Talk:Asiana Airlines Flight 214: Difference between revisions
serious matter about NTSB releasing fictitious names |
m spacing |
||
Line 334: | Line 334: | ||
:::::I learned something yesterday. The names were not just some comical names but actually a dialogue and story telling. I did not know that there is a sequence. It is... |
:::::I learned something yesterday. The names were not just some comical names but actually a dialogue and story telling. I did not know that there is a sequence. It is... |
||
1. Something's wrong? (Captain Sum Ting Wong) |
1. Something's wrong? (Captain Sum Ting Wong)</br> |
||
2. We're too low! (Wi Tu Lo) |
2. We're too low! (Wi Tu Lo)</br> |
||
3. Holy Fuck! (Ho Lee Fuk) |
3. Holy Fuck! (Ho Lee Fuk)</br> |
||
4. Bang/Smash/Dign/Ouch! (Bang Ding Ow) |
4. Bang/Smash/Dign/Ouch! (Bang Ding Ow) |
||
Revision as of 21:17, 17 July 2013
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Asiana Airlines Flight 214 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 4 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | A news item involving Asiana Airlines Flight 214 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 7 July 2013. | ![]() |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Asiana Airlines Flight 214 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 4 days ![]() |
Pics
Pics at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jkhoo - need category. On mobile, so can't do more. Sorry. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Also http://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/tedivm Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- I added one of these. There's probably not more room for other photos, but this one was particularly interesting since it was seen from another plane on the tarmac. Steven Walling • talk 01:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's my photo. I was in another plane that had just departed from Terminal 1. We were forced to return to the gate and deplane instead of taking off. Jkhoo (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- I am changing image to crop2 of same original picture as it shows more context. The present picture is cropped too close and could be any smokey fire. 08:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Video, too: http://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Asiana_Flight_214_plane_fire_at_SFO_2013-07-06.webm Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 06:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I uploaded most of the so-far-supplied NTSB photos at commons:Category:Asiana Airlines Flight 214 in case anyone wants to use them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any of the NTSB photos there. Oktal (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Might need to refresh or something, or put a "?" at the end of the URL to avoid the cache, that sort of thing. File:NTSBAsiana214Interior2.jpg, File:NTSBAsiana214Fuselage.jpg, File:NTSBAsiana214Fuselage2.jpg, etc. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Photos of the fuselage being removed from SFO: Asiana 214 Wreckage Removal at SFO.JPG Asiana 214 Wreckage Removal at SFO (2).JPG BDS2006 (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Map image
The map showing the location of wreckage is incorrect. Multiple errors. For eg ; The fuselage came to rest in between the two runways, The image shows the fuselage on the left edge of the left runway
- That's because it is to the left of the left runway; see this photo (among many others). The fuselage is between the left runway and the left taxiway; I think one of the engines ended up between the two runways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
In mobile view, all the dots are off the runway, in the sea to the right. I suspect this is a generic bug, rather than a local problem here. I'll raise it elsewhere. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Notam Ref [22] Not Static
Maybe a better reference would be the NOTAM for SFO from: DUAT Weather Archive prior to the incident available for at least 10 days — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.229.101 (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Drug testing
I have just reverted this edit [1] as the source [2] appeared not to say anything about what was required by 'foreign regulations', and as poorly worded - this is an international encyclopaedia, and contrasting the US with unnamed 'foreigners' is clearly inappropriate. I think we should cretainly mention the (lack of) drug testing issue somewhere - but it would be preferable to do so citing a source that actually makes clear what the relevant regulations are, as far as Korean nationals flying a commercial aircraft into US destinations. Has anyone seen a source which covers this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- My apologies for the initial wording. So far I haven't found anything saying what the specific regs are regarding drug testing after accidents. Rojas.jorge96 (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Also see:
- http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2013/07/12/if-drug-and-alcohol-testing-for-asiana-flight-214-crew-not-required-by-law-why-didnt-ntsb-or-faa-request-voluntary-compliance/
- http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/aviation/310151-ntsb-chief-asiana-pilots-were-not-drug-tested
- http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/07/09/Asiana-flight-crew-not-tested-for-drugs-or-alcohol/UPI-24951373351400/
- http://www.ibtimes.com/asiana-airlines-flight-214-ntsb-says-pilots-not-tested-drugs-or-alcohol-after-crash-1339295
- http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-asiana-airlines-drug-test-20130709,0,40181.story
--Parallelized (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Discussion in the aviation community
This is a placeholder to help analyze the major discussions going on in pilot forums, such as:
- automation complacency, excessive use of automation, lack of hand-flying skills
- potential impact of previous training/experience (influence of A320 rating/experience, autothrottle habits) and differences between the A320 and 777
- potential b777 design issues or A320 differences [3]
- FLCH trap (FL000), auto-throttle wake-up
- except for the stick shaker, there's no separate aural/audio stall warning, unlike the A320
- no standalone speed/stall warning
- no alpha floor protection, unlike the A320
- flaw in speed tape logic
- flight director use during approaches vs. Airbus requiring FDs to be off to force A/T into SPD mode
- the stick shaker/stall warning not being EGPWS/TWAS coupled, so that its warnings may be too late
- no standalone AoA display to help SA (Sullenberger, AF 447)
- an inexperienced/new IP being paired with an inexperienced 777 pilot
- the IP's total 777 flight experience
- experience being based on total flying hours, and not on number of landings, visual approaches or manually flown hours
- relief crews on longrange flights having little chance to maintain hand-flying and visual approach proficiency
- potential impact of FQA evaluation by the airline, airlines in general
- little TQ/TR quality assurance, because ratings are not evaluated by third parties, or foreign countries
- go-arounds generally being frowned upon by airlines, instead of being regularly encouraged/required by SOPs
- the pilots not refusing the "slam-dunk" APP, the IP recognizing the unstable approach too late due to lack of monitoring by PMs
- hand-flying/visual approach proficiency not being explicitly encouraged/required by many airlines
- asiana SOPs regarding autothrottle use during final
- The 28L ILS G/S being u/s, alternatives to maintain vertical SA via RNAV/GPS
- problematic KSFO ATC practices ("slam dunks", 180kts, 5nm finals) [4]
- potential CRM failures much earlier than 500ft AGL
- rote learning as a factor to type rating performance
- alleged Korean/ASIANA CRM Issues (seniority) and expat TRI/TRE feedback
- potential language/cultural issues
- The role of the 747 crew watching the non-stabilized approach
- evacuation delay by FD crew
- delay by emergency response teams
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Parallelized (talk • contribs) 18:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Just because these views are being expressed on aviation forums doesn't make them remotely authoritative. For instance, "automation complacency, excessive use of automation, lack of hand-flying skills" is commonly expressed by pilots who view the encroachment of computers into the cockpit as detrimental to airmanship, and 'fly the airplane' does indeed remain a priority, but there are a whole range of accidents in which the direct cause of the accident was failure to appropriately understand the aircraft systems, and 'fly the airplane' requires you to understand that just as much as it requires you to understand the basic forces on control surfaces. 'Airmanship' in a 777 or any other modern aircraft is a lot wider body of knowledge than in a Cessna, or even a 737 Classic. Equally [5] includes a lot of speculation - it dresses them up as 'theories', but the fact an accident-chasing lawyer might pursue them doesn't make them anything more. The only agency which can 'promote' them to legitimacy is NTSB based on the full set of facts they ascertain. Airbus and Boeing do do things differently, that doesn't make one right and the other wrong, it represents different and equally valid ways of looking at the cockpit environment and how to best protect the aircraft and passengers. WRT delayed evacuation, evacuation should be prompt, but it should also be safe, and the consequences of getting that decision wrong can be fatal, the crew needed to determine if and where there was any fire or wreckage, potentially factor in prevailing wind - a non-trivial problem after being spun around, and combine all that to decide which exits could safely be used. They evacuated on the left hand side of the aircraft, without using the right-side exits near to the separated engine, so they got that right, which is better than quicker but wrong. 92.235.125.151 (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- "WRT delayed evacuation, evacuation should be prompt, but it should also be safe, and the consequences of getting that decision wrong can be fatal, the crew needed to determine if and where there was any fire or wreckage, potentially factor in prevailing wind - a non-trivial problem after being spun around, and combine all that to decide which exits could safely be used."
- DEAD WRONG! The evacuation should NEVER be delayed, when it is obvious the plane has crashed, causing significant damage to the structure. The presence of fire is to be ASSUMED! Of course, the FAs try to steer passengers away from an exit if they see fire right outside of that door, but that is to be done WHILE the evac is in process.
- We were NEVER trained to wait until a thorough assessment had been taken first. The whole purpose of the FAA rule of total evac within 90 seconds, with half of the exits unusable, for aircraft certification, is to ensure that the maximum amount of lives will be saved, if a crash takes place.
- How absurd that the FAA would require that capability before the plane can be certified, and then someone declares that he thinks the evac should be delayed until a thorough evaluation has been made. The argument is absurd, dead wrong and defies years of training, over and over again, that evacuations are to begin IMMEDIATELY, once the plane has come to a stop. EditorASC (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Presumably that topic will come up in the further training that is promised for that airline. We can note that it happened but will need to wait for the final NTSB report to indicate whether it was a factor in the survivability. Please note though that slide 2R which deployed into the cabin would have deployed directly into the burning engine. I see no indication that the crew chose not to deploy 1R and 2R towards the fire (which is kind of bizarre), but the chutes themselves oddly refused to go near the fire. It will probably be a long time before we if ever know why they deployed inside the cabin. 3R and 4R chutes apparently were not deployed, but with the attitude of the aircraft the doors appear to be close to the ground and there is some indication that some passengers used one or both, but 3R is also where the language barrier occurred. Apteva (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- The safety recommendations from the AAIB report (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/8-1988%20G-BGJL.pdf) into Airtours Flight 28M at Manchester in 1985(about the worst fire in the cabin/evacuation incident in respect of actual outcome versus theoretical survivability, almost certainly the most influential) included 1) taking the time to position the aircraft with the fire downwind if possible, 2) providing aircrew with a method to assess exterior fire and damage, 3) ops manuals to be amended to provide in any rejected takeoff or emergency landing for the pilots to review whether to stop on the runway or to clear it, 4) provision of an alarm system to prime cabin crew to either evac immediately, or to wait for the aircraft to halt. So apparently one of the most influential air crash investigation units, looking at an evacuation that went dreadfully wrong, concluded that actually thinking before initiating an evacuation was preferable to following a checklist mindlessly. 92.235.125.151 (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- How absurd that the FAA would require that capability before the plane can be certified, and then someone declares that he thinks the evac should be delayed until a thorough evaluation has been made. The argument is absurd, dead wrong and defies years of training, over and over again, that evacuations are to begin IMMEDIATELY, once the plane has come to a stop. EditorASC (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTFORUM, why would this be appropriate here? Dicklyon (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- A number of spot-on discussions and statements by commercial pilots have meanwhile been re-published by major media, which "promoted" them to become eligible for being mentioned here at the same time. If you are following the recent news coverage, you'll notice that 3 of the issues mentioned above were recently covered by online and print media. --Parallelized (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- 180 kts, 5 nmi has been corrected. It was a flight separation requirement to fly at 180 kts until 5 nmi out. Apteva (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether this speculation is reported by the media, it is still speculation. They may have pages to fill, and deadlines to meet. We don't. We can wait until the official report. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is what most of you seem to be failing to understand: There's a difference between some semi-accomplished wikipedia editors/admins trying to contribute here in some shape or form, vs. some long-term ATPL holders who may even be 777 rated and regularly fly into SFO expressing organizational concerns. This isn't about speculation, it's about identifying issues that have existed before flight 214 even became relevant in the first place. Any speculation or not, other aviation accidents covered at wp also provide a dedicated section on aviation repercussions and perception. --Parallelized (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yup. I've seen some of the other articles - and a complete mess some of them have become, filled with WP:OR, POV-pushing, and other material that simply doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. Just because other articles have got it wrong, we don't have to repeat it here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Don't write off the wikipedia editors vs the aviation forums, I've not done a systematic trawl of aviation forums, but the talk page here is better balanced than much of what I've seen. We also need to be very careful of opinions expressed by (non-777) pilots no matter how experienced due to the difference in design philosphies between Airbus and Boeing envelope protection systems, which can reach Mac vs PC levels of dogma as to which is 'better', ditto on Airbus vs Boeing controls (see Flight Control Modes). Pilots are no more immune to Monday-morning-quarterbacking (aka speculation) than any other group, and having actually flown doesn't necessarily make their speculation right. 92.235.125.151 (talk) 11:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Admin - Please Prevent Edit War re Image Caption for visually impaired
It appears that editor Jehochman is unhappy with some useful edits made by Mareklug and has reverted them. Unfortunately, Jehochman's initial edit was accompanied by needless snarky commentary while his edits both decreased the encyclopedic quality of the article and removed image captioning that assists the visually impaired and is helpful to others.
I would normally just revert Jehochman's latest re-revert but I don't want to set up a situation where "edit war" rules start to get imposed.
If Jehochman wants to argue about style, he can do so, civilly, on the Talk page.
Can some administrator take a look at this series of edits?
If senior admins find I have miscategorized the edits, so be it, I won't take further steps to remove Jehochman's unhelpful edits.
Thanks Ande B. (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, fully supportive of reviewing Jehochman's actions and his snarky edit remarks - it just isn't helpful to deal with issues like that. There are without a doubt many contributors who may not be as familiar with wp, and its markup, but acting like that is not constructive, especially because it is probably pretty safe to assume that most wp admins are not necessarily aviation experts, ATCOs or even type rated 777 pilots - thus, skills, expertise and knowledge should complement each other - what's going on here is plain ridiculous and doesn't help quality at all, I have seen knowledgeable contributions reverted by people due to stylistic issues, and plain wrong stuff being added, reviewed and approved just because it matches wp style, is that intended ? Please, think about it - or just lock the article and have 3-5 guys with a background in aviation act as reviewers, while others can take care of stylistic stuff and proper refs. Thank you --Parallelized (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for noticing that. You guys are a bunch of really uncollegial editors, and I'm not going to waste time arguing with you at all. Jehochman Talk 20:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I specifically alerted you to these developments so that you could provide a little insight - unfortunately, you failed at that, big time I may add. Don't get me wrong, improvements are appreciated - but please don't touch contents that you don't understand, I am sure everybody will appreciate your stylistic contributions - to help those people who actually know a thing or two about aviation with using wp.--Parallelized (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I've also had a problem with one of Jehochman's edits, which ignored discussion, and removed an edit and its cite, with the comment that the edit was uncited. Hopefully we don't have to waste time on these kinds of issues and can focus on improving the article. guanxi (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe someone could first try to talk to that dude, I mean he seems pretty accomplished over here, and even an admin - obviously not an aviation expert, but there should be an option to get him involved to help people who are not as familiar with wp, instead of having to report him outright? But reverting stuff like that is just crazy, and frankly, pretty discouraging.--Parallelized (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment: I have now had to revert Jehochman's removal of descriptive cutline for the interior shot twice, and both edits of that Wikipedian came with snarky edit summaries. Also, now, that he has removed the reference in the text to oxygen masks being deployed on impact (survivor account), the cutline is the only textual manifestation of this, and of course, the NTSB-supplied picture is reliable source in this case. Ditto for the information about the seats remaining in place. The seats remaining in place is a crucial bit of information not mentioned anywhere else in the text, yet responsible for so few fatalities. Seat strengthening to withstand 16G acceleration is one of the hallmarks of improved survivability of modern passenger aircraft. Also, it is entirely within Wikipedia policy to restate pictorial/graphic information in text, precisely for the consumption of visually impaired, as Ande B. already mentioned, as well as readers employing textual browsing. I would hope Jehochman will not cause a need to revert this unjustified edit one more time. I would also like to ask for less snark in edit summaries. --Mareklug talk 00:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe find a citation for the seats remaining in place, otherwise this seems like original research. --Malerooster (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- The NTSB-supplied picture is citation enough. After all, this is the cutline to go with it. --Mareklug talk 01:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is the essence of WP:OR. I am not seeing this "cutline", not sure what that is, not sure if that would matter, but can you link it? --Malerooster (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, it is not original research. Information comes in many modalities. An officially released picture is one of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutline -- is a description of a photograph. You are looking at it. --Mareklug talk 01:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I mean all the seats didn't remain in place, but thats besides the point, since a photo is open to interpretation. Just find a RS and be done with this, why is that so hard? --Malerooster (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Industry experts said the Asiana plane, a Boeing BA +1.31% 777, had a significant advantage over older models: It was equipped with a new generation of seats, the majority of which stayed in place instead of breaking loose from their floor tracks or collapsing, which could have caused many more serious injuries. In 1988, the Federal Aviation Administration began requiring that seats on newly designed, newly certified planes must withstand inertial force equal to 16 times the force of gravity in static testing. Today, that is the world standard. The FAA declined to make a seat specialist available for an interview. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324694904578598041567963334.html Will you revert your removal now? --Mareklug talk 01:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- This supportts my edit. A number of the seats did NOT stay in place, this has been reliable sourced in multiple places and in the photo. --Malerooster (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- The three that were ejected with the flight attendants in them did not stay in place, but no information has been released about any other seats not remaining in place. Apteva (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- This supportts my edit. A number of the seats did NOT stay in place, this has been reliable sourced in multiple places and in the photo. --Malerooster (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Industry experts said the Asiana plane, a Boeing BA +1.31% 777, had a significant advantage over older models: It was equipped with a new generation of seats, the majority of which stayed in place instead of breaking loose from their floor tracks or collapsing, which could have caused many more serious injuries. In 1988, the Federal Aviation Administration began requiring that seats on newly designed, newly certified planes must withstand inertial force equal to 16 times the force of gravity in static testing. Today, that is the world standard. The FAA declined to make a seat specialist available for an interview. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324694904578598041567963334.html Will you revert your removal now? --Mareklug talk 01:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I mean all the seats didn't remain in place, but thats besides the point, since a photo is open to interpretation. Just find a RS and be done with this, why is that so hard? --Malerooster (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, it is not original research. Information comes in many modalities. An officially released picture is one of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutline -- is a description of a photograph. You are looking at it. --Mareklug talk 01:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is the essence of WP:OR. I am not seeing this "cutline", not sure what that is, not sure if that would matter, but can you link it? --Malerooster (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- The NTSB-supplied picture is citation enough. After all, this is the cutline to go with it. --Mareklug talk 01:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe find a citation for the seats remaining in place, otherwise this seems like original research. --Malerooster (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Malerooster removed the information pertaining to the seats remaining in place 3 times now in close succession, without waiting for community input. I appeal to other editors to address this. --Mareklug talk 01:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Mareklug added the information pertaining to the seats remaining in place 3 times now in close succession, without waiting for community input. I appeal to other editors to address this.--Malerooster (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- You do realize that that you are being POINTy, as well as uncooperative. Your
Comment: came after I quoted a textual RS you called for. Also, in WP:MOSCAPTION, which you directed me to in your last revert's edit summary, it is stated: Captions for technical images should fully describe all the elements of the image, and the image's significance. --Mareklug talk 02:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- You do realize that that you are being POINTy, as well as uncooperative. Your
- This is NOT a technical image and why not use alt text? Also, I still haven't seen the "cutline" you referred to earlier. I went to the twitter picture and didn't see it, but might have missed it. Also, the photo shows that some of the seats did not remain in place, but again, that would be original research to say that in the text. Still waiting for a RS that covers this, rather than a stand alone photo. --Malerooster (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure we can say whether the seats did or didn't remain in place, or whether they remained in place, but the tracking or floor itself was displaced. 92.235.125.151 (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- The NTSB did. The floor burned out later. Apteva (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure we can say whether the seats did or didn't remain in place, or whether they remained in place, but the tracking or floor itself was displaced. 92.235.125.151 (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is NOT a technical image and why not use alt text? Also, I still haven't seen the "cutline" you referred to earlier. I went to the twitter picture and didn't see it, but might have missed it. Also, the photo shows that some of the seats did not remain in place, but again, that would be original research to say that in the text. Still waiting for a RS that covers this, rather than a stand alone photo. --Malerooster (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Image caption
Does anyone really care if the oxygen masks were deployed or not? I do not see that is important. Oxygen masks are primarily there if the cabin loses pressure at high altitude, as air at 40,000 feet is not breathable. If anyone is concerned about the visually impaired, the correct method to do that is with an alt tag, not with details that do not matter to those who are looking at the image. A recent NTSB briefing stated that no passenger seats were ejected from the aircraft. Apteva (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Apteva, I do care about whether oxygen masks were deployed. I believe that many people find this sort of information to be interesting and helpful. An alt tag is great to have, for those people who have extreme visual impairment. For those who have temporary impairment or modest impairment, the alt tag isn't necessarily as useful. For those people, a clear caption describing the image is helpful. What sorts of people might be helped most? Senior citizens who struggle with their bifocals, those with a temporary visual problem, those who view the image on a small or low resolution screen, those who are unfamiliar with the interior of a 777, those who have no idea what the dangling oxygen masks are, young people who have little experience with aircraft interiors. That is not an exhaustive list. Just because you can quickly and clearly view and understand an image does not mean that everyone can do so. The captioning Mareklug has provided is helpful for those who are not as fortunate as you. I think those people count. Ande B. (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I read that a number of seats were ejected from the back of the palne? --Malerooster (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Two of the stewardesses (oops, flight attendants) with their seats were ejected. No passenger seats were ejected. Apteva (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I read that a number of seats were ejected from the back of the palne? --Malerooster (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it is important, as one passenger's tug on a deployed oxygen mask activates chemical oxygen production for the entire row of seats. This means release of oxygen for 20 minutes in 3-6 places, and production of intense albeit localized heat. This may have implications for the roof fire. A correctly phrased tag not only works for visually impaired but channels the attention of the viewer and informs the viewer of the saliency of what is being depicted. For example, you had no idea about the oxygen masks. Someone else may not realize that the seats remaining in place saved lives here, but has not necessarily been the case in earlier crashes. Seats not being ejected is not the same as seats becoming dislodged and blocking exit, as well as causing injuries/fatalities. --Mareklug talk 01:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- That is simply speculation. We need a reliable source that covers this to include anything like this. "The saliency"? Please, the salience is just a photo of the interior. Apteva (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- If you care about the visually impaired, why not use the alt text perameter in the image? Again, rather than parrotting what some taking head said, just find a RS for this material. --Malerooster (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- This was already provided earlier on this talk page: http://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/question258.htm (The reason why oxygen canisters can cause fires is because they are hot and they generate oxygen. Anything nearby that happens to ignite will burn intensely because of the rich oxygen supply.) and Chemical oxygen generator (The chemical reaction is exothermic and the exterior temperature of the canister will reach 260 °C (500 °F). It will produce oxygen for 12 to 22 minutes.[1][2] The two-mask generator is approximately 63 mm (2.5 in) in diameter and 223 mm (8.8 in) long. The three-mask generator is approximately 70 mm (2.8 in) in diameter and 250 mm (9.8 in) long., When the passengers pull down on the mask they remove the retaining pins and trigger the production of oxygen.). --Mareklug talk 02:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- User Apteva added the alt description, finally, Interior of the aircraft, after the crash, showing oxygen masks hanging from the ceiling, ready for use. The seat backs have video displays installed, and all seats are in position, some reclined, some upright. The overhead compartments are open.. The problem with this is that this is incorrect. All seats are not "in position" whatever that means, a number are collapesd onto each other. I know this is minor, but it still should be worded correctly, even if it is an alt description. I wouldn't add any more detail than the article does in its text, as is the intention of MOSCAPTION. --Malerooster (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I am sure that alt will help somebody, but it does not render in any fashion whatsover using the main browsers I use for Wikipedia (Safari, Google Chrome). This was one reason why I basically don't bother with alt on Wikipedia, as I don't even have a ready way to see them. Safari and Google merely display the image URL in the status bar at the bottom. --Mareklug talk 04:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- User Apteva added the alt description, finally, Interior of the aircraft, after the crash, showing oxygen masks hanging from the ceiling, ready for use. The seat backs have video displays installed, and all seats are in position, some reclined, some upright. The overhead compartments are open.. The problem with this is that this is incorrect. All seats are not "in position" whatever that means, a number are collapesd onto each other. I know this is minor, but it still should be worded correctly, even if it is an alt description. I wouldn't add any more detail than the article does in its text, as is the intention of MOSCAPTION. --Malerooster (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- This was already provided earlier on this talk page: http://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/question258.htm (The reason why oxygen canisters can cause fires is because they are hot and they generate oxygen. Anything nearby that happens to ignite will burn intensely because of the rich oxygen supply.) and Chemical oxygen generator (The chemical reaction is exothermic and the exterior temperature of the canister will reach 260 °C (500 °F). It will produce oxygen for 12 to 22 minutes.[1][2] The two-mask generator is approximately 63 mm (2.5 in) in diameter and 223 mm (8.8 in) long. The three-mask generator is approximately 70 mm (2.8 in) in diameter and 250 mm (9.8 in) long., When the passengers pull down on the mask they remove the retaining pins and trigger the production of oxygen.). --Mareklug talk 02:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- The consensus here, except for one editor, is that whether the oxygen masks deployed or not isn't particularly relevant, and that the statement about the seat being unmoved could be just plain wrong, or at least we need a good source to back them up. I'm going to sleep on it, and unless the discussion turns around because other editors want the extensive caption (and can find sources to back up the statement that the seats remained in place), it should be pruned. Jehochman Talk 05:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- One of the briefings is worth mentioning about modern aircraft require seats to remain in place with 16g of force, helping to improve survivability. Apteva (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that is worth mentioning if we can find a comment from a reliable source stating that all or most of the seats stayed anchored. We need a source because there may be nuances. A few seats appear to have fallen out hole in the back of the aircraft, for example. Jehochman Talk 12:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- We have the NTSB briefing (3rd or 4th), and I believe it says what year the regulation went into effect. It does not indicate which aircraft meet it other than that this one did. Apteva (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that is worth mentioning if we can find a comment from a reliable source stating that all or most of the seats stayed anchored. We need a source because there may be nuances. A few seats appear to have fallen out hole in the back of the aircraft, for example. Jehochman Talk 12:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- One of the briefings is worth mentioning about modern aircraft require seats to remain in place with 16g of force, helping to improve survivability. Apteva (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Google appears to be clueless about the alt tag, and does not use it, although, "Inspect element" shows it along with a great deal more. Most browsers, IE and Firefox included, display the alt text in the box where the image would be if images are turned off. I am certain that Google will get oodles of complaints from anyone blind trying to use Chrome. Or they will just blindly avoid using Chrome. Apteva (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- There are plugins for Chrome that provide features for blind and low-vision users.[6] Jehochman Talk 12:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I saw that, but Google only lists low-vision, color-impaired, deaf, and hearing-impaired users. There are in fact blind web users. We likely have blind editors. Apteva (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Simon Hradecky just updated the Aviation Herald source we use with 12 July additions, highlighted for now in yellow. I will only quote the part pertaining to my assertion that the seats remained intact, all the passenger seats, despite claims to the contrary by people in this thread: All passenger seats were inside the aircraft cabin, only 3 flight attendant seats were ejected from the aircraft with the flight attendants seated in them. A firefighter entering the aircraft via door 2L before the fire reached the cabin reported, that when he looked right the cabin and seats looked "pristine" as if the aircraft could just turn around and depart again, very little if any damage. The escape lighting was on during the evacuation and the PA system was available. All occupants had left the aircraft prior to the fire reaching the cabin. The floor of the aircraft from cockpit to main wing spar was sound, the support structure of the fuselage floor past the main wing spar was compromised at the right hand side, the left hand side was still sound. Between doors 3 and 4 the damage gets progressively worse, there is no floor past doors 4. http://avherald.com/h?article=464ef64f&opt=4096 --Mareklug talk 13:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Editors don't make assertions. There's nothing about all the seats remaining intact in the bit you've pasted; just a fireman quoted about the seats that were in his sight. — Lfdder (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- None of the passenger seats left the aircraft, which is what 2 editors in this section *asserted*, and that quoted bit does not come from the fireman, but the NTSB briefing itself. Also, no one has produced a reliable source that ANY passenger seats collapsed/moved/were dislodged. I have seen the new interior image NTSB has published, and the middle seats in view have melted, etc., from intense fire in the roofless portion of the cabin, while window seats, the only things recognizable as seats, remained intact. No seat in any photograph appears dislodged. --Mareklug talk 14:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Argument from ignorance. — Lfdder (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Look. Do you have a reliable source that even a single seat dislodged? By all means, produce it. Don't argue by snark. --Mareklug talk 15:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing by snark. We've not got a source that says all the seats were intact. Absence of evidence is not proof of the contrary. But I see you've changed intact to dislodged now.... the rear cabin floor collapsed so, yes, they were dislodged. What we appear to know for sure is that none were ejected. — Lfdder (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I remind you that all *I* wanted to do was to appropriately fully caption the first interior picture, namely mention the deployed oxygen masks and seats remaining fixed and not dislodged, blocking the aisles, or collapsed *in view*. This has after much grief been "sanitized" in the form of an ALT tag, which is a typical half-assed outcome by pseudo-consensus :) -- namely, instead of the information remaining readily visible to all, it can be now seen only by the lucky few, namely those browsing/editing with the religiously approved web browser, and those deprived of images altogether, perhaps blind or browsing with alt-supporting browsers such as Lynx (web browser). Mind you, if the information were crufty to begin with, it would have been stricken altogether. So it goes, to quote the wise Kurt Vonnegut. --Mareklug talk 15:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing by snark. We've not got a source that says all the seats were intact. Absence of evidence is not proof of the contrary. But I see you've changed intact to dislodged now.... the rear cabin floor collapsed so, yes, they were dislodged. What we appear to know for sure is that none were ejected. — Lfdder (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Look. Do you have a reliable source that even a single seat dislodged? By all means, produce it. Don't argue by snark. --Mareklug talk 15:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Argument from ignorance. — Lfdder (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- None of the passenger seats left the aircraft, which is what 2 editors in this section *asserted*, and that quoted bit does not come from the fireman, but the NTSB briefing itself. Also, no one has produced a reliable source that ANY passenger seats collapsed/moved/were dislodged. I have seen the new interior image NTSB has published, and the middle seats in view have melted, etc., from intense fire in the roofless portion of the cabin, while window seats, the only things recognizable as seats, remained intact. No seat in any photograph appears dislodged. --Mareklug talk 14:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Editors don't make assertions. There's nothing about all the seats remaining intact in the bit you've pasted; just a fireman quoted about the seats that were in his sight. — Lfdder (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Hit by a firetruck
There is now news that one of the casulties was killed by being hit by a firetruck heading to the scene (and not by the crash itself), if that is they case then are they still considered a direct casulty of the plane crash — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B106:36EA:0:0:0:103 (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Is there a source which states that this has been confirmed - the article already says that this is being investigated as a possibility. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- If they were hit by the fire truck and killed, that is definitely not a fatality of the flight (and is a pedestrian accident), any more than if anyone from the flight hospitalized contracts a disease while in the hospital and dies is a fatality of the flight. The coroner is planning to wait two or three weeks to release the causes of death so that a full investigation can be completed. I was going to put that into the article but changed it to has not released in case the time frame changed (this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper). Admittedly, not wishing to release the autopsy results was an indicator that there was something wrong. Apteva (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- If not for the crash, she wouldn't have been run over. We'll see what the news sources have to say about it. Unless there's something new this morning, all they've said so far is "may have been". The coroner has to determine if she was run over, and if so, whether she was still alive at the time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Apparently, the police have confirmed that she was hit by the truck - after being covered by foam. [7]. This doesn't of course tell us whether she was already dead, or whether the truck (or even the foam) killed her. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- If it's true she was hit by a vehicle and that the coroner is still checking things out, that could be worth a sentence. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- The coroner is waiting to release results but that does not indicate that the coroner is doing any further work on the case. We can do nothing but wait for the report, unless the fire or police departments release further information. Apteva (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- If it's true she was hit by a vehicle and that the coroner is still checking things out, that could be worth a sentence. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Apparently, the police have confirmed that she was hit by the truck - after being covered by foam. [7]. This doesn't of course tell us whether she was already dead, or whether the truck (or even the foam) killed her. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- If not for the crash, she wouldn't have been run over. We'll see what the news sources have to say about it. Unless there's something new this morning, all they've said so far is "may have been". The coroner has to determine if she was run over, and if so, whether she was still alive at the time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- If they were hit by the fire truck and killed, that is definitely not a fatality of the flight (and is a pedestrian accident), any more than if anyone from the flight hospitalized contracts a disease while in the hospital and dies is a fatality of the flight. The coroner is planning to wait two or three weeks to release the causes of death so that a full investigation can be completed. I was going to put that into the article but changed it to has not released in case the time frame changed (this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper). Admittedly, not wishing to release the autopsy results was an indicator that there was something wrong. Apteva (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Just reiterating: sources that I've seen state that she was hit by the truck, not necessarily killed by it. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Read the final report when it comes out and see how the NTSB classifies their deaths. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- One of the fatalities was not found by rescuers for 14 minutes. (obviously all three victims were alive when they exited the aircraft, though one injured was paralyzed and was carried out)[8] This says that not even one ambulance showed up until 40 minutes after the accident.[9] Do airports even have ambulances on site? I think the general modus operendus is you either walk out alive or a fire truck puts out the flames, and there is no assumption of injuries, which seems pretty strange. Race tracks have ambulances on site, why not airports? Are accidents so rare that when they do happen we just let people die? I see some more changes to come because of this incident. Like, keep passengers together after exiting the aircraft, and help with on site triage, and keep medical personnel on duty at airports. And watch out where you are driving the fire trucks. Oh well, have to wait and see. Apteva (talk) 06:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- "Are accidents so rare that when they do happen we just let people die?" Speaking bluntly, yes, just as we don't keep ambulances at railway stations in anticipation of a train crash. Even if there is on-site ambulance provision, it's not of a scale to be able to manage more than a few casualties, handling a major air crash is going to take the full capability of local, if not regional, fire, police and medical provision working in an integrated disaster plan. Fatal accidents involving scheduled flights run significantly less than 1 per million departures (0.34/million as a 10 year average according to http://www.boeing.com/news/techissues/pdf/statsum.pdf), many of these far from the airport. Flight International (who do a yearly survey) recorded 34 fatal accidents in 2011, 21 in 2012, and that's worldwide, including airlines who aren't allowed into Western airspace due to their safety records or poor national oversight - see http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-why-2012-was-exceptionally-good-for-airline-safety-380679/. 92.235.125.151 (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- "obviously all three victims were alive when they exited the aircraft". Um, no reliable source supports this conjecture. I have adjusted the article accordingly. It is entirely plausible that both fatalities (I am excluding the child that died on 12 July in San Francisco General) occurred the instant the aircraft hit the seawall. Let's not write anything that we don't have relibable sourcing for. --Mareklug talk 15:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, obviously. The crew made certain that everyone exited the aircraft. One person was carried out because they were paralyzed, but there were categorically no dead persons on the aircraft. Everyone survived the crash, and 12 were critically injured. Two of the critically injured died outside the aircraft, at the scene, one of them possibly because of being run over by a fire truck. We will find that out at some point. There is only one other fatality that is at question, and they were not the passenger who was carried out paralyzed. Passengers in 911 calls described trying to keep people alive, but that would have applied to all 12 of the critically injured. So yes we know from reliable sources that no one died upon impact. It is totally unnecessary to pretend that some of the passengers might have been killed on impact when we know for certain that is not the case. Apteva (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- What I am saying all this time is that you are making the unwarranted assumption that the 2 deceased girls were still aboard when the evacuation took place. Their bodies may have been thrown from the tailless aircraft, one near the seawall, the other later, perhaps during the "cartwheel". This account: Both Wang Linjia, 16, and Ye Mengyuan, 17, were found dead on the tarmac at San Francisco International Airport, their bodies at least a mile apart, after a Boeing 777 crashed short of the runway Saturday. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/chinese-girls-asiana-wreck-lived-died-best-pals-article-1.1393478 Ergo, they could well have died on impact, or later on site. --Mareklug talk 04:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- It was more like a bit over 2,000 feet from the seawall to the aircraft where it came to rest. "One found on each side of the plane"[10] In this report, Hersman corrects the number of flight attendants who were ejected from two to three, but does not say, and one passenger. Apteva (talk) 07:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- In the fourth NTSB briefing, at 24:19 corrects information from the previous day to say that three flight attendants in their seats were ejected from the aircraft, and at 24:44 twice says that no passenger seats were ejected from the aircraft.[11] Apteva (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- We knew for a long while that no passenger seats were ejected. Again, you have not produced any NTSB briefing evidence to the effect that no passengers were ejected. Rather, this has been not addressed at all in the NTSB briefings. You are implying, which is pure synthesis, that no mention of ejected passengers means none were. Furthermore, the newly added San Jose Mercury source, "SFO crash: Three flight attendants ejected from plane strapped in their seats". Mercurynews.com. 2013-07-08. Retrieved 2013-07-14., contains the revealing eyewitness account of the Chinese passenger who sat with her two deceased friends in Row 41. Please reread it! Her account clearly implies that the two were simply gone after the tail was gone and the plane came to rest. She says she assumed they got off the plane -- but that is what it is, an assumption. They were likely both thrown off the plane, which explains why they were found 2 thousand feet apart, if not a full mile. Ergo, they could have well died on impact. At no time did you admit that your edits suppressing this information is not supported by sources, and if anything, is contradicted. You have performed synthesis, I am afraid to say. At this times I would also like to ask you to clean up the refs, after you corrected the number of ejected flight attendants to three. At least one if not more sources used in the Investigation section refer to two in their titles, if not accounts. --Mareklug talk 02:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- What I am saying all this time is that you are making the unwarranted assumption that the 2 deceased girls were still aboard when the evacuation took place. Their bodies may have been thrown from the tailless aircraft, one near the seawall, the other later, perhaps during the "cartwheel". This account: Both Wang Linjia, 16, and Ye Mengyuan, 17, were found dead on the tarmac at San Francisco International Airport, their bodies at least a mile apart, after a Boeing 777 crashed short of the runway Saturday. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/chinese-girls-asiana-wreck-lived-died-best-pals-article-1.1393478 Ergo, they could well have died on impact, or later on site. --Mareklug talk 04:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, obviously. The crew made certain that everyone exited the aircraft. One person was carried out because they were paralyzed, but there were categorically no dead persons on the aircraft. Everyone survived the crash, and 12 were critically injured. Two of the critically injured died outside the aircraft, at the scene, one of them possibly because of being run over by a fire truck. We will find that out at some point. There is only one other fatality that is at question, and they were not the passenger who was carried out paralyzed. Passengers in 911 calls described trying to keep people alive, but that would have applied to all 12 of the critically injured. So yes we know from reliable sources that no one died upon impact. It is totally unnecessary to pretend that some of the passengers might have been killed on impact when we know for certain that is not the case. Apteva (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- "she assumed" "were likely" "which explains" "they could have" None of this sort of conjecture belongs in the article, and none of it qualifies as "information". Stick to the facts and wait for the NTSB final report. Apteva (talk) 03:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ambulances are kept on site at airports. I would not trust that 40 minutes number.99.7.168.160 (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- even if they were not, SFFD ambulances would not take 40 minutes to respond to the airport. this isn't Detroit -- Aunva6talk - contribs 18:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- I resent the gratuitous Detroit snark. What's up with that? Do you have any evidence that it would take 40 minutes for DFD to arrive at the international airport there, or are you manifesting your prejudices? --Mareklug talk 21:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- whoah there! I wasn't trying to mean anything by it, it's just that DFD is notoriously understaffed, and I was more or less making a comparison. also, maybe it's not 40 minutes, but still pretty long. I have the utmost respect for all first responders, and the detroit situation isn't really germane to the article. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 02:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- I resent the gratuitous Detroit snark. What's up with that? Do you have any evidence that it would take 40 minutes for DFD to arrive at the international airport there, or are you manifesting your prejudices? --Mareklug talk 21:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- even if they were not, SFFD ambulances would not take 40 minutes to respond to the airport. this isn't Detroit -- Aunva6talk - contribs 18:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ambulances are kept on site at airports. I would not trust that 40 minutes number.99.7.168.160 (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Obviously this is very much a "grey area", if you remember in "Japan Airlines Flight 123" (the deadliest single airline crash) that it is believed that many of the passangers survived the crash but died of overnight exposure to the elements but all casulties are listed as victims of the crash (although in that case they could never determine who actually died in the crash and who died afterwords). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Unexplained numbers and simplistic categorisations can never fully explain what happened. That's what the rest of the article is for. No need to stress about what category to put people in. Just pick one that's reasonable (if not absolutely precise and agreed upon by all), annotate it, and point readers to the detail within the article. HiLo48 (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Removal of uncited material
Extended content
|
---|
Referring to uninformed edits reverting information that's been provided by the NTSB, such as [12].--Parallelized (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
|
KTVU pranked
This sure sounds like WP vandalism. :P --Gmaxwell (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not worth checking and likely there are other jokesters in the world than those who vandalize wp pages. Apteva (talk) 01:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Is KTVU still a Reliable Source, with "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? :) guanxi (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think they merit excluding for one Casual Friday's worth of pranking. I am leaning to supporting the conspiracy theory that everyone at the station was in on the prank, including the anchorwoman now unfairly maligned by the millions as an idiot. Poor judgment, perhaps. A hilarious riot of a prank, though, a veritable SNL skit come to life. --Mareklug talk 15:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't serious; it was just a joking point about the presumption of "fact-checking and accuracy" by "Reliable Sources". guanxi (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's an interesting story, but it doesn't deserve mention here, and it doesn't merit a {{current}} tag on this article. --John (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Um, I totally beg to differ. The story of Flight 214 is how checks and safeties built into the system had failed with tragic consequences. The KTVU aspect of the Flight 214 story is how even more checks can fail. The anchor, while reading those names, did not have the awareness that she was being pranked and she failed to make an immediate real-time correction. This fits the theme of how very experienced pilots can be flying so low and slow and fail to recognize their situation in time to make a correction that would have prevented the crash. Similar to how half of the crash-day deaths got run over by the fire truck. Flight 214 is the story of human failures, followed by more human failures, followed by even more human failures. But at least no one died because of KTVU's screwup. =Dustin Dewynne (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Have any valid sources connected those dots? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think the best place to put the prank is only in the KTVU article. It is really not about the accident, and there is no need to put every inappropriate joke that anyone makes in this article. Apteva (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Have any valid sources connected those dots? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Um, I totally beg to differ. The story of Flight 214 is how checks and safeties built into the system had failed with tragic consequences. The KTVU aspect of the Flight 214 story is how even more checks can fail. The anchor, while reading those names, did not have the awareness that she was being pranked and she failed to make an immediate real-time correction. This fits the theme of how very experienced pilots can be flying so low and slow and fail to recognize their situation in time to make a correction that would have prevented the crash. Similar to how half of the crash-day deaths got run over by the fire truck. Flight 214 is the story of human failures, followed by more human failures, followed by even more human failures. But at least no one died because of KTVU's screwup. =Dustin Dewynne (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- @Baseball Bugs, the connection between those three dots (plane crash, fire truck, news report) is Flight 214. And this is an article about Flight 214. Every article on the KTVU flub connects that dot back to the crash dot. To leave it in Wikipedia as an insulated dot, with not so much as a link from this article mentioning KTVU, then this crash article does not tell the complete story of human error surrounding Flt 214. =Dustin Dewynne (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- @Apteva, no one is suggesting to use a very serious Wikipedia article as a platform for telling jokes. This article is about telling a complete story about this fatal Asiana crash. The KTVU flub is part of that story. And as I've emphasized above, I see it to be an important part. =Dustin Dewynne (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't. HiLo48 (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's not a part of the real story unless it develops "legs" and is not just a here-today-gone-tomorrow bit of trivia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. Exclude; it merits inclusion in an article about the TV station, probably, but is not important enough to an understanding of the topic to be worth mentioning in the article about the crash. VQuakr (talk) 07:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- They're talking lawsuit now.[14] So it's almost a story. Given the possibility of pilot error, there could be any number of suits flying around before this is over. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- A story for the station, but not relevant to this article. Apteva (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed - this doesn't belong in the article. I'll remove it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- so, I have a tendency to completely disagree with exclusion... It is directly related and sourced to the Asiana flight. Not arguing seriousness, rather fact... If Peter Jennings got astronaut information incorrect during the reprortig of the Challenger tragedy would it have been included in the Wikipedia article? I hope it would be linked... That is what is was trying to do by transcluding it... That way this article wouldn't have it without the reference to the TV station.... I disagree with censoring this information out... Specifically with he Asiana talk of lawsuit. TRL (talk) 02:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- To answer your question, no, it would not be included unless Jennings was fired and ended up hanging himself or such. Why not wait and see if this turns into anything more than a Howard Sternesque type of prank. --Malerooster (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- unless someone dies it is not worth inclusion, or in this case transclusion in the article? Pretty high standards, and I'd recommend you start working toward speedy deletion of most Wikipedia content....TRL (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- It just is not relevant, and has a good home, in the station article. Did the prank cause the crash? Did the prank cause any of the fatalities? Does the prank help understand the subject matter? No, no, and no. That is why it is not included. Apteva (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- unless someone dies it is not worth inclusion, or in this case transclusion in the article? Pretty high standards, and I'd recommend you start working toward speedy deletion of most Wikipedia content....TRL (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- To answer your question, no, it would not be included unless Jennings was fired and ended up hanging himself or such. Why not wait and see if this turns into anything more than a Howard Sternesque type of prank. --Malerooster (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- so, I have a tendency to completely disagree with exclusion... It is directly related and sourced to the Asiana flight. Not arguing seriousness, rather fact... If Peter Jennings got astronaut information incorrect during the reprortig of the Challenger tragedy would it have been included in the Wikipedia article? I hope it would be linked... That is what is was trying to do by transcluding it... That way this article wouldn't have it without the reference to the TV station.... I disagree with censoring this information out... Specifically with he Asiana talk of lawsuit. TRL (talk) 02:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed - this doesn't belong in the article. I'll remove it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- A story for the station, but not relevant to this article. Apteva (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- They're talking lawsuit now.[14] So it's almost a story. Given the possibility of pilot error, there could be any number of suits flying around before this is over. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Somebody pulled an insensitive prank and a news station fell for it after relying on confirmation from an intern. Unless something more significant develops out of this, it shouldn't be included in this article. Taroaldo ✉ 03:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- CNN reports that the airline is going to sue the TV station, but not the NTSB.[15] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
This needs to be covered in the article under a section about Racism. It's all over the news. We shouldn't ignore it. Jehochman Talk 14:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Source: [16] Jehochman Talk 14:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- We should. — Lfdder (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- It could be countered with documented commentary about (1) the precedent of cultural "deference" playing into a bad landing; and (2) the irony of an airline which has just killed several passengers filing suit over name-calling (which may tie into point 1). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is not a story about the accident, it is a story about the station, and that article is where all that belongs. Apteva (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's also about the accident, as the accident is the reason that TV station incident occurred. Whether it merits more than one sentence in the article remains to be seen. I wouldn't necessarily put it in a "racism" section, though, but in a "legal actions" section - as the airline itself is liable to be hammered with lawsuits, if they haven't been already. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- If it absolutely needs to be included this sounds best to me. — Lfdder (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Has no relevance to the accident and should not be included here at all. MilborneOne (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Should be included (via transclusion) so that the text stays in sync with the KTVU info. It is directly related to the accident, but hasn't progressed beyond talk of legal actions. IF the criticism of NTSB info remains, this KTVU info should be included... otherwise remove both? TRL (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Transclusion is absurd. For example, if we decide to include "one television station was sued by the airline for incorrectly reporting the names of the pilots in a racist joke that was pulled by station staff on an on air co-anchor", why would we get that from the KTVU article by transclusion? Each article has separate needs, and that can not be met by using a transclusion. But I see no reason to make any mention of the incident in this article. Punking a co-anchor can be done about any subject, and the story is about the station that does it, not about the subject that was used. If the Ed Sullivan show introduced the Beatles as "the Beetles", that would be worth mentioning in the Beatles article, but not if Shea Stadium printed "the Beetles" on their tickets. Apteva (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Should be included (via transclusion) so that the text stays in sync with the KTVU info. It is directly related to the accident, but hasn't progressed beyond talk of legal actions. IF the criticism of NTSB info remains, this KTVU info should be included... otherwise remove both? TRL (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Has no relevance to the accident and should not be included here at all. MilborneOne (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- If it absolutely needs to be included this sounds best to me. — Lfdder (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's also about the accident, as the accident is the reason that TV station incident occurred. Whether it merits more than one sentence in the article remains to be seen. I wouldn't necessarily put it in a "racism" section, though, but in a "legal actions" section - as the airline itself is liable to be hammered with lawsuits, if they haven't been already. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is not a story about the accident, it is a story about the station, and that article is where all that belongs. Apteva (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- It could be countered with documented commentary about (1) the precedent of cultural "deference" playing into a bad landing; and (2) the irony of an airline which has just killed several passengers filing suit over name-calling (which may tie into point 1). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is not 'directly related to the accident'. It is tangential, and only relevant to our article on KTVU if it deserves mention at all. This article isn't a collection of everything and anything that resulted from media coverage of the event - we cite the media as a source in this article, and that is the limit of their significance here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is a direct consequence of the accident. And it's still front-page on cnn.com.[17] Whether it remains that way, remains to be seen. I don't see the point in transcluding it either. It's really a minor thing until, or if, something "real" comes of it. One story I read somewhere today said that the NTSB intern was fired. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- A 'direct consequence'? The plane crashing at San Francisco International caused the 'prank' did it? Absurd... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Without the crash, there is no prank. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Without the crash they could have used any automobile accident involving Asians. Apteva (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Did they? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Without the crash they could have used any automobile accident involving Asians. Apteva (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Without the crash, there is no prank. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- A 'direct consequence'? The plane crashing at San Francisco International caused the 'prank' did it? Absurd... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is a direct consequence of the accident. And it's still front-page on cnn.com.[17] Whether it remains that way, remains to be seen. I don't see the point in transcluding it either. It's really a minor thing until, or if, something "real" comes of it. One story I read somewhere today said that the NTSB intern was fired. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is not 'directly related to the accident'. It is tangential, and only relevant to our article on KTVU if it deserves mention at all. This article isn't a collection of everything and anything that resulted from media coverage of the event - we cite the media as a source in this article, and that is the limit of their significance here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
No info about this in the article. Glaring omission. I can understand how some want a clean, sanitized article but this is clearly notable and subject of many articles including lawsuits and firing of a female intern— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.38.230 (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's not about wanting a clean or sanitised article, it's about wanting an article that is relevant to its subject - the crash. The story is notable, and covered as such, on the article about the TV station where it is relevant. At the very most this article would have a single line noting that KTVU got into trouble over their coverage of the crash, but even that is pushing it. Thryduulf (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- FYI: The intern has been removed: http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Official-Intern-no-longer-at-NTSB-after-name-flap-4667084.php
--Parallelized (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- As has been the lawsuit threat. So this is now officially a non-story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Not KTVU pranked, but fictitious crew names released by NTSB and reported internationally
- Wikipedia is not news. Therefore, a story or non-story does not matter. What matters is that an encyclopedic fact is being omitted from the article. In contrast, some personal commentary has been in the article for days. One example is that the Boeing 777 is safe. What is this, the Consumer Re-Education version of Wikipedia? (No, this is English Wikipedia).
- Furthermore, inclusion (but in a very encyclopedic and tasteful way) is a useful addition. It could be fit under the lawsuit section as Asiana threatened to sue the NTSB.
- I learned something yesterday. The names were not just some comical names but actually a dialogue and story telling. I did not know that there is a sequence. It is...
1. Something's wrong? (Captain Sum Ting Wong)
2. We're too low! (Wi Tu Lo)
3. Holy Fuck! (Ho Lee Fuk)
4. Bang/Smash/Dign/Ouch! (Bang Ding Ow)
- As far as news, this was labeled as "breaking news" and was also covered by reliable sources more than anything else for a day.
- One possible way to write it would be: In the aftermath of the crash, an employee of the NTSB, contrary to the board's usual practice, release the pilots names but released incorrect names that were part of a hoax. This led to Asiana announcing impending lawsuits against the NTSB and American station KTVU. (to discuss the final sentence) The fictitious names were Captain Sum Ting Wong (Something Wrong), Wi Tu Lo (We Too Low), Ho Lee Fuk (Holy Fuck), and Bang Ding Ow (Bang, Ding, Ouch). Auchansa (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Flight 214 "is" or "was"?
Often a flight route that has a tragic incident gets renamed if still flown subsequent to the incident. According to a cited statement in the article, Asiana still flies this route (at this time) as 214. Yet the article starts: Asiana Airlines Flight 214 was... Grammatically speaking, this really ought to be changed to either "Asiana Airlines Flight 214 is..." or "The crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 was..." to be accurate, no? Echoedmyron (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think was is correct at it is talking about a singular instance of the flight not all of them. MilborneOne (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- The way it is written implies that it is singular: "Asiana Airlines Flight 214 was a scheduled transpacific passenger flight from Incheon International Airport, South Korea, that crashed during an attempted go-around at its destination, San Francisco International Airport, United States, on July 6, 2013." Makes it sound like there was only one flight ever called this and it crashed. Grammatically speaking, that is. Echoedmyron (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, yes, and that's right. Think about it this way: we don't have articles on Wikipedia about every topic under the Sun. In this instance, we don't have articles on every Asiana Airlines Flight 214; we only have an article on the July 6 flight because of this crash. If there were to be a crash on tomorrow's Asiana Flight 214, this article would need to be moved to something like Asiana Airlines Flight 214 (July 6, 2013) and the other would need to be Asiana Airlines Flight 214 (July 14, 2013). However, unless something like that happens, there's only one Asiana Flight 214 that's sufficiently notable for an article: the one that occurred on July 6, 2013. -- tariqabjotu 19:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- The way it is written implies that it is singular: "Asiana Airlines Flight 214 was a scheduled transpacific passenger flight from Incheon International Airport, South Korea, that crashed during an attempted go-around at its destination, San Francisco International Airport, United States, on July 6, 2013." Makes it sound like there was only one flight ever called this and it crashed. Grammatically speaking, that is. Echoedmyron (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) See WP:AVIMOS#Accidents as well as the related discussion at Talk:Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214/Archive_1#Still operated. Basically, these articles are supposed to be about this specific instance of Asiana Airlines Flight 214. So long as the opening sentence indicates that it's this particular instance of the flight (and it does), we're fine. -- tariqabjotu 19:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes - the article is clearly referring to a particular 'flight 214'. The issue of changing numbers after an incident is a red herring anyway - there have been multiple 'flight 214s' before the incident, and there is no ambiguity as to which one was meant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- This was discussed earlier ( [18] ) and there was consensus that the language introduced here: [19], crafted to deal with Asiana's continuing use of "214" as a flight number, is appropriate. There has been some word-smithing since then, but as others have pointed out, the text remains unambiguous. NameIsRon (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I had missed the archived discussion (surprised to see an archive so soon on such a new article, but anyway...). Looking at the MOS on this, I can see what is prescribed is what indeed the article shows, even though IMO it flies in the face of grammar, but so be it. FWIW the Emirates incident mentioned in the archived discussion doesn't follow that MOS, and for my money is far more accurate. But with consensus preferring the alternative I'll leave it be. Echoedmyron (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- It does seem kind of counterintuitive, but the precedent helps. See Flight 191, for example. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I had missed the archived discussion (surprised to see an archive so soon on such a new article, but anyway...). Looking at the MOS on this, I can see what is prescribed is what indeed the article shows, even though IMO it flies in the face of grammar, but so be it. FWIW the Emirates incident mentioned in the archived discussion doesn't follow that MOS, and for my money is far more accurate. But with consensus preferring the alternative I'll leave it be. Echoedmyron (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Descent profile graphic "Approach to SFO.png" key symbol does not match graph line
Can the image creator please check the key symbols for the Jul 6 graph lines against the actual symbols used? It appears that the bowtie symbol was used on the red line for both airspeed and altitude lines on the graphs, but the key shows an "*" asterisk symbol for one and bowtie for the other, so they do not match. The graphic is still usable since you can interpolate the grouping of lines from the other graph lines, but it is confusing on first glance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmarshal (talk • contribs) 02:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- I question the utility of the graph as it stands anyway, as the salient portion of the data is only at its very tail end. It is rather irrelevant how the various flights made their early approaches, as they all dovetail. The accident hinges on the crash pilot's setting of throttles to off late in the late stages of the approach, and not moving them from there until too late (on the mistaken presumption that a third system, the autothrottle, had been properly employed). --Mareklug talk 04:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Good catch. Fixed. There are two and three nmi versions available, and I am working on adding the PAPI slope to the three nmi one. Question, should this be just the middle line (2.85°), or two lines showing the range between four red and four white? I believe those would be 2.35° and 3.35°, but am working on confirming that. All of the data points are above or close to the 2.85° line, except for the very last one on July 6. I am checking that against the report that the pilot saw three red and one white. Apteva (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Adding the range. The data and PAPI slope does not match what the pilot reported seeing at 500 feet altitude. Apteva (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Asiana Airlines releases
ENGLISH
- "Information for Incident Involving Asiana Flight OZ 214."
- "Press Release for Incident Involving Asiana Flight OZ 214 - July 7, 2013 06:30 (Kor. Time) New." July 7, 2013. (Archive) - Alt, Archive
- "Contact for Information on Passengers of Flight OZ214 New." - July 7, 2013. (Archive) - Alt, Archive)
- "Official Asiana Statement from OZ214 Incident Press Conference." July 7, 2013. (Archive)
- "Passenger List." (Archive)
- "Statement from July 8th Press Conference on OZ214 Incident." (Archive) 2013-07-08.
- "Statement from July 9th Press Conference regarding the OZ214 Incident." (Archive)
- "Daily Briefing (July 12th)." (Archive)
- "Daily Briefing (July 13th)." (Archive)
- "Asiana Laments Loss of Third Passenger." (Archive)
KOREAN
- "OZ214편(7월 7일) 인천발 샌프란시스코 사고 관련 안내."
- "OZ214편 사고 관련 보도 자료(06시 30분 기준) New." Template:Ko icon - July 7, 2013. (Archive)
- "OZ214편 관련 탑승자 안내센터 연락처 안내 New." Template:Ko icon - July 7, 2013. (Archive)
- "[2차 OZ214편 사고 관련 대표이사 기자 회견문]." (Archive)
- "OZ214편 사고 관련 사망자 명단(18시 50분 기준)." (Archive)
- "[4차 OZ214편 사고 관련 기자 회견문 (7월 9일)]." (Archive)
- "브리핑 자료 안내 (7월 12일)." (Archive)
- "브리핑 자료 안내 (7월 13일)." (Archive)
- "[5차 OZ214 사고기 사망자 추가 1명 확인]." (Archive)
- "국민 여러분께 謝罪 드립니다.." (Archive)
CHINESE
- "韩国仁川至美国旧金山OZ214失事航班相关信息."
- "韩亚航空OZ214航班事故相关报道(以韩国时间06时30分为准) New." Template:Zh-cn icon - July 7, 2013. (Archive) - Alt - Archive
- "韩亚航空OZ214航班相关乘客信息查询中心联系方式 New." Template:Zh-cn icon - July 7, 2013. (Archive) - Alt - Archive
- "韩亚航空社长向中国人民的致歉信." 2013-07-07 20:20. (Archive)
- "OZ214航班事故记者发布会(7月8日)." 2013-07-08 15:36. (Archive)
- "OZ214失事航班遇难者名单(韩国时间18时50分为准)." (Archive)
- "OZ214航班事故记者发布会(7月9日)." (Archive)
- "尹永斗社长向遇难者家属鞠躬致歉." (Archive) --- This one seems to be ONLY available in Chinese. It is talking about the Asiana CEO apologizing to the victims
- "致OZ214 乘客及家属." (Archive) 07/13/2013
- "致OZ214 乘客及家属." (Archive) 07/14/2013
- "韩亚航空OZ214事故确认第三名遇难者." (Archive)
- "韩亚航空向中国人民致歉." (Archive)
Also: ENGLISH TWITTER:
- "Here's an official press release: https://plus.google.com/u/0/114095967881168349734/posts/YiszZ5TSwMZ …. For further information regarding OZ213/214, please contact 800-227-4262." (Archive)
WhisperToMe (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Flight controls
I added a reference to an annotated image of the 777 controls that explains the operation of each. It seems to say that the speed window is blanked if it is not used, and says that only one flight director has to be on for it to be operational. These are controls, not indicators. The purpose of the flight director is to provide inputs, not display, so shutting it off has no affect on the main instrument displays.[20] Apteva (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- I would recommend caution in using a page like that to explain the function of controls, in Wikipedia, if you do not thoroughly understand how those systems work. I found one explanation that was wrong: "During climb, [the IAS/MACH window on the MCP on the glareshield] automatically changes from MACH to IAS, at 0.83 MACH." That is bass akwards. During climb it changes automatically from IAS to MACH, at 0.83 MACH. EditorASC (talk) 08:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Also, I would appreciate some additional explanation of what you meant by "and says that only one flight director has to be on for it to be operational." What is the "it" that will be operational? I couldn't find an explanation for that on the page you linked to. EditorASC (talk) 08:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- The flight director. Both need to be turned off for the flight director to not operate, but from the description of the on off switches only one has to be on.
- It has the description correct on descent. In writing it they may have copy and pasted and forgotten to reverse them, as both say from MACH to IAS. A link to an image of the flight director would be helpful. Apteva (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- The NTSB will be reviewing the operation of the auto throttle. As I see it, one switch has to be on turning on the flight director (one out of two), the auto-throttle has to be armed and engaged (two switches, one for each engine, to arm, one button to engage). There is a light indicating that it is engaged, but making the display flash if not engaged would be a better indicator. Otherwise it is easy to see that a pilot could be staring at a display that said 137 and wondering why the plane's speed was dropping to below that. If it was flashing that would be a clear indicator that it was the setting that would be used after being engaged, but right now was doing nothing. There is a lot of standardization in aircraft instrumentation, but also a lot of differences. Apteva (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is correct that only one switch has to be in the "on" position, for the Flight Director to operate. However, the statement of "so shutting it off has no affect on the main instrument displays" is not accurate. If one pilot has his switch in the "off" position, his FD command bars will NOT appear on his PFD. And, the auto-throttles will remain in the "armed" (not on) mode. The NTSB said the Left seat pilot, who was flying the plane manually, had his FD turned off, which means he would not have had the benefit of FD command bars to tell him how much pitch and roll to use, to keep the plane on a profile that they might have entered into the FMC via LNAV and VNAV, as a substitute for the inoperative ILS approach.
- I also am not sure what you mean by "These are controls, not indicators. The purpose of the flight director is to provide inputs, not display." What "controls?" I can assure you that the purpose of the FD IS to provide command bar DISPLAYS on each pilot's PFD, which makes it a lot easier for the pilot to know how much bank and pitch inputs are necessary, to keep the plane on profile.
- I don't believe a flashing display would improve anything. As it is, the PFD shows the target appch (Vref) speed and compares it to actual speed. If the pilot is scanning his basic flight instruments, as he is required to do, he will see immediately if the actual speed starts going below the target Vref speed (and falls out of the 5-Kt spread box) and should respond accordingly, to get the plane back on its target profile. There is a helpful display at [21] EditorASC (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- The difference between a control and an indicator is if you change the control it is supposed to change something while an indicator responds only to what the airplane is actually doing. Since the pilot enters the desired speed, while it is nice to see the bars displayed, no pilot should ignore the fact that speed dropped 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 kts below the intended speed, and as to 34 kts? Well before that they did recognize the drop and had applied power, something they needed to do way back at 5 and 10 kts not where they did. The aircraft was slowing from the 180 kts (which they had been exceeding) at 5 nmi out to the 137 kts approach speed. They were expecting the autothrottle to kick in at 137 kts, but when it did not, they should have noticed that certainly by the time the speed dropped to 135 kts at the very slowest. I do not know how sophisticated the autothrottle is or the intercept curve it follows, but an experienced pilot, even with only simulator experience, is going to be aware of an anomaly and be prepared to take corrective action. For example, I would expect the engines to start spooling up at 140 kts or even more, instead of staying at idle right until 137, which would inevitably lead to a significant drop in speed below the target speed while the engines spooled up. For the other flights plotted, none dropped even 1 kts below the target speed (in the data available), but all of them did increase speed slightly after the target speed was intercepted. When a pilot turns on automation (or thinks they have it turned on) and does not find that it is doing what it was expected to do, they do not have the option of sitting there and ignoring that. Apteva (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't believe a flashing display would improve anything. As it is, the PFD shows the target appch (Vref) speed and compares it to actual speed. If the pilot is scanning his basic flight instruments, as he is required to do, he will see immediately if the actual speed starts going below the target Vref speed (and falls out of the 5-Kt spread box) and should respond accordingly, to get the plane back on its target profile. There is a helpful display at [21] EditorASC (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, the last two NTSB media briefings were pretty clear about it and specifically mentioned the A/T and the FD state, the reason being that the 777 A/T operating mode may also depend on the active FD mode: "The pilot flying the plane had turned off his flight director, while the training captain had his flight director on", Hersman said. The flight director computes and displays the proper pitch and bank angles required in order for the aircraft to follow a selected path.[1] --Parallelized (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- All true. But having the FD off does not shut off the speed display, and does not eliminate the responsibility to fly the plane at the proper speed. With the instructor's FD on, that would display the target speed, but does the target speed display with the auto throttle not engaged? Whether it does or not, the instructor should have noticed an IAS below 137 when that occurred. Pilots do a visual scan, and can not be looking at everything all at the same time, but coming back to the IAS often is paramount on landing approaches. Most pilots are not reading comic books on landing approach. Apteva (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, the last two NTSB media briefings were pretty clear about it and specifically mentioned the A/T and the FD state, the reason being that the 777 A/T operating mode may also depend on the active FD mode: "The pilot flying the plane had turned off his flight director, while the training captain had his flight director on", Hersman said. The flight director computes and displays the proper pitch and bank angles required in order for the aircraft to follow a selected path.[1] --Parallelized (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- My response wasn't intended to distract from IAS readings or scanning in general, it was just meant to show that even during the last NTSB briefings, the relationship between A/T state and FD mode was explicitly highlighted, which isn't to suggest that anything failed - but rather that "human factors" seem to have been an issue here, like you say - that still doesn't explain how 3 pilots managed not to monitor airspeed sufficiently, unless instrument readings were way off, which we have no reason to believe ATM, however this is something that was explicitly mentioned as a possibility by ALPA, and the NTSB still didn't evaluate 2/3 of the FDR parameters: <<Investigators found that in the 2-1/2 minutes before the crash, multiple auto-throttle modes and multiple auto-pilot modes had been set. "What was the final mode the airplane was in?" Hersman asked. "We still need to validate the data. We need to make sure how the devices were set and what the pilots understood the modes to be.">>[2]
- * B777 FCTM
- * B777 FCOM
- --Parallelized (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- I noticed that in Korea they have one agency for air and rail accidents but in the US one for air, rail, bicycle, pedestrian, motorcycle, and automobile accidents, and it seems that the NTSB would be better equipped to investigate air accidents if that was all that they investigated. For example, has Chair Deborah Hersman spent even one hour learning to fly? "One anomaly was that the trainee pilot, who was flying the airplane, was sitting in the left seat while usually the instructor pilot, the pilot in command, would be in that seat, she said." All students sit in the left seat unless they are learning to be an instructor or first officer (co-pilot), so that they will learn to fly in the seat they will be sitting in when they have learned. Students learning to be an instructor sit in the right seat so that they can learn what it is like to sit in that seat as an instructor. All instructors are the "pilot in command", but the student also gets to log time as PIC, under some circumstances. So yes, it is an anomaly that the pilot was a student, but not an anomaly that the student was in the left seat. Apteva (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, Deborah Hersman stated that she was a student pilot and soloed but did not complete her training; she holds multiple ground transportation licenses. She described her father as a fighter pilot and test pilot. Walter C Hersman was an instrument-rated commercial pilot (ASEL, AMEL, glider). 75.210.224.57 (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- I quite disagree that we need an entire agency that specializes in aviation accidents. The factors that lead to accidents are fairly similar. But that topic is not relevant to this page. It can be debated in any pilot or debate forum. 75.210.224.57 (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- I noticed that in Korea they have one agency for air and rail accidents but in the US one for air, rail, bicycle, pedestrian, motorcycle, and automobile accidents, and it seems that the NTSB would be better equipped to investigate air accidents if that was all that they investigated. For example, has Chair Deborah Hersman spent even one hour learning to fly? "One anomaly was that the trainee pilot, who was flying the airplane, was sitting in the left seat while usually the instructor pilot, the pilot in command, would be in that seat, she said." All students sit in the left seat unless they are learning to be an instructor or first officer (co-pilot), so that they will learn to fly in the seat they will be sitting in when they have learned. Students learning to be an instructor sit in the right seat so that they can learn what it is like to sit in that seat as an instructor. All instructors are the "pilot in command", but the student also gets to log time as PIC, under some circumstances. So yes, it is an anomaly that the pilot was a student, but not an anomaly that the student was in the left seat. Apteva (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- "All students sit in the left seat unless they are learning to be an instructor or first officer (co-pilot), so that they will learn to fly in the seat they will be sitting in when they have learned. Students learning to be an instructor sit in the right seat so that they can learn what it is like to sit in that seat as an instructor."
Instructor Pilots, which are always the Captain in Command, sit in the Left seat if they are giving IOE to First Officers. If the IOE is for a new Captain on that plane, then they sit in the right seat. EditorASC (talk) 04:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- "With the instructor's FD on, that would display the target speed, but does the target speed display with the auto throttle not engaged?"
Yes it is displayed on both PFDs, as soon as the landing flaps is entered into the FMC. Turning the FDs, on or off, will not affect the target Vref speed on the PFDs, that is calculated by the FMC.
- From the B-777 flight manual:
- "The autothrottle automatically engages:
- For climb - Engages in THR mode; the thrust limit is CLB thrust
- For descent - Engages in THR mode, followed by HOLD if the
- thrust levers reach idle.
- "The autothrottle automatically engages:
- ''Caution'': If the thrust levers are moved more than 8° while in
- the THR mode the ATS mode will change to HOLD. The only way to reengage the ATS is to capture an altitude, push the thrust levers to the green N1 limit on the EICAS or approach stall limit protection." EditorASC (talk) 06:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Are Wiki readers really that ignorant?
"OK, VMC is linked, but it's a certainty that 99% of our readers won't know what is it and will have to follow the link to find out. And... most of our readers won't have a clue what a check pilot is. HiLo48 (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)"
- "...it's a certainty that 99% of our readers won't know..."
I would be most interested in knowing what yardstick you used to come up with that certainty of 99% figure. How large was the sample of ignorant Wiki readers, when you measured only one out of a hundred would be able to understand what was written? Do you really think our readers are that dumb? Surely, you didn't just make up that "certainty" figure? EditorASC (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Who's said they're dumb? Not everyone's an expert in everything there's ever been. 1 in a hundred sounds like a fairly generous estimate for VMC to me. — Lfdder (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've followed aviation-related topics for years and I didn't know what VMC represented until I looked it up. As the manual of style notes, one must always spell out an acronym on its first use, then you can use the acronym afterwards. This is an encyclopedia for a general audience that isn't necessarily familiar with technical jargon, and VMC is jargon. 17:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- In other words, you see nothing wrong with using a word like "certainty" when it really is nothing more than a wild claim that hasn't a shred of science or logic to support it? Very interesting.
- And, what is wrong with ANY reader looking up the meaning of words or phrases, with which they are not familiar? Anyone who wants to keep learning new things in life will be glad to do that. It is so damn easy to do it too; all you have to do is type the word into Google, and lo and behold the reader isn't anywhere near as ignorant as some wiki editors like to claim. EditorASC (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- What's wrong with explaining words or phrases, so the reader won't need to look them up? Per WP:Manual of Style "When an abbreviation is to be used in an article, give the expression in full at first, followed immediately by the abbreviation in parentheses (round brackets). In the rest of the article the abbreviation can then be used by itself". This seems clear enough to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- As Andy says, this is an encyclopedia for the general audience, and the Manual of Style says to spell out an acronym the first time it is used. That is clear. In fact, in US Government technical publications, which are written for engineers and specialized personnel, an acronym must be spelled out the first time it is used, and must also be listed in an acronym table. The implication that a reader should be expected to look up an acronym is contrary to the policy of documents that are primarily read by people who do know the acronyms. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Any reference to "certainty" is a wild claim, as is any percentage that is not backed by a reliable source. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please stop defending the failure to define acronyms. Please stop making wild estimates. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
"The implication that a reader should be expected to look up an acronym is contrary to the policy of documents that are primarily read by people who do know the acronyms."
I made no such implication; that is your unwarranted inference. Nowhere have I ever suggested that the MOS rule (to explain the meaning when the acronym is first used) should not be adhered to.
What I am protesting is the constant demand by ones like HiLow48, that we dumb down the nomenclature so that the entire article is worded like his so-called "man-on-the-street" person thinks/speaks.
Aviation accident investigations do have a very specific and precise nomenclature that should not be discarded, because that is how the NTSB and ICAO reports from other nations are worded. There is a great danger that if we move from the specifically defined terms, to broad and vague terms, which can have multiple meanings, which is more in line with "average Joe Blow" levels of communication, then the risk of getting it wrong increases significantly, IMHO.
We already had one such edit in the article (which has since been removed) that the third pilot in the cockpit was a Flight Engineer. One of the constant problems of the MSM, especially right after an accident, is that they get it wrong so much of the time. And, it doesn't require too much reading of their stories to realize they don't know the difference between an aileron and a trim tab, so they just try to use "common" words which can be taken several different ways.
In the UAL 585 accident, the MSM constantly used the word "explosion," when talking about the crater left in the ground. There never was any explosion, yet some of our editors (one who was a Wiki Admin) picked up from those so-called RS sources and inserted the same word in that article. I think I had to remove it two or three times, to get the story back to some semblance of accuracy. Explain to the average reader what so called "jargon" words mean; I have no objection to that. But, we should be very careful that we are not changing the actual findings/meanings of the NTSB, when we do so. EditorASC (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- im an editor with a fondness for acronyms. id never heard this one. Im guessing its Visual meteorological conditions, right? its not in the article now, dont know why. silly debate, of course it needs to be spelled out on first use, as its a term used only in a specialized field, which most people are not familiar with enough to recognize. end of discussion.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- IMC or VMC has been replaced with VFR, which appears only as the word "visual" (cleared for a visual approach), and there is a link from the VFR article to VMC, instead of using the term directly in this article. Apteva (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for pointing that out. VMC and VFR are both incorrect as applied to approach to the crash. It was an IFR approach, not VFR. VMC applies to the prevailing weather at the time, not to the approach. 75.208.154.156 (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- IMC or VMC has been replaced with VFR, which appears only as the word "visual" (cleared for a visual approach), and there is a link from the VFR article to VMC, instead of using the term directly in this article. Apteva (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- the percentage is immaterial. Regardless, my opinion is that we should spell out technical acronyms (at a minimum, the first time they are used). Peace, MPS (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Failure to initiate go-around
The text in the lead should concur with the text in the body ("... just as the crew attempted to abort the landing and execute a go-around"). The crash did not really occur during a go-around, at least not in a way that is relevant to the crash. The crash was preceded by failure of both pilots to initiate a timely go-around following an unstabilised approach. The pilots knew that they were off-course (lateral deviation), too low (vertical deviation), too slow, and one claimed to have been blinded by a bright light. Any one of these factors was sufficient cause to initiate a go-around immediately without further discussion. But 30 seconds passed until just seconds before impact the pilots agreed to go around. At that point, it was too late to prevent the crash (and might have made it worse). 75.210.68.151 (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- In the CVR two separate crew members called for a go-around, one at 3 seconds and one at 1.5 seconds, and the nose was lifted to initiate the go-around (and as indicated may have made it worse). The lateral deviation was normal and not a factor. Had power been applied to maintain a speed of 137 kts, no go-around would have been needed. It is not normal for a pilot to decide to make a go around 3 seconds before landing, as that is far beyond the point of no return. At 82 seconds before impact, they shut off the auto pilot, at 27 seconds before impact they were at 134 kts ground speed (adding wind speed makes that closer to 140 kts air speed) at 400 feet altitude and descending at 900 feet per minute, at 16 seconds 123 kts, at 300 feet and descending at 840 fpm, and at 5 seconds, 109 kts, 100 feet (all plus or minus 100) and descending at 1140 fpm. Those 11 seconds between 134 kts and 123 kts were the critical ones. Apteva (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- 3 seconds before impact was just too late to say that they crashed while attempting a go-around. They crashed when they came up short on the approach to land. The time to press the TO/GA button was 30 seconds earlier when the approach was not stabilised. All three pilots knew that the plane was too low and slow. Not executing a go-around immediately under those conditions will almost surely prove to be a culpable error. 75.210.224.57 (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't saying that the lateral deviation was a factor in the crash. I am saying that remarkable lateral deviation was an element indicating that the approach was not stabilised and should have been aborted. 75.210.224.57 (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Done. I note that the text in the lead was deleted shortly after I pointed out the error. 75.210.224.57 (talk)
- "All three pilots knew that the plane was too low and slow. Not executing a go-around immediately under those conditions will almost surely prove to be a culpable error."
I agree with most of what you said, but not sure we have enough info at this point to say for sure they knew they were low & slow much earlier in the approach. I think the knowledge question (what did they know, and when did they know it?) is very important, as to the degree of culpability, if any. If they simply failed to properly monitor their A/S and sink rate, until it was too late, then they were guilty of dereliction of duty. But, if they knew much earlier, yet did nothing to correct the situation, then we are talking about willful misconduct, which would be a much more serious finding. Too early to come to a conclusion now. EditorASC (talk) 03:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- We will know more when the CVR transcript is released, especially if it identifies who said "sink rate" and when, and which two crew members said go around, and when. So far there are no reports that the TO/GA button was pressed, but we do know they had initiated a go-around before impact. At destination is fine in the lead, but before it said during go-around it said during landing, and at impact the pilots were not attempting to land but were attempting to go around and indicated that they were surprised that the aircraft contacted the ground. There were no announcements that passengers should brace for impact, which would have been done if the pilots thought the aircraft was going to contact the ground. Apteva (talk) 03:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- All three pilots knew that the aircraft was too low by their own admissions. The third pilot stated that he called out "sink rate". The other two acknowledged seeing four red lights on the PAPI. They admitted to knowing that they were too low when the plane descended through 500'. I suspect that the instructor was giving the captain some extra leeway to correct the approach; but he was caught off-guard when his student did not arrest the descent so the instructor didn't decisively take the controls. Apparently both failed to notice that engines were not producing the necessary power. 75.210.222.70 (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- The pilots were way behind the plane. By the time they decided to go around to avert a crash, there was no time to make any announcement to the cabin. Yes, it is obvious that they did not realize that they were going to crash. But when the PAPI lights are all red and moving up the windscreen, that does mean that you are going to crash if you don't do something about it. Perhaps they were betting on good luck or that they wouldn't completely exhaust the margin of safety. 75.210.222.70 (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Aftermath: Korean news coverage (legit or not?)
This is currently discussed by various online media and online forums, it's hard to say if it's legit or just another prank - please see:
- http://www.yonhapnews.co.kr/bulletin/2013/07/07/0200000000AKR20130707005953092.HTML
- http://www.koreabang.com/2013/stories/korea-responds-to-asiana-airlines-crash.html
(Also see the reader's English comments at the end of the article) --Parallelized (talk) 11:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, the one in English just reads like a typical blog of a wide range of unsurprising views. As a blog it's of no relevance here. HiLo48 (talk) 12:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- What should we be looking at? — Lfdder (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Misc sources (CRM, hand-flying, automation, culture)
Whole lot of speculation and accusation and general obnoxiousness — Lfdder (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
} See:
--Parallelized (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
|
Landing clearance
The statement: Hersman said the flight crew "received their final landing clearance 90 seconds prior to impact" does not agree with the information the NTSB has released, showing that landing clearance was given at 11:27:10, approximately 40 seconds before first impact.[22] Apteva (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- (I had thought 90 seconds was late, but 40 seconds seems very late indeed.) Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not optimal, but not late, even at less than 40 seconds out. They had been cleared for the landing approach at 11:21:59, over five minutes earlier,[23] which allows them to descend all the way to but not onto the runway. Long before that, control is handed off to the control tower, which happened at 11:25:35. Tower frequencies can be busy, and the crew contacted the tower at 11:26:00 and at 11:26:56.[24] Apteva (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- The report will attach any significance to the timing, whether late or not. So until we see that, or maybe a preliminary, I guess it's just WP:OR to debate. But is 40 the correct value? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Based on the initial impact being at 11:27:50. Does anyone have a more accurate time of first impact? Apteva (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- The report will attach any significance to the timing, whether late or not. So until we see that, or maybe a preliminary, I guess it's just WP:OR to debate. But is 40 the correct value? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not optimal, but not late, even at less than 40 seconds out. They had been cleared for the landing approach at 11:21:59, over five minutes earlier,[23] which allows them to descend all the way to but not onto the runway. Long before that, control is handed off to the control tower, which happened at 11:25:35. Tower frequencies can be busy, and the crew contacted the tower at 11:26:00 and at 11:26:56.[24] Apteva (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Brace yourselves for an avalanche of edits...
Not sure this is within the scope of the article, or even constitutes encyclopedic information, but you may want to keep an eye on increased edits injecting/removing this info. --Mareklug talk 18:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- (see the thread before last?) Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- We have far to much trivia and speculation in the article already and really we dont need anything more added until we get an official report, it may be time then to prune or cut back a lot of the page. MilborneOne (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed, also the bloomberg article should be considered more authoritative than this "blog". Still, there's an increasing amount of media coverage related to hand-flying and automation in general. --Parallelized (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- I would want to wait for a statement from the NTSB that it was a factor. Apteva (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed, also the bloomberg article should be considered more authoritative than this "blog". Still, there's an increasing amount of media coverage related to hand-flying and automation in general. --Parallelized (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Investigation on this page
Can we agree to archive and stop speculation and amateur investigation on this page, it is getting full of nonesense, wikipedia is not here to investigate accidents and only comments should be addressed at article improvement not every newsstory and blog speculation around, plenty of blogs around if editors want to speculate, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
No explosion
In the Crash section:
"Eyewitnesses described a short-lived fireball, then a second large explosion minutes after the impact, with a dark plume of smoke rising from the fuselage."
I cannot find evidence of any explosions. The loud sound that was heard on the "Oh, My God" tape, was from the initial impact when the landing gear and tail were ripped off. An overhead view of the wreckage shows the wings still intact, so no fuel tank explosions. Damage to the fuselage is from fire, not explosions.
I would like to rewrite that sentence this way, if no one objects:
"Eyewitnesses described a short-lived fireball, then a second larger fire minutes after the impact, with a dark plume of smoke rising from the fuselage." EditorASC (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- The eyewitness observed smoke that appeared from his perspective to be rising from the fuselage. I favor the edit that you propose. But I think that it should be supplanted by more authoritative or factual information about sources of smoke. 75.208.154.156 (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
B class?
according to an assessment made by someone from the aviation project, this article meets B criteria for them in all but 2 area: supporting materials, and coverage/accuracy. Does anyone see any deficiencies in these areas currently? if so, please list them, if not, we can assign a B class rating.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
The deficiencies are numerous as is the nature of preliminary information. I say that it is premature to assign B class. The article needs time to mature. 75.208.154.156 (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Boeing Customer Code
I don't know why do you reset my edit as Boeing 777-28E(ER) or Boeing 777-28EER in the infobox, especially that is to identify the operator or the one who owns the aircraft. If I use Boeing 777-200ER, it would be in general or for the aircraft only not with the operator. Don't mind if i will change the infobox with the details you have resetted and that is not necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinas Central (talk • contribs) 09:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- The customer code doesn't identify the operator (nor necessarily the owner), but the original customer. If Asiana were to lease their 777s from ILFC that ILFC bought first-hand from Boeing, the customer code would be ILFC's, but the operator would be Asiana. If Asiana were to buy ILFC's 777s, the customer code would, again, remain ILFC's. If the fact that Asiana bought this plane straight from Boeing is worth mentioning, then we should just say it. There's no need for fancy-pants codes. — Lfdder (talk) 10:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Preliminary Findings
I've created a new sub-section under the Investigation section for Preliminary Findings, the rationale being:
- it makes it easier to read (though some may find this debatable)
- it emphasizes the fact that the official reports to date are preliminary;
- it allows for a separation of preliminary and final reports when the final report is made public
This sub-section could (and probably should) be further divided by the various types of preliminary information. As it stands, the information is just clumped together in giant paragraphs, and further sub-sectioning may be one way to mitigate this. Please post here if you feel I've made a grave error. — 67.180.24.57 (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- C-Class aviation articles
- C-Class Aviation accident articles
- Aviation accident task force articles
- WikiProject Aviation articles
- C-Class California articles
- Low-importance California articles
- C-Class San Francisco Bay Area articles
- Mid-importance San Francisco Bay Area articles
- San Francisco Bay Area task force articles
- WikiProject California articles
- C-Class Disaster management articles
- Low-importance Disaster management articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class Korea-related articles
- Low-importance Korea-related articles
- WikiProject Korea articles
- Wikipedia In the news articles