Talk:Air France Flight 447

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 index 5 4/Archives/ 3

Search and Rescue Operations

Spain has a CASA 235 maritime patrol craft operating over the area[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.126.10.233 (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Official statistics

The official statistics about nationalities has been announced by AirFrance. The statistics need to be updated: Air France

Something is wrong in the nationality list, either the subtotal of 9 or that 4 nationalities missing 3 citizens each. RGDS Alexmcfire

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)

• No, you can't add that, as it is original research, and against Wikipedia policies.79.97.122.147 (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not original research, it is speculation that the incident seems peculiarly similar and COULD potentially be related. Give it 5 minutes and the media will make the same speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.50.180 (talk) 08:21, 2 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)

That image is noncommercial and non-derivative. That's a no-go. For now, the only free one is the one we have at Wikinews. Emails have gone out requesting something better, high-quality free pictures of the actual jet, and we are likely to get these within 24 hours. For now, there is no alternative. Much searching has been done. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know the tail registration number of the aircraft? If someone can find that out, I can almost guarantee that I can find a suitable image of that aircraft. --Strikerforce (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Found it. Reg is F-GZCP. Photo here: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1230400/L/ I have emailed the photographer about a release to Wikipedia under the applicable Fair-Use rules. --Strikerforce (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Another GREAT photograph of this aircraft (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-France/Airbus-A330-203/1054322/L/&sid=3e95b56cbd1a2fcedb67c13dd0c86a95). A full listing of photos of this aircraft can be found here (http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraftsearch=&airlinesearch=&placesearch=&countrysearch=&adv_remark=&photographersearch=&emailsearch=&regsearch=F-GZCP&cnsearch=&codesearch=&datesearch=&id=&yearsearch=&specialsearch=&specialsearch2=&sort_order=photo_id+desc&page_limit=15&thumbnails=&advanced_search=true&engine_version=6.0). --Strikerforce (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have secured the photographer's permission to use the first photograph that I linked to. I have asked him to upload it to Wikipedia and provide the appropriate release. --Strikerforce (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Currently the article sports an image of "An Air France Airbus A330-200 aircraft, similar to the missing plane". Am I the only person here who thinks this is %@$#@!# ridiculous when photos of the actual plane are available for [fair] use? -- samj _in^out 00:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Have some f****ng patience (oh look, I can swear too, doesn't that make me hard? No, no it doesn't). The aircraft could only be fair use if you wanted to get the tail number in as AFAIK that is the only difference; besides, permissions requests are pending for the plane in question and I have little doubt these will be fruitfull in time. Is it so hard to wait a few days? It isn't like it disapeared last year. It's been gone 24 hours. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Perrin: A A320-203 is a A320-200, same as it's also a A320. By giving a longer and more specific number you're specifying more and more the exact configuration. 99.233.192.102 (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

I strongly suggest you add the spot for the uknown location the plane was at at 2:14 AM and/or one small red dot for when the last transmission was received and another for the first indication that there was no contact came in. So that we know that the location of the plane crash is not a specific spot, but rather a zone within the known time interval. Is that possible? Thanks,Shadiac (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Turbulence

According to AP the plane hit turbulence before crashing[2]. 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)

Loss of cabin pressure

CNN just brought a bulletin that the automated message not only reported an electrical failure but also loss of cabin pressure. (I didn't want to put this in the article because it isn't confirmed yet.) --Eddie2 (talk) 16:23, 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)

The chances of anybody searching for AIRFRANS447 is probably zero. Why stop if you nothing else to do you could have AF447 AF 447 AF0447 AFR0447 Air France 447 and many more combinations that might one day be used by somebody as a search! MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Air France's flight status page, future flights for AF447 (i.e. departing after 1 June) between Rio and Paris appear to now be operating as AF443. Is this worth noting somewhere? GoodbyeDave (talk) 12:53, 2 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)

This is a request to repair the map of Brazil, AFAIK... since it's too small to use in the wikicoding he's using for the island location. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Fernando de Noronha

If anyone wants it... File:Orthographic projection centred over Fernando de Noronha.png shows the island of Fernando de Noronha in relation to mainland Brazil... 70.29.208.129 (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Route map

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)

It looks different from the one that HLN uses (HLN - CNN Headline News, US cable news network) 70.29.208.129 (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Guardian has also map that looks a bit different. A better map is needed. Maybe a bit zoomed in with place names. Anyone have draft ready? Kslotte (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

CNN says this.

Found this on Portuguese wikinews: File:Arte voo AF 447 .jpg. IT looks close to the one CNN is using... 70.29.208.129 (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That one appears to be a simple straight line plotted over a Mercator projection. I'd be suspicious... Evercat (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw the a route map on CNN this morning and I would say it definitely is not accurate. The BBC route map looks more believable [3]--661kts 14:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 661kts (talk • contribs)

Well... that's similar to the File:Arte voo AF 447 .jpg ... 70.29.208.129 (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Le Figaro is also using a route map very similar to File:Arte voo AF 447 .jpg here. The flight was meant to enter the Senegalese ATC zone, which fits the map, and the French press spoke of "nothing from the Spanish radars, nothing from the Morrocan radars" while not mentioning the Portuguese. Physchim62 (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Jolly Ω Janner

Actually we have two waypoints INTOL ( 1° 21' 39S 32° 49' 53W ) at 22:33 and TASIL waypoint (4° 0' 18N 29° 59' 24W) ETA 50min later, at 23:20 Brasilia time. --TAG (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The times in the image Air_France_Flight_447_path.png are wrong, they are not local times nor UTC times. They also contradict with the article's text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.50.211 (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed from page, new map needed. Kslotte (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see what I did here. I pressumed the BBC were using local British time (UTC+1), so I minused one hour thinking that would be UTC, however the BBC were using UTC/GMT time. My bad, I will now fix the map. Jolly Ω Janner 19:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you make the texts a bit larger then latest version. Since the text where to small to be read in the article. Kslotte (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done Jolly Ω Janner 20:26, 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)

The correct translation is "There were 12 flight crew members: 3 pilots and 9 flight attendants." as issued by Air France[4]AlexandrDmitri (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The correct is 3 cockpit crew that were 1 pilot and 2 co-pilots as reports in the Portuguese media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.43.173.24 (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Also this info is being issued by Air France <quote>The flight captain had a record of 11,000 flight hours and had already flown 1,700 hours on Airbus A330/A340s. Of the two first officers, one had flown 3,000 flight hours (800 of which on the Airbus A330/A340) and the other 6,600 (2,600 on the Airbus A330/A340</quote>

http://alphasite.airfrance.com/flight-air-france-447-rio-de-janeiro-paris-charles-de-gaulle/press-releases/?L=1#communique2492 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.43.173.24 (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but maybe someone could check the names of the co-pilots again. Especially Urs Zimmermann reminds me of the Captain of the Swissair Flight 111. I could be a coincidence that they have the same names. --Eddie2 (talk) 08:31, 2 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)

Chinese state media said there are eight chinese? [5]Maybe some Chinese holding two passports? ---Williamsze (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

== Oficial ==
80 Brazilian
73 French
18 German
9 Italian
6 American
5 Chinese
4 Hungarús
2 Spanish
2 British
2 Moroccan
3 Irish
1 Angola
1 Argentina
1 Belgian
1 Icelandic
1 Norwegian
1 Polish
1 Romanian
1 Russian
1 Slovak
1 Swedish
1 Turkish
1 filipino
1 Swiss

Update on swedes: 2 swedish women and 1 child Source: http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article5278161.ab —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.218.51.41 (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yea, but there needs to be some clarification, the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs have confirmed 3 Swedish citizens were on the flight [6]. What's not clear though is how they're listed (here and by Air France), the article specifies that two live in Brazil one in Norway (probable dual citizenship on at least 2 or all 3). chandler 22:33, 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)

Hey guys check this out, I am getting reports from some Brazilian Blogs, that Fishermen saw flashing lights in night sky over the said route of this particular Flight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.223.147.254 (talk) 14:16, 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)

Wow, you guys are amazing[ly lame] when it comes to evicting content that we're actually allowed to use. Loving that the article now sports an image that is of some other plane. Success? -- samj _in^out 00:29, 2 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)

Why does it need fair use? It is Atribution Share-Alike Creative Commons... We can use the full res photo here alongside the author credit which has already been givenSergei Perrin (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't Attribution Share-Alike, it is Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works which isn't accepted as a free license for Wikipedia purposes so it would have to be used under fair use here and I don't think that can be justified. Adambro (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous... I wandered by and found the article with some photo of another airline's plane, colours and logo so I spent an hour or so finding a photo of the actual plane, trimmed, reduced and uploaded it along with a solid fair use rationale. Of course debate ensued and my work (and others') was destroyed, the article now sporting some other random plane. This is too insane for words, but I hope those wasting everyone's time feel better for ensuring that our readers are denied the most accurate coverage possible. Rest assured that I won't be wasting your time in future with my apparently inappropriate contributions. -- samj _in^out 00:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Timezone confusion

The times given here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8076848.stm are labelled "GMT", but given that BBC is written for a British audience, might this be a mistake/confusion for BST? Are the times in this article labelled "GMT" supposed to be for GMT or BST? jftsang 14:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think everything's been correct. BBC is well aware of the difference. Evercat (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the BBC is correct. Who is the dumb ass that is removing the time of the events? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.43.173.24 (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A flight (e.g. AF447), and the aircraft operating it on a particular occasion (e.g. F-GZCP) are not the same thing

That is all. Grassynoel (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What's your point? The only notable instance of this flight is this instance. The only notability for this plane is this instance of this flight. The only notable instance of this tailnumber is this plane. So F-GZCP should redirect here... but the common name is AF447 (or some variation on that). 70.29.208.129 (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It's true that the registration should redirect here. But the point is that it's sloppy journalism to equate the flight number with the aircraft that happened to be operating the flight on a particular occasion. The media get it wrong all the time; why should we? Grassynoel (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

For better or worse, we're bound by tradition —Cliffb (talk) 01:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Image for infobox

• 
  An Air France A330
• 
  An A330-200 (not Air France)
• 
  An AF A330-200

Or the actual plane (fair use image)

What image should be used? 70.29.208.129 (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews uses File:AirFranceA330Crop.jpg, the generic AF A330 image. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I would maintain that File:Mea a330-200 f-omeb takeoff arp.jpg is the most appropriate image. Whilst it isn't of an aircraft in AF livery, it is a much better photo of the aircraft that File:AirFranceA330Crop.jpg so I consider it more useful to our readers. Adambro (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I found one on the Swedish Wikipedia... File:Air France A330-200 F-GZCN cropped.jpg 70.29.208.129 (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Image changing

On every reload there is a new image. This is crazy. Shouldn't this article be protected? --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It would have to have full protection, since logged in users are also changing the image around. If it had full protection, only admins could update the page. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well at least we would know who did it.

You didn't sign. And you already know who did it, since you have an edit history. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

From the edit history I can determine that 15:37, 1 June 2009 Camilo Sanchez (talk | contribs) (25,941 bytes) (→Image changing)

70.29.208.129 (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

And it wouldn't change the fact that the image would change frequently. IOW it would be a useless action. Do you dislike non-logged in users? 70.29.208.129 (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No comments on that.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

File:AirFranceFlight447.jpg

The current image (as of the last time I loaded the page ;P ) is File:AirFranceFlight447.jpg, but this image has NO SOURCE INFORMATION and NO LICENSE. So it is very problematic. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be used until information is provided. I suspect it is a copyright violation anyway. Adambro (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it was speedily deleted. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, by me, since some users insisted on adding it but didn't seem as enthusiastic about adding the source/licensing details and it is probably reasonable to presume it would turn out to be a copyright violation anyway. Adambro (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Non Air France image

Having the image of another airline is just as bad. It gives the impression that MEA is some form of subsidiary or franchise airline of Air France. Ask yourself if you would put this image on the Main Page? - Mailer Diablo 15:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What is so terrible about it? The caption makes it clear that it shows a similar plane not the exact one. I don't think readers are going to be misled by it. Adambro (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the most important issue is to have the plane of Air France and not mostly Airbus A330-200, Not many people can tell plane model anyway Sergei Perrin (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. It's moot now though since a high-quality AF A330 image has been found. - Mailer Diablo 16:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

So I take it you guys like the one I found... File:Air France A330-200 F-GZCN cropped.jpg 70.29.208.129 (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Very much so. Unless we can find a photo of the exact plane I think that will be the best photo available. It is indeed a moot point now but I'd very much question the "Not many people can tell plane model anyway" so it only matters that it is an Air France aircraft attitude. That is ridiculous. The most important aspect is the aircraft type, not what colours it is painted in. We are supposed to be an educational resource so people will learn from the information we provide, not a tabloid newspaper just wanting a photo of any AF aircraft just to make their article look pretty. Adambro (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to big white planes, I don't know many people who can tell the difference between twin engine passenger planes. Maybe the Jumbo and A380 are a bit obvious, but everything single deck, two engine is pretty much the same to the average person Sergei Perrin (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Whilst that is true it doesn't make it appropriate to use any photo of an AF plane. As I've said, we're supposed to be an educational resource so we should be looking for opportunities to improve the knowledge and understanding our readers have of subjects. The most important aspect is the plane type not the paint scheme. By using an image of the correct type we give people the opportunity to learn what an A330-200 looks like rather than just what the AF livery looks like which is much less important. Adambro (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, the most important is that it is an Air France flight from Brazil to Paris; hence it should show that it is an Air France plane. The next thing is to show that it is an Airbus. Then that it is one from the 330 family, only then is it relevant it is an 330-200. Arnoutf (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I find your logic quite bizarre. The most relevant aspect in a plane crash (presumably) is the type of plane, not the colours of paint applied to the outside. It is much more valuable educationally to show readers what the type of plane involved is, not the livery of the particular airline involved. However, as has been noted, this is a moot point now we seem to have a photo of the correct airline and the correct type. Adambro (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a moot point now and there is probably some policy to cover this, but I think the most obvious answer is that if the photo is misleading then leave the photo out. I mean, it's just not that relevant to the article (unlike e.g. a diagram showing the flight path and where the last communication was or photos of debris). Argel1200 (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction regarding passenger nationality

The current article says "Although the nationalities of the passengers have not yet been released, most of them are assumed to be French, German and Brazilian" right below an unsourced table indicating the nationality of all the passengers. Either we don't know the nationalities and the table should go, or we do and the paragraph below should be revised. Oren0 (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Or we know some of their nationalities, and they haven't been released officially. As it's an Air France jet going from Brazil to France... it should be easy to source the assumption that most people would be French or Brazilian. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

One French government official said that there were more than 20 German passengers on the plane. —85.178.123.254 (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian victims

Hungarian media told there were no Hungarian passengers on the plane despite the fact web sources claim there were names on the list that seemed to be Hungarian but their owners may not have Hungarian citizenship. Somebody, any comments, facts? Ferike333 (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's wait for official publication passenger lists; and beware of speculation. Arnoutf (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That is official now, 4 Hungarian. List

There were four Hungarians onboard. They were two children and two adults. In memoriam (don't know how to say in English). Ferike333 (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The South Atlantic Anomaly & Flight 447

The South Atlantic Anomaly, as the experts call it, is a danger zone for satellites over Brazil and the South Atlantic... There, even satellites in low orbits suffer many hits by atomic bullets from the Sun. Troublesome faults occur in electronic systems.

Recently, leaks have been detected in the magnetic field. During solar storms, this could result in large-scale blackouts and disruptions in artificial satellites.

SITE: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=193674&sectioncode=26

Aviation experts said lightning strikes on planes were common and were not enough alone to explain a disaster.

The average commercial jet (if such a thing exists) is actually struck by lightning about twice a year. Some may never be struck, others may be struck more. It depends on where the aircraft's flights usually take it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoobie12 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

So what do you suggest to do with this?

From the top of my mind it sounds like speculation / original research at best. We need an official source to make this connection before we can add it to the article. Arnoutf (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The 'Minipole' in the South Atlantic is off the coast of Namibia. The plane was 1000s of miles away at the time of last radio contact and was approaching Senegal, North of the Equator.209.30.247.12 (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"First flew"

According to the article:

"The Airbus A330-200, registration F-GZCP, first flew on 25 February 2005" with a reference to here. BBC News here says its been operation since April 2005. Not sure which is more reliable to use. D.M.N. (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

They are both correct. If you look more closely at the first reference on airfleets.net it shows you both dates. Aircraft first flew on 25/02/2005 - but an aircraft's first flight is part of the manufacturing process. The source also notes that the aircraft was delivered to Air France on 18/04/2005. -- Rob.au (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Bermuda triangle?

Shall we include that there is some speculation that this is a bemuda triangle disapearence? --81.155.253.86 (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Why it was not near Bermuda? MilborneOne (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a Bermuda Triangle disappearance, as the flight was never anywhere near the Bermuda Triangle. Mathias-S (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wonder if it flew over the Island from "Lost", possibly a piece from a previous Continental flight flew up and struck it. ;^). PB666 ^yap 21:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Not funny. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, why would an aeroplane flying from Brazil to France go over the Pacific? (The plane in Lost was, of course, going from Sydney to LA.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The Island, of Course, mmmmmmooooovvvvvveeeeessssss.209.30.247.12 (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't be so immature. This is not the time to make jokes. You are a D***head. 130.56.94.78 (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please be on topic, and please do not insult each other. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Since a nice way of putting it doesn't seem to fly here, let me be blunt, The bermuda Triangle boundaries of human error, piracy, equipment failure, or natural disasters. Popular culture has attributed some of these disappearances to the paranormal, a suspension of the laws of physics, or activity by extraterrestrial beings. can be discounted at face value. With respect to the Lost reference see:Another example was the ore-carrier recounted by Berlitz as lost without trace three days out of an Atlantic port when it had been lost three days out of a port with the same name in the Pacific Ocean. Kusche also argued that a large percentage of the incidents which have sparked the Triangle's mysterious influence actually occurred well outside it. For analogous situation in 'Lost' see http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Black_Rock. In addition, other goofy explanations for air disasters include blaming of scrap metal on a runway for the poorly designed takeoff and landing characteristics of the Concorde, which grossly includes the fact there are 2 runways in the world (Edwards and X68) that are capable of safely allowing the takeoff of a Concorde when fully loaded with fuel. Lots and lots of speculation, however one should look to the known and reported weakness of each aircraft as well as possible environmental triggers for the most likely causes of inflight failures. See JAL 123 and CAL 611.209.30.247.12 (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"Crashed?"

Do we know that the plane has crashed? Shouldn't this be set to unknown as well? Of course it is very probable that it has though. sebs89 (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.108.42 (talk)

It is surely not in the air by now as it must have run out of fuel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.6.172.205 (talk) 06:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Air France as a Primary Source

Why refering to the media if you have Air France as a primary source?

• Paris, 01 juin 2009 - 19h41 heure locale
• Communiqué N° 5

Air France est en mesure de confirmer les nationalités des passagers qui se trouvaient à bord du vol AF 447 du 31 mai 2009, disparu entre Rio de Janeiro et Paris-Charles de Gaulle. Cette liste a été constituée sur la base des informations fournies par les autorités brésiliennes.

• 1 Africain du Sud
• 26 Allemands
• 2 Américains
• 1 Argentin
• 1 Autrichien
• 1 Belge
• 58 Brésiliens
• 5 Britanniques
• 1 Canadien
• 9 Chinois
• 1 Croate
• 1 Danois
• 2 Espagnols
• 1 Estonien
• 61 Français
• 1 Gambien
• 4 Hongrois
• 3 Irlandais
• 1 Islandais
• 9 Italiens
• 5 Libanais
• 2 Marocains
• 1 Néerlandais
• 3 Norvégiens
• 1 Philippin
• 2 Polonais
• 1 Roumain
• 1 Russe
• 3 Slovaques
• 1 Suédois
• 6 Suisses
• 1 Turc

Air France adresse ses sincères condoléances aux familles et aux proches des passagers et membres d’équipage.

Air France met tout en œuvre pour soutenir les familles et les proches : une assistance médicale et psychologique a été mise en place aux aéroports de Paris-Charles de Gaulle 2 et de Rio de Janeiro.

La compagnie a également mis en place un numéro d’appel spécial à l’attention des familles des passagers. Elle les informe, à leur demande, de l’éventuelle présence à bord d’un proche.

Numéros de téléphone réservés aux familles et aux proches 0800 800 812 depuis la France, 0800 881 20 20 depuis le Brésil, et + 33 1 57 02 10 55 depuis les autres pays.

Air France communiquera d’autres informations dès que celles-ci seront disponibles.

NB : Nous demandons aux journalistes de ne pas appeler ces numéros réservés aux familles et aux proches

http://alphasite.airfrance.com/s01/

--80.242.196.243 (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As we do have official report, someone should change the list of passengers, which is not correct. (official report should be "higher level" than BBC) --Sjena444 (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's been done, and then I bunched the countries with 1 passenger only together as one table line to make the table shorter - though it messes up the sorting mechanisms a bit. Then, someone bunched the 2's, the 3's, the 9's... I think this overdoing it. What's the best compromise?--Noe (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Which source tells us (as someone wrote in the article) that one crew member is Brazilian (the other 11 being French)? (I haven't checked al sources; it may well be there!!!)--Noe (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the passengers hold more than one citizenship what might lead to some confusion.--92.226.139.207 (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

UK and Ireland

The BBC has stated 5 British citizens were on board and another source has stated 3 Irish passengers (one of whom was from Belfast). As Belfast is in Northern Ireland (part of the UK) shouldn't this passenger be listed as British, or does the figure of 5 already include here. Could anyone clear this up? Stevvvv4444 (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

BBC are probably right. What other source is stating 3 Irish? It's a bit clumsey to include the North and South when it comes to nationalities. Jolly Ω Janner 20:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Air France said they had 3 Irish on the flight. Any citizen of Northern Ireland can have an Irish or British passport, Air France gets the nationality of each passenger by their passport. So I think the Northern Irish passenger used an Irish passport. Dar88 (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am presuming that the term 'Irish' being used refers to anyone from the island of Ireland and 'British' as anyone from 'Great Britain', if so UK should be changed to Great Britain in this article shouldn't it as both sources [7] and [8] state 5 'British' and 3 'Irish' people. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Dar88's point was more along the lines that the person from Northern Ireland could concievably count as both, given that anyone born in Northen Ireland is (subject to certain conditions) entitled to citizenship and therefore a passport from both the UK and the Republic. In this case the woman appears to have travelled on her Irish passport (and she doesn't necessarily have to have a British one). Changing the UK to Great Britain would be OR, as we don't know that those listed as British did come from the mainland. The converse of the previous example could have occured, with someone from Northern Ireland travelling on a British passport. Until we know more, we have to assume that an reference to a UK national includes the possibility that they're from Northern Ireland. - Chrism would like to hear from you 22:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is the Welsh passenger listed separately from the United Kingdom passengers? Did Wales get granted independence from the UK and I didn't notice?71.203.115.184 (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Debris found (uncertain, and entirely unconfirmed)

According to this post on a forum, French media is reporting that debris has been found. I have no idea if this is correct or not, but I'll look for his source(s) now. ResPublicae (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Also this [[9]] from the bbc Jddriessen (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian media claim debris have been found in the Atlantic Ocean a few hours ago. Ferike333 (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft's data reporting mechanism?

Does anyone have information on the system that was used to report data back to Air France regarding the condition of the aircraft? I've never heard of a plane doing this before—only after-the-fact black box data—so I figure it merits a mention. —Mulad (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably ACARS. MilborneOne (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The ACARS system sends radio transmisions with data about the flight such as: altitude, engine speed, fuel flow, current speed, and several (real time) parameters related to the particular flight... In this case the ACARS is probably transmitting the data via a HF radio since the flight involves extended overwater operations, my best guess! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.81.218 (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No, probably satellite--661kts 05:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Satellite image

Not really satisfied with the satellite image. What does it want to say? Is the image understandable for every reader? As far as I can see it also doesn't cover the most important region completely. Mawijk (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

File:NESDIS Atlantic Ocean 1 June 0000Z.jpg shows the weather along the projected track of flt 447 and is a free image. You'll note that the wikinews article has a link to a UK satellite view, which apparently is non-free, for "The location of intense storms off the coast of Brazil at the time of the incident".  JGHowes  ^talk 22:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Near crash last week

Should the article mention the near crash of another A330 (this time flying for TAM airlines) last week due to turbulence while flying over Brazil? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.122.121.200 (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't think so. That would be suggestive. It suggests that the A330 is bad in dealing with turbulence, though it underlines that strong turbulence can cause loss of control of the plane with injuries to passengers involved.Mawijk (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

yes we should link to this if there is a WP for it... doesn't have to mention turbulence but yes when there are 2 seperate a330 incidents in brazil within a week, that's notable. 67.204.145.88 (talk) 07:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The TAM turbulence was in the region of Pirassununga (location on Google Maps), much closer to the Tropic than to the Equator. There is no possible correlation, besides the time coincidence. Pmbarros (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this information is relevant. Yes, that's two incident in Brazil, but Brazil is the size of Europe, it is an enormous country. Air France 447 disappeared in the middle of the Atlantic, while the other incident happenned in a flight coming from Miami - which, I guess, didn't lead it to cross the Atlantic. The turbulences experienced by this other flight must have occured above the Brazilian ground, which is a completely different climate than the middle of the ocean. Henceforth, it seems highly irrelevant. Furthermore, no sources claims a link between the twwo incidents yet. Find me a newspaper that talks about a serious hypothesis linking the two events and I would find it a bit more relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.108.191.32 (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Map removed

Sorry, I had to remove this an old version of this.

Sorry, I had to remove this map from the infobox due to inaccuracy. It's based on this BBC-created map; but the BBC map makes it clear that the last contact with the plane was at an unknown location, whereas this map clearly puts a red dot on the location, which is incorrect. Also labeling it "Unknown location" is confusing — a red dot is indicating an unknown location? The BBC map meant to say that the last transmission was received from an unknown location. Tempshill (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Map clarifies a lot. To solve the problem I would suggest to replace the label 'Unknown location' by 'Assumed location last transmission'. Mawijk (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I have fixed your concerns and will now add the map back. Jolly Ω Janner 23:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks great and thank you! Tempshill (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've uploaded another map - please revert if you feel the previous one was better. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

In popular culture

Whoever removed that, THANK YOU. It was insensitive and frankly, stupid to put it there. To the person who wrote that, could you please consider what you type? Hundreds of people are mourning right now and desperate for information, please do not add irrelevant information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.247.43 (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Flags

They look great, not at all messy. - Dudesleeper / Talk 01:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"orange points"

Please could someone clarify exactly what "orange points" are and why its relevant that a pilot spotted them, [10]?--Jac16888^Talk 01:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• The orange points obviously were fire. (66.188.136.73 (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC))
• Source claiming orange spots = fire [11] -Marcusmax(speak) 02:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Now I have provided a source (NYT) in English explaining.--Mariordo (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Good job, thanks--Jac16888^Talk 11:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Air France HQ: Photo request

Would someone in the Paris area mind taking a photo of the Air France headquarters by CDG airport? Because the operations center received the signals from the aircraft, a photo of the headquarters may be relevant here. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

How would that be relevant?--661kts 03:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• The Air France control center received the reports from the AF 447 aircraft systems (the automatic signals to the operations center sent by the A330's on-board computer) - Since the HQ is at CDG airport, I'm assuming that the operations center is in the HQ.WhisperToMe (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this would add much to the article. Tempshill (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but how would that be significant enough that there should be a photo? Should there be a photo of the White House at the Iraq & Afghanistan war articles because that is where the orders came from? I don't think that the destination of the ACARS report is really that significant to warrant a photo. But that is just my opinion...--661kts 04:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it may not belong in this particular article. Still, it would be great for the main Air France article since it is customary to include a photo of the corporate headquarters in company articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but are you sure that you are just not picture happy? Why does the ExpressJet article need the Continental building?--661kts 05:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

weather

File:NESDIS Atlantic Ocean 1 June 0000Z.jpg is available as a illustration of the weather close to the time of the loss of signals. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The map is too far north. If I read correctly, the plane never contacted Senegal. The boundary between Brazil and Senegal FIRs is probably somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic. HkCaGu (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If the string of disturbances at the bottom of this map is connected to the likely area of disappearance, we can use this with a description. Is there any similar image on the other side of Atlantic Ocean?--Revth (talk) 07:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

References? Looks like original research... Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

IT's a US government image with a timestamp, and silhouetted countries on it, what's so original research-y about it? The article already talks about weather in the Atlantic over the equator. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. Including the image is potentially okay provided there are no copyright issues and it actually show something useful, but using the image as reference to describe the weather conditions or discussing the conditions shown in the image is not. Nil Einne (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A generic illustration of the inter-tropical convergence zone is available... file:ITCZ january-july.png

70.29.208.129 (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Text messages over the Atlantic?

Do you really believe that they sent text messages from the middle of nowhere when the cell tower range is at maximum 70 Km (45 miles)? and even if that was true, "I love you" and "I'm afraid" seem pretty vague and common kind of messages that don't need an emergency to be motivated. dose not seem to be right dose it. I think it should be removed. one mention in a news paper is not a lot to base it on Can you provide links to where they say the passengers sent text messages?--661kts 06:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The article on SMS will inform you that satellite phone services usually have text message capabilities. Will remove WP:OR speculation on text messages from article. (oh, someone beat me to it.) 62.78.198.48 (talk) 07:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Three considerations:

a) It would be technically impossible to send a text message from a regular GSM phone in an airplane 30,000 feet in the air above international waters. Perhaps satellite phones could work but just how widespread are those?

b) These messages seem very vague and could have been sent without any specific emergency, one would expect more specific messages if something was going wrong.

c) If the passengers knew something was wrong and had the ability to contact the outside world about it, then what explains the silence of the pilots who had access to far more advanced communication equipment? --194.105.255.161 (talk) 09:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking purely from a Wikipedia point of view I don't think it is appropriate to have the mention of the text message simply from the reports of one newspaper. The overwhelming majority of the world's media says nothing about this text message at this point and Wikipedia should reflect this balance of weight; especially as this is a currently unfolding event we have to be careful what we put on the article.Phonemonkey (talk) 09:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And then there is that... those reports come only from a few minor media outlets (and seem to originate with just one) while the vast majority of the world's media treat these claims with healthy scepticism. --194.105.255.161 (talk) 09:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget AF's OnAir service, see here. It's not certain though that the system was in operation on the aircraft. 192.69.108.97 (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I just read that link. It's an experimental service operating on a single A318 in service over Europe. It has no relationship with the facts under discussion. Much more likely, on an intercontinental A330 the personal entertainment system could offer a SMS/email capability, but AFAIK Air France does not have that feature on board. --Raistlin (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Also don't forget the SMS hoaxes after the Helios flight accident. Various media outlets had reported this story as genuine before the truth became known. I vote we keep it out of the article for now. --Ferengi (talk) 09:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely agree. A cellphone could not transmit from there, and in a turbulence and an emergency the passenger entertainment systems would be the first ones to go, along with any SMS or email sending capabilities. If it's not an hoax, it will be heavily reported soon. --Raistlin (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just removed this reference again, for the same reasons as outlined by everyone else here. -- Rob.au (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Lots of speculation here and concretized thinking, and while wiki is not the place to speculate, it is possible that the pilots could have been incapacitated, for example, flying into a hailstorm with baseball sized hail could have taken out the pilots or the pilots communication equipment and left other communication equipment active. In addition, there could have been specific communication equipment failures within the cockpit as a result of turbulence and wires inadvertently being torn in which the pilots tried to communicate but were unable. The basic assumption here is that a supercell within the tropical convergence was responsible for the automated repair request message being sent, which included a report on an electical failure and cabin depressurization. Those two simultaneous occurrences are unlikely over a region of highly disturbed air by random chance. Since the message is therefore the most likely consequence of spurious system damage, (i.e. the automated repair request system is still active) then one cannot speculate as to which systems were made disfunctional and which system were not. The issue becomes a matter of which communications systems can be confirmed to have sent the messages, simple as that. 209.30.247.12 (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

All of the passage above still does not explain how a cellphone could possibly transmit from the middle of the Atlantic. We are not speculating about the automatic transmissions, which were confirmed instead. BTW: I moved and indented the message so to clarify sequence of posts, undo if you don't like it. --Raistlin (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If you had an Irridium, or an Immarsat phone, would it work on a plane? as they are satphones... 70.29.208.129 (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As the article currently reflects, automated ACARS messages were sent by the plane. These are text messages which usually merely tell the maintenance staff that something needs to be looked at, such as the circuit breaker for the coffemaker opening, or the entertainment system rebooting itself. Early newspaper reports mentioned "text messages", and many people assumed this meant text messages from cell phones. More detailed phrasing indicates these were messages which the plane automatically sent; the crew can probably type messages through the system (they often use it to send messages to the airline) but there is no mention that they used this method. -- SEWilco (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

An update on this issue. The original article quoted a Ronaldo Jenkins as their source. The organisation he works for later put out a statement denying it, stating that the newspaper had come to them with the theory and they had dismissed it. -- Rob.au (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarify, he deny's the ACARS was sent or that text messages to family members was sent.PB666 ^yap 15:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian victims

There are them. 84.1.165.221 (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It is sad, but victims are from something like 32 countries.--661kts 06:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There were four Hungarians onboard. They were two children and two adults. In memoriam (don't know how to say in English). You're right, there were victims from 32 countries. Ferike333 (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Passsenger details' cleanup

I suggest we perform a cleanup of the passenger details. Unless a passenger was clearly notable by wikipedia standards, there is no reason to have personal info like names, age, occupation etc. The fact that a newspaper provided this info does not automatically make it encyclopedic material. This way we could end up having data on all 228 passengers, which is obviously not what the purpose of this article is. --Ferengi (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I already stated that in an edit couple of hours earlier where I removed one of the passenger details (which was placed back soon again by others). Otherwise where to stop? I understand that for relatives every person is important but this is an encyclopedia. Mawijk (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Another issue lies with the table - the totals are wrong. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's easy, if the passenger is notable enough to have an article, they can be mentioned by name. If not, no mention necessary. Mjroots (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes Ferengi But if the Ministry for Foreign Affairs has confirmed 3 citizens on the plane from Sweden they must be right, I know the maths dont add up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigge365 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not doubting the Ministry, these are probably cases of dual nationality. We still have to stick to the official Air France list. I'm trying to figure out a better solution, but we definitely cannot have more people on the list than there were actually on the plane. --Ferengi (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sweden's Embassy in Paris has confirmed that there were 3 swedish citizens aboard. One of them was a resident of Norway, the other two residents of Brazil: thelocal.se --Berny68 (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

We have already two confirmed cases of dual passport holders, one the brazilian heir and the other a woman. The solution by Sigge365 to add these discrepancies as numbers in parentheses looks ok to me, I have also added a footnote explaining this. I suggest we keep it this way, unless of course someone has a better suggestion. --Ferengi (talk) 12:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Details about the different passengers should appear by nationality in the default order as in the table (sorted first by number of victims, then alphebetically by nationality) --Berny68 (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The details should be deleted, they are not encyclopedic. Just report that x number of nationality y were on the plane. The details on the crew on the otherhand... 70.29.208.129 (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I took down the items that didnt mention noteworthy individuals from this section. From your comments, it seemed pretty black and white, so I hope it's ok Jddriessen (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Further to that... are the execs and conductor mentioned noteworthy either? They don't have their own wikis, so presumably they should come down too? -or is this just because wiki coverage of those areas isn't as complete as it might be for a famous composer in the EU or US? Jddriessen (talk) 12:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I left them cause I assume we could find reliable sources documenting their notability, even if they have no article at the moment. However this is just an assumption and things being so hectic at the moment, I don't have time for further research, it's quite possible that they are not notable. --Ferengi (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I took out the names, but left the descriptions. In case they are sufficiently encyclopedic and have a WP lemma, we can still add them. --Berny68 (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"En route to the crash site (???)"

This is in the "Reaction and search" section. Maybe it should say "en route to the suspected crash site" or something like that, but I'm not sure what's the best way to go. I don't think it is known where (if) the plane hit the water, and if so whether it did so in one piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.218.225.49 (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, until it has been at least days or we find wreckage for sure this should be treated as a disapearance and not a crash, we certainly don't know the location of the site it may have crashed at in any precision at all. Prokhorovka (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

How does an aircraft become lost with modern technology?

It is unbelievable that a modern aircraft can get lost, with technology such as GPS, satellite, satellite phone and radio.

Please provide more information on this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.104.1 (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure it is really relevant to improving the article at the moment, but the middle of the atlantic is not the same as the middle of the United States and not many of these fancy systems work if you have a sudden loss of power or other unexpected event. MilborneOne (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean become lost (to the crew) or be lost (to rescuers)? If the latter, yeah, there's no reason the plane can't chirp to a satellite every minute or so, as the rescue stakes are really, really high if there's a ditching like this and especially with the polar routes now open. I consider this a absolute mandate to the airlines to standardize and implement for any plane that has satcom on board. -Rolypolyman (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

Please do not change the article to past tense (the plane was, the crew was, etc...) until we have verifiable sources. It does not matter what we believe or even what the president of France believes. Remember that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. There has been no wreckage found, and it is not appropriate to be speculating. Phrases that begin with "if" are a good indication that we shouldn't be including the information.  Frank  |  talk  12:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I must disagree slightly. The events should be refered to in the past tense if they occured in the past. The pilots had certain flight experience at the time of the flight, and that can be said difinitivly. They may still have it, but that is unknown and speculative. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to talk about the plane or its passengers in the present tense. Jean-Louis Borloo pointed it out quite succinctly: it only carried a given amount of fuel which would have run out more than 24 hours ago. WP:CRYSTAL is not a substitute for common sense. Physchim62 (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it is almost unrespectful, even. There will be a celebration "in memory" soon, as shown on AF official site. --Raistlin (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews is that way. We are an encyclopedia and WP:V is one of our primary policies.  Frank  |  talk  14:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Non-stupidity is also a primary policy: you are not required to check your brain in at the door when you login to Wikipedia. Physchim62 (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Tone it down, please. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no feasible scenario where the plane hasn't crashed. Evercat (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. More to the point, we do not know the present state of the passengers or crew, and Wikipedia deals with facts that have already happened. Present tense is frowned on, as it becomes non-present event very quickly. Past tense is pragmatic, and reflects what we do know. The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What we do know right now is very simply this: the plane is missing. Nothing more, nothing less. Even with speculative, unconfirmed reports of debris having been found, and even if we assume that said debris is from this plane, we most certainly do not know the fate of the crew and passengers. It doesn't matter that it seems like beating a dead horse, but Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. It is quite incorrect to state that "Wikipedia deals with facts that have already happened" - Wikipedia is not about facts but rather verifiable information from reliable sources. These are not the same thing.  Frank  |  talk  14:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. we know a lot more than that. We know that it only had fuel (plus a normal safety allowance) to get from Rio to Paris. We know that that fuel must have run out more than 24 hours ago. We know that it was not detected on any radars on the African side of the Atlantic. We know that the normal communication on entering Dakar-controlled airspace was not picked up (and so presumably not sent, for whatever reason). We know that the plane was far out over the Atlantic Ocean when the last communication was received. We know that there has been no signal from, or sighting of, liferafts, despite the surveillance operation.

I'm sorry if people think I am insolent towards Frank, but I think this user is also being insolent in believing that Wikipedia policies are superior to what goes on in the outside world. Physchim62 (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Most (if not all) of those points are already in the article. But even when taken all together, we still do not know the fate of the crew and passengers. To state otherwise is not consistent with what Wikipedia is all about.  Frank  |  talk  15:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Any reasonable person would understand the use of the past tense to refer to the crew and passengers: that you object suggests that you are either unreasonable, stupid, or so omphaloskeptic that you regard Wikipedia as a separate universe from the real world. Physchim62 (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There is another possible explanation: that I'm familiar with the five pillars and committed to furthering the goals of the project by following them to the greatest degree possible.  Frank  |  talk  15:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. By using present tense, the article indicates that the plane is still flying (which is impossible). Since the plane went missing yesterday, and the most recent information we have about the flight was from the past (i.e. yesterday), past tense is more correct. Remember, the only thing we can verify is that it was a flight. We cannot verify that it still is. Mathias-S (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It was a flight. The plane isn't flying anymore, because that would be impossible. So the only thing that is verifiable is that it was a flight until it disappeared. Since we don't know anything about its fate after it disappeared, is is inappropriate. Using the word is indicates that it's still in operation. Official statements say that the plan has most likely crashed, and that's the most accurate information we have to date. Mathias-S (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not the only thing which is verifiable from multiple reliable sources! Physchim62 (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wreakage Found

Bloomberg is reporting that Brazil found some of the wreakage: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aGqVhPoRLAtM&refer=europe 79.97.122.147 (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Not quite, they've found wreckage in roughly the right place but don't want to say yet that it's from the plane (instead of having been tossed off a passing cargo ship, etc.). So "wreckage", yes; for "the wreckage" it's probably best to wait for a moment (as the major news outlets are doing). Physchim62 (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

From the BBC: "'The search is continuing because it's very little material in relation to the size [of the Airbus A330],' Col Amaral added." Physchim62 (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian media told the wrecks have been found in the Atlantic a few hours ago. Also a Brazilian man is said to have seen fire on the horizon or on the sky (I do not exactly remember). Ferike333 (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Lightning

Obviously nobody can say at this point what the probable cause was of this probable accident, but lightning cannot be ruled out.

Though planes ARE designed to withstand lightning, they are not designed to withstand Positive Lightening, the attributed cause of Pan Am Flight 214

86.20.235.36 (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

We also can't rule out that it was hit by a falling hippopotamus. Some experts will tell us what probably happened. -- SEWilco (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Pan Am Flight 214 happened in 1963, around 40 years before this plane was built. This airplane was certainly designed to withstand all kinds of lightning. If you read the sources for this article, you will see that airplanes get hit by lightning every day, yet destruction of an aircraft does not happen 5% of the time, as would be expected per the frequency of positive lightning. – jaksmata 15:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is ruling out any cause at the moment. Commercial airliners are not perfect Faraday cages, which is why lightening damage to planes is sometimes recorded. Positive lightening is certainly stronger than ground-level lightening, although the physical principles are the same. I wouldn't want to speculate either way. Physchim62 (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the incident/crash could have been caused by a lightning strike. The IP user above said that "planes [...] are not designed to withstand Positive Lightening." That isn't true. – jaksmata 15:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Several reports indicate that the plane failed to stay in the air because of severe thunderclouds that can tare the aircraft to peaces. Air France said they believed that lightning was to blame, but that alone is not enough to set the plane out of control, the French "investigation team" said. Unless the only control of the plane was electric, and the electric system failed because of lightning that, and no mechanical backup was to use, that is. So most likely, it was just turbulence that shaked the plane apart, but I guess we will never know sence the black box is at 2000m ocean depth. 83.108.225.137 (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)