readers are best served by a good quality photograph of the actual aircraft in question and fair use allows for this. -- samj _in^out 12:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with you... just looking for viable alternatives :) Jddriessen (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This one on Flickr is CC non-commercial share-alike: http://www.flickr.com/photos/phinalanji/1765234793/

Much prefer using that one. Evercat (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Map

The map of Brazil is truncated in the East - anyone feel like fixing this, as I'm signing off now?

Fernando de Noronha

Rio de Janeiro

class=notpageimage|

Brazil

Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Turbulence

According to AP the plane hit turbulence before crashing[1]. Since the details are still sketchy I'm reluctant to put it in the article but it seems like a reasonable explanation for the crash. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This is already noted in the article... but not as an explanation for a crash, as there's no mention of it having come down yet Jddriessen (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirects

F-GZCP , AFR447 , AFR 447 , AIRFRANS447 , AIRFRANS 447 should redirect here. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there policy or precedent for this? -- samj _in^out 13:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No, they are not really needed. MilborneOne (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There is precedent for this. And what do you mean they're not needed? The ICAO airline code is not needed to reference the flight??? All the suggested redirects are fine under WP:REDIRECT. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Route

Any images available of the route? 70.29.208.129 (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Found one on the French Wikipedia. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem: how do we know that's the actual route it would have flown? Evercat (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Air France publish route maps, that's how we know. --86.26.217.89 (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Link please. Evercat (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The route map and description are wrong. GIG-CGD doesn't go anywhere near the azores, it flies thru cape verde, madeira islands, galicia and gulf of biscay. Nelievsky (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Tracking Trivia

Normally AF 447 would have been tracked by portugal for around half an hour from around 0730 - it was tracked as AF 444 on the way over yesterday but never appeared this morning. This is unsurprising and probably not useful for the article, but interesting nonetheless. -- samj _in^out 13:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"9 crew and 3 technicians"

I think the Air France statement translates more correctly as "9 cabin crew and 3 cockpit crew", but I am not sure if "cockpit crew" is quite the right terminology, or if it is correct to refer to them all as "pilots". Barnabypage (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you are right in saying that there were a total of 12 crew, "3 cockpit and 9 cabin crew". I don't see anywhere written that there were 3 technicians aboard, though I did hear Dutch television mention the technicians. Perhaps they got it from this article? sebs89 (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The AF statement says "L’équipage est composé de 12 navigants : 3 navigants techniques et 9 navigants commerciaux." I suspect "technicians" is a mis-translation of "navigants techniques". Barnabypage (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Weather

According to an Air France statement, the aircraft crossed through a "thunderous zone with strong turbulence". May I point out that it is getting close to the hurricane season in the United States so is there any indication of what the weather was in the southern side of the Atlantic in the early hours? --Marianian (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Some tower cumulus nimbus over there zone this night --BDantas (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC) from Brazil

Number of passengers

Is there a confirmed report for the number of passengers? I am reading 215, 216, 26, 228 and 240 inclusive or exclusive of 12 crewmen... ? Sergei Perrin (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Official statement says 216 Passengers, 12 Crewmen (126 Men, 82 Women, 7 Children, 1 Infant, 9 Flight Attendants, 3 Pilots) Sergei Perrin (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Text of the Air France Statement

http://alphasite.airfrance.com/flight-air-france-447-rio-de-janeiro-paris-charles-de-gaulle/?L=1

This contains all the relevant details.

Harry the Dog WOOF 13:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Air_France_Airgus_A330-200_F-GZCP.jpg

The image File:Air_France_Airgus_A330-200_F-GZCP.jpg was deleted through speedy deletion. Could someone add the external link to the source as part of the external links, for this image? 70.29.208.129 (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The source was http://www.planespotters.net/Aviation_Photos/photo.show?id=081451 if that helps. Adambro (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

File:F-GZCP.jpg

File:F-GZCP.jpg has been nominated for speedy deletion... 70.29.208.129 (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It's source is http://www.flickr.com/photos/phinalanji/1765234793/ 70.29.208.129 (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It hasn't been nominated for speedy deletion, rather I've disputed whether fair use can be justified. Adambro (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)