Talk:Germanwings Flight 9525

Europe 1 sources

Twitter says aircraft found in one piece https://twitter.com/Europe1/status/580330987235704832 and bodies sighted near crash site http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2kftci_vidalies-le-survol-a-permis-de-voir-la-carcasse-de-l-avion-et-quelques-corps-autour_news#utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter 81.147.191.195 (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This has been discredited already. Debris field shows nothing bigger 'than a car' [[1]] 88.128.80.139 (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

BBC online report

The BBC has a map of the projected flight route, along with some other other preliminary data: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32030270 Ceannlann gorm (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Flightradar coordinates and height CSV

Flightradar24 has a CSV file with the coordinates and altitude, showing a drop from 38000 feet at 09:31:02 to 6800 feet at 09:40:36.

09:31:02Z.614 0x3c6618 GWI18G 43.06 5.617 P 38000
09:40:36Z.794 0x3c6618 GWI18G 44.234 6.407 P 6800

I guess OR means we have to wait for media reports to use this. -- Aronzak (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Flightradar is not a WP:RS. Wait for the BEA to give a preliminary report. Mjroots (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

BEA more or less confirmed FR24 data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.140.242.20 (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Flight radar cut off was 10:41 CET and not 10:53 as reported in some MSM. See http://avherald.com/img/germanwings_a320_d-aipx_150324_map.jpg

Improving the article

It's good that editors have been referencing info stated. However, can we please shift references from the infobox and lede into the body of the text. Both are meant to give a brief overview of the article. The main details should be repeated in the body of the article and referenced there. Mjroots (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Pprune is not a WP:RS, but it is a good source of RSs, the discussion thread is here. Mjroots (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Redirects

4U 9525 , GWI 9525 , GWI9525 , GWI-9525 , 4U-9525 , GERMANWINGS 9525 should redirect here -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Be bold and go ahead. Wikipedia:How to make a redirect --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Took the liberty of creating the redirects for all but the first requested name (was already in place by the time I got to it). Ceannlann gorm (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I've created more: Germanwings Flight 4U-9525, Germanwings Flight 4U 9525, Germanwings Flight 4U9525, Germanwings 4U9525, Germanwings 4U-9525, & Germanwings 4U 9525. AHeneen (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Tête de l'Estrop/Pra Loup

According to [2] the plane crashed into the Trois-Evêchés massif, and ended up on Tête de l'Estrop mountain -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

We have a Three Bishoprics (Trois-Évêchés), a historical province of France... -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The BBC is showing a map with Pra Loup and Tête de l'Estrop highlighted -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Archive of initial Germanwings company notice

http://www.webcitation.org/6XGkinRv3 is an archive of https://www.germanwings.com/pre_info.html, the initial company notice in German and English WhisperToMe (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Lufthansa also has a darksite about the same crash: http://www.lufthansa.com/darksite - http://www.webcitation.org/6XGmkN3fD WhisperToMe (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The Lufthansa darksite now has a Spanish notice: https://www.lufthansa.com/online/portal/dks?origin=/online/portal/lh/cn/homepage2011&l=de - http://www.webcitation.org/6XHqrFWzm - WhisperToMe (talk) 07:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Map

Can someone please change the map of Europe, to a more 'zoomed in' map: using Template:Location map Western Europe in stead of Template:Location map Europe. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 14:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done (was able to do it myself, with another map template) Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 14:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I did, but reverted because the locations aren't correct. See this revision. AHeneen (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I created a map of the flight path. It is not a very good quality map because I did not have time to make a quality map. Hopefully, I will have time during the next 2-3 days to create a better map, like File:QZ8501 flight path.png (Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501) and File:MH370 flight path with English labels.png (Malaysia Airlines Flight 370). AHeneen (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Daily Telegraph live stream

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11491587/Airbus-A320-crashes-in-French-Alps-with-148-people-on-board-live.html

May come in handy. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, should we put a mention of share related woes in the article, or hold off for the moment?: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/11491653/Shares-in-Lufthansa-and-Airbus-fall-following-Alps-plane-crash.html Ceannlann gorm (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit notification

One thing that happens after every major aircraft accident is that a huge "Response" section is created listing every important person's remarks about the incident (expressions of sympathy from Obama, the Pope, etc aren't relevant). Can the edit page notification be modified to caution users from adding WP:Speculation and adding responses. Suggested text:

Please do not add:

• Possible causes or speculative information, unless such information is mentioned by authoritative figures in the incident (eg. BEA or other investigators, Germanwings, air transport authorities)
• Responses from officials with no connection to the incident

I'm not the best with words, so the suggested text may need to be adjusted. AHeneen (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Also, the purpose of the infobox is to summarise key points of the article. Do not simply update the infobox; and do not place references in the infobox. Alakzi (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

References in the infobox end up happening if there is conflicting information in reports that are mentioned on the page. They can all be taken out after 24 hours. -- Aronzak (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys, i have made a request for an edit notice here: Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Germanwings Flight 9525 Hybirdd (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done notice has been added and can be reviewed here Hybirdd (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Nationalities

Reported on British National are onboard

Announcement that British National are also onboard. GJZHA (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide a source?Cantab12 (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

2 American citizens and 1 Quebec Canadian has been identified

2 American Citizens from Dallas and 1 Quebec Canadian from Quebec City was identified less than a minute ago.GJZHA (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It is usual practice to include a table of passengers by nationality. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The airline should release a passenger manifest after they have notified the families of everyone on boards. At that point, we will include a list of passengers' nationalities. AHeneen (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Swedish is now included

Swedish has been identified.GJZHA (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to keep doing this, in separate sections. We will no doubt have a table of passenger/crew nationalities in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source for the nationalities, please add it, as currently there is no support in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring on info box

There seems to be edit warring occurring in the info box on whether to state that all (or most) of the passengers and crew were killed in this accident, or to state "unknown", presumably until an official announcement is made. LongHairedFop (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Map (2)

I really prefer the map made from the location map template (much more clear):

Over the one now used in the article:

Flight path

What do you think? Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 16:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The image map is better when enlarged. Alakzi (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I've added the GPS trace from public FlightRadar data into the Marble application. There might be a better way to get high resolution render from public Open Street Map. -- Aronzak (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Is that the usual flightpath for Barcelona to Duesseldorf? It doesnt look like the plane should have been flying over the mountains at all... Fig (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I am working on a new map that will look similar to the maps I've created for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 & Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 (see earlier maps discussion), which use the "locator" Wikipedia map convention. Using a topographic map is difficult because it is hard to make the labels clear over all the colors used for the topographic map. I will make the map big enough to include a large topographic inset for the area of the crash. I will hopefully upload the map later this morning (UTC-4...around mid-day European time) and no later than about 18:00-20:00UTC. AHeneen (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I have uploaded a new map. I had to finish it quickly while I have internet access. It still needs some cleanup. There's enough space to add an insert of the crash site later. AHeneen (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Importance rating

I've changed the importance rating of the article to WikiProjects France, Germany, and Spain from high to low. Most articles are low importance. It doesn't mean that this event is unimportant, but we're supposed to take the long view here. Imagine a good, 400-600 page book about France, Germany, or Spain. How much coverage would be dedicated to this crash? Likely it wouldn't be mentioned at all. Ultimately this is a decision for the individual WikiProjects, so I will defer to them if any of them want this article rated higher. --BDD (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Location

None of the citations given indicate that the site is in the commune of Prads-Haute-Bléone. One of the citations states that it is near the commune. The Guardian reports that the site is in the commune of Méolans-Revel. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I changed the location to Méolans-Revel per the sources and temporarily removed the coordinates, as they appear to be inaccurate. I'm not sure how to use the GeoHack tool, so someone who knows how to use it should update the coordinates. --Biblioworm 18:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The location of the desaster belongs to the comune Prads-Haute-Bléone. Cruks (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The Independent source used in the infobox just says "near the small town of Barcelonnette in the Alpes-de-Hautes-Provences."? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

From the Aviation Herald: "The aircraft was found at approximate position N44.2979 E6.4670...French Police reported two helicopter spotted the remains of the aircraft on the ground at about 2700 meters elevation (8800 feet) between Prads-Haute-Bleone and Barcelonnette (France), about half way between the two cities there is a mountain ridge rising up to 8900 feet." AHeneen (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

So, what do we do if there is contradicting information? Some sources say Méolans-Revel, and others say Prads-Haute-Bleone. Is there updated information available? --Biblioworm 20:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

They don't really mean "cities" do they? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The Aviation Herald is a site known for fact-checking, and willingness to correct information when necessary. Simon Hradecky is an Austrian citizen, thus English is not his first language, so we can forgive him for using city where town is the correct word. Mjroots (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I updated the unsourced coords to reflect the AvHerald report. It may not be perfect, but it's a sight better than deducing our own coordinates from a prose description of the location. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the smallest unit of the government hierarchy in most of France is the commune (large urban areas are divided into arrondisments) and there are no gaps between the borders of communes. In rural (or in this case, mountainous) areas, that means that a small town may only be a few square kilometres in size, but the commune with the same name includes rural areas for several kilometres in all directions.

I am not familiar with government hierarchy in any other country except the US. The commune/town relation is not like most US states, where there is a county government and many incorporated communities (towns, villages, cities), but not all parts of the county are part of an incorporated community. The commune/town relation is similar to the way some US states divide counties into townships that cover every part of the county, but unlike US townships, there is no further sub-unit of government for towns.

So when it is reported that the crash site is in X, that probably means the commune. The crash site may be in X (commune), but the town of X can be several kilometers away and closer to another town. Some news sources may report one town as the site of the crash because they are relying on sources that use the name of the commune, but other news sources may use the name of a closer town. That may explain the confusion. As soon as the precise coordinates of the crash are given, a map can be checked to verify which commune the crash site is in. AHeneen (talk) 06:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The final accident report may specify the commune. The Turkish Airlines Flight 981 report states what commune that crash occurred in. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with the location and the crash site lies on the ground of municipality of Prads-Haute-Bléone. This municipality lies farer away than the closer municipality Le Vernet, from where all rescue operations start. From Le Vernet there is also the only "road" until "Col de Mariaud" (Google Maps) and from there rescuers have to walk 30-45 minutes until the crash site. Cruks (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"The Aviation Herald" have based their coordinates solely on an early tweet of the Gendarmerie Nationale. All images available show that this position is not correct. For example, the French Ministere de l'interieur have posted images of the crash site on Flickr. Compare this overview with aerial photographs from Google Maps und you know the real position. It is also indicated by the New York Times: Where the Germanwings Plane Crashed. There's no reason to choose the Aviation Herald, which is basically a single guy, over the NYT. --Sitacuisses (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for informing this page of your decision. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Number of passengers from Turkey

I found this turkish artcle, which quote the Foreign minister of Turkey, who say that only 1 person from Turkey was onboard. A 50 year old man living in Germany, but who was originally from Turkey. Since I am from Denmark, I will rather not add to this article. So if this is usefull, then please go ahead. --IvarT (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a problem with the current source for the fatalities table which says explicitly "In its statement, the ministry denied the report of a Catalan news outlet which earlier claimed that there were 39 Turkish passengers in the plane." So I have changed the number from 39 to 1. Unfortunately, the numbers do not now tally with the total. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we should take the table away until the official announcement is made. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

That might cause fewer unnecessary and frustrating edits. I'm surprised this has not been officially announced. This information should instantly available for international flights. Martinevans123 (talk)

It is pretty much instantly available to the airlines. They have deliberately held back on releasing the names/nationalities. Either way, we shouldn't be referencing a "1" with a source that says "39". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The source says 1. It refutes an earlier claim of 39? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Fine, but the title of the ref still had 39 in it. Worth fixing both at the same time next time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

We can't expect people to actually read the sources, can we? "Next time"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Fatality ranking

"It was the third deadliest crash of an Airbus A320, behind Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501, with 162 fatalities, and TAM Airlines Flight 3054 with 187 fatalities on the aircraft, and a further 12 on the ground."

Is so much detail needed about other crashes in the opening section of the article? The other crashes aren't that relevant to this one. I could just say for example "It is the third deadilst crash involving the Airbus A320". Cantab12 (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me to put the crash into historical and geographical context. But if you don't like it, change it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

There is already a million and one articles and lists dedicated to that kind of thing on wikipedia + it's already discussed in the crash section anyway Cantab12 (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and the lead of an article is supposed to provide a good summary of the whole, and include the most pertinent points. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems a bit sensationlist to me. Also the reference to "deadliest of 2015 so far" and "deadliest since December 2014". Mattojgb (talk) 10:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Near misses

Note: Originally posted at User talk:The Rambling Man

Re: [3], but how many were notable enough to rate an AFP news article about their missed flight? (I'm saying as someone that isn't a football fan...) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

As I said, there are dozens of people who could have made it onto that aircraft. It's not encyclopedic. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

But where are the references talking about those other hypothetical dozens of people? In this case, there's a clear, reliable reference that these people were planning on catching the flight and changed at the last minute, so it makes sense to note it in the article. Thanks, Mike Peel (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, if you like trivia being added, that's fine, but I don't. We should focus on the event and the things that actually happened. Perhaps you cold add a note to the team's article saying how lucky they were, but right now it's just niff-naff to add that kind of cruft to a crash article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Please continue this at the article talk page, I have made my position clear, you may wish to solicit other opinions in your quest. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems notable from what I can see, particularly since AFP covered it. Maybe it will be trivia in the long run, though. But it is sufficiently verifiable to justify its inclusion in the article. Thanks, Mike Peel (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Just support what TRM has said, I did remove it from the article as it was clearly not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's "clearly not notable". I think it's marginal. Especially as the football club is notable in it's own right, i.e. it has a wikipedia article. It's got to depend on the level of press coverage, I guess. It seems to be getting quite a bit in the European press, e.g. Le Huff Po: [4]. etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia and not a tabloid, nearly every accident somebody notable comes forward as probably or possible could have been on that flight but that doesnt make it notable to the accident, because Joe Famous decided to stay at home it has zero notability to the accident, so I stand by my clearly not notable (to the accident). MilborneOne (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Concur with the above. It's human interest fluff and we're not anywhere close to the amount of RS coverage that would outweigh that. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it depends on the sources and the breadth of those sources. Near-miss non-deaths are rather trivial compared to real aircraft transportation deaths. But there is no need to start inventing these "thousands of people could have been on the flight" kind of straw man arguments. There's a hierarchy here - people who had tickets and cancelled, famous people who has tickets and cancelled, people who boarded but got put off the flight for whatever reason, etc. etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and I didn't make that argument. Wrong argument, right conclusion. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Timeline

I don't see that this section adds anything that can't be covered by text. It is unreferenced and possibly WP:OR. IMHO, we don't need it. Mjroots (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This has now been reinserted for a fourth time. Alakzi (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Re this: the source refutes an earlier claim that the crew declared emergency; it does not say that French ATC issued a distress call. Alakzi (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jwkozak91: please read the source. Alakzi (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

* "it was the combination of the loss of radio contact and the aircraft's descent which led the controller to implement the distress phase" - ITV

* "but the German authorities later confirmed the mayday had been sounded by air traffic control when they lost contact with the plane" - BBC

* "It was air traffic controllers who sent out a distress call after radio contact with the plane was lost." - CNN

@Alakzi: I made the same mistake and got my edit reverted, so I reconfirm those quoted sources, and it appears to me that the current timeline item is correct. — Peterwhy 01:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Where do you see a time? Alakzi (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Oops from your commit message I (and probably others) thought you are complaining about the subject. Going to move your "not in citation given" tag to the event time. — Peterwhy 01:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I am removing the timeline. There are several reasons why. First, the information about "First known position on Flightradar24" is not important. Flightradar24 collects data that is broadcast by the aircraft's transponder, the "first known position" just means that someone turned on the transponder. Also, the last position from FR24 is affected by their coverage. I do not think that all aviation accidents need a timeline. Several recent accidents involved a long chain of events and a timeline was greatly beneficial to understanding those accidents. This accident only has a couple important events—takeoff, reached cruise altitude, began decent a minute later, crashed—and this can be made clear in prose. This is especially relevant because there are a lot of conflicting statements about the times of the events, so prose is best. The timezone is just 1 hour ahead of UTC, unlike some accidents that involve multiple time zones several hours before/after UTC, the addition of UTC times (besides noting the offset in leadk/infobox) isn't beneficial to a reader's understanding. AHeneen (talk) 07:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, AHeneen. Consensus is clearly against this section, so further additions can be reverted on sight. Mjroots (talk) 07:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I've requested an addition to the editnotice for this page (Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Germanwings Flight 9525). Suggested addition: "Do not add a timeline unless there is a clear consensus on the talk page for such an addition." AHeneen (talk) 07:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

There are important events which should be recorded in addition to time of cruise, speed etc. Anyone analysing the flight data will recognize an unexplained speed increase to 515 kts followed shortly thereafter by a minor course correction followed by the long steep straight-line descent to disaster. The fact that the aircraft did NOT deviate from course is very significant.

I've removed it again, per WP:CONSENSUS reached here. Mjroots (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Photo of the wreckage

Would we be able to use a photo of the wreckage under fair use? Alakzi (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

good question. i know we have before, like on AA 331... 208.100.172.164 (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

We would, but any image would have to be of really good quality. Would suggest that one showing the section of the fuselage with the registration visible would be a good candidate. If used, the correct rationales will need to be added to the file page. Mjroots (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Opinions please on the suitability of this image. Mjroots (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Are these eligible for an upload to Commons?--Nubifer (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

No. There is a statement that images from the BEA site can be freely used in uses to promote a87.114.172.97 (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)viation safety, but that's not broad enough to be uploaded to commons. I can't find any page on the BEA website like "Legal", "Copyright", "About" that contains information about copyright. However, it is part of the Ministère de l'écologie, du développement durable et de l'énergie (link at bottom) and that website has a page about legal information ("Mentions légales") that says use of photos must be approved by the author, however some "official documents" can be freely reused and some content may be redistributed unaltered for non-commercial uses (since it's not relevant I don't feel like translating everything). AHeneen (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You might not have noticed but I count several bodies in that photo so suggest it isn't used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.172.97 (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@87.114.172.97: if you mean the image I suggested, then it can be cropped to remove them. Such cropping is in accordance with fair use rules anyway, because it reduces the percentage of the image used. Mjroots (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the one showing the aircraft registration number. I must admit I never noticed them the first time I saw that photo. 87.114.172.97 (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox caption detail

"pictured here after take-off from Barcelona"

@Alakzi: Relevance? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Trimmed. Alakzi (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

TY. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Coords adjusted

FYI, I replaced the unsourced crash site coordinates with those in the Aviation Herald report. This moved the location about 3 km. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

CVR or FDR?

The page says that the plane's "black box" has been found. An A320 (like most planes) has two black boxes, a Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and a Flight Data Recorder (FDR). According to the citation given the reference number [64] on the page, (the guardian article), what was found was the CVR. Should the page be updated to be clear that the CVR was recovered, as opposed to "the black box"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.25.156 (talk) 04:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Oops, never mind, you guys were way ahead of me. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.25.156 (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Japanese victims

If/when it's confirmed that the Japanese (Satoshi Nagata and Junichi Sato) were on the flight, it may be good to say that they were resident in Dusseldorf (See Japanese community of Dusseldorf).

Source: Fantz, Ashley and Catherine E. Shoichet. "Germanwings crash: Who was on the plane?" (Archive). CNN. March 25, 2015. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Aircraft section

Can we please keep this section as the first one in the article, per many other aircrash articles? Mjroots (talk) 08:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

That would seem to be more logical and consistent. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Most aircraft crash articles have the accident section first, then search (if any), then aircraft, passengers/crew, and investigation section. Also, what value is there to have the aircraft section first? The subject of the article is the crash, so it makes sense to have the story of the crash first. AHeneen (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Before you can understand details of the crash, you need to know about the aircraft involved. Mjroots (talk) 10:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

As in this case, the aircraft doesn't always even exist after the accident. I'm surprised there's not some clear guideline about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Mjroots, please. Look at the very detailed content of the Aircraft section and tell me what part of that is essential (or even particularly helpful) in understanding the "details of the crash". You need to know it was an A320, and that's in the lead. I always defer to AHeneen on matters like this, as AFAIK he has the most experience with these articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mandruss:, AHeneen - OK, if consensus is against me, then I'll defer. Feel free to move the section. Mjroots (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm tempted by your offer, but you had to go and mention consensus. It looks like a 2-2 tie to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Martinevans123? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I also support moving it down, for the reasons above. Alakzi (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think putting the aircraft section first preserves the chronology better. I'd even be tempted to put "Passengers and crew" before the accident - they were all there before anything went wrong. In fact, they were still alive. They were not some kind of "product" of the accident, unlike the other later sections. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I was writing with BRD in mind. My move was challenged, so we discuss. In the event of a tie, R beats B. Mjroots (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Martinevans123 I moved it after seeing Alakzi's comment and before seeing your last. Sorry. Oh well it's not set in stone and still open to discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd also remind you that the article title is "Germanwings Flight 9525", and not "Germanwings Flight 9525 Accident" etc. But no strong views. Accuracy is more important than section order, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain? The article's topic is the accident. Alakzi (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The only reason we have this article is because of the accident, that's true. But "Germanwings Flight 9525" was a scheduled commercial flight, not an accident. The aircraft itself was an integral part of that flight, with or without any accident. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the article is not titled Germanwings Flight 9525 crash is per WP:CONCISE, and only that. The article is not about the scheduled flight. I was ok with "no strong views". ―Mandruss ☎ 21:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Well I guess WP:CONCISE is misleading, as it is with all aviation accidents that are titled that way. Too bad. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

IT WAS SUICIDE

hatting outlandish speculation Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"The Airbus A320 was the first commercial aircraft to incorporate full flight-envelope protection into its flight-control software." What is max cruising speed of A320-200 plane? "A320-200 - Max cruising speed 903km/h (487kt) at 28,000ft, economical cruising speed 840km/h (454kt) at 37,000ft." How Flight Envelope Protection and Max cruising speed is related to GWI 9525? To understand answer, first you must see this: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=365430633665467&set=pb.100005955991825.-2207520000.1427271126.&type=3&theater What is FLlGHT ENVELOPE PROTECTION? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHlrFJjQ0eQ Now to begin with detailed explanation. As clearly shown by the data after 05h28 EDT the flight 9525 start "OVERSPEED" economical cruising speed from 840km/h(454 kt). And after 2 minute 05h30 EDT the plane start abruptly DESCENT with CHANGE OF COURSE DIRECTION too - probably with IDLE ENGINES. From data between 05h30 to 05h34 is visible that DESCENT RATE is very unstable (-316,-1455,-3200,-3455,-2636,-3877,-4036). This is typical behavior of plane controlled by the HUMAN without assistant of flight computer. In 05h35 EDT the plane reach MAX CRUISING SPEED of 903 km/h(487kt). What happen when plane is with nose down, and it reach 903 km/h? FLlGHT ENVELOPE PROTECTION "ask" FLIGHT COMPUTER to catch CONTROL of the PLANE ignoring signals from the pilot. Flight computer trying to reduce the speed of the plane, first by reducing engine power but in this case ENGINES are in IDLE MODE and the only thing the system can be done to reduce speed is to RAISE THE NOSE of the plane. But since this is a dangerous maneuver at high speed FEP will do it GENTLY (-3818, -3750,-3273, -3242,-3188) as data shown. The truth is that A320-200 are very unpleasant plane for SUICIDE. This is what will happen if the PILOT TRY TO SUICIDE. Another explanation is what will happen if HIJACKER take control of the plane. Usually he will not be pilot, but self-educated man using FSX simulator. Problem with this type of "pilots" is that when they go in REAL PILOT SEAT they totally confused. Usually will trying to not put plane in STALL and for this reason will put nose in horizontal mode. But in this situation to maintain CONSTANT ALTITUDE you must do some fine adjustments. IF you do not do these adjustments plane will FALL exactly with about -4000ft/min. He just could not control the aircraft properly to the time in which the computer is completely took control over it. -2000 ft/min is GLIDING SPEED for A320 with TWO ENGINE FAILURE without losing SPEED! By the way - this mean. 38000-6800=31200 ft. 31200/2000=15.6 MINUTES. Lufthansa pilot will not make this 15.6 minutes to only 7. P.s. As no one media connect fact that LUFTHANS STRIKE ended two days before crash and this may be reason for SUICIDE BEHAVIOR of the MAIN PILOT. As I said, usually pilots(one after other) go to the toilet in exact time from the flight 2-3 minute after reaching of cruise altitude. Suitable time for SUICIDE or HIJACKING OF PLANE - when CABIN DOOR OPEN OR CLOSE FROM INSIDE. P.p.s. Do you see that they don't mention lot about the FACT that plane CHANGE OF COURSE DIRECTION from 43 Nort-east to 26 Nort-east exactly in moment when it start DESCENT - directing aircraft to the mountains not just trying to avoided them as must do in such situation!Enchev EG (talk) 10:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Your evidence for this is? See WP:REDFLAG. Mjroots (talk) 10:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Blah blah blah. Oscar-HaP (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Evidence - what evidence you want when someone change DIRECTION of the PLANE pointing it exactly to MOUNTAINS, not trying to avoided them?! Data I showed above are from flight radars, not make it myself. Enchev EG (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Go troll somewhere else. Wikipedia is not a forum. I'll not answer you again, don't have the time and I'm not a troll feeder. Cheers. Oscar-HaP (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Or, you know, that was their flight plan and that "someone" was LNAV. Alakzi (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC) So you in fact mean: IT WAS SUICIDE OR HIJACKING BECAUSE PILOTS BOTH WENT TO THE TOILET BECAUSE OF AN AIRLINE STRIKE! Great. Am intrigued as to where this flight data came from, when the FDR has yet to be found. If a source other than self-published Facebook can't be provided, quite soon, I suggest this entire thread is removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC) http://fr.flightaware.com/live/flight/GWI9525/history/20150324/0835Z/LEBL/EDDL/tracklog "Suitable time for SUICIDE or HIJACKING OF PLANE - when CABIN DOOR OPEN OR CLOSE FROM INSIDE." This mean ONE pilot stay ALONE in CABIN and can make attempt for SUICIDE when other is go to toilet. Ok, live this section only 2 days - and we talk after that. Main pilot is suicideR if ask for it.Enchev EG (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC) It should be noted that this is the same user who last month received a one-week block by MilborneOne for WP:FORUM and WP:NOTHERE at Talk:TransAsia Airways Flight 235. Lesson not learned, apparently. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Venezuelan and an additional Argentine victims.

Read on the paraguayan press . They were residents of Paraguay. Tragedia aérea: Dos de los fallecidos vivían en Paraguay Quantanew (talk) 11:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

44°16'50.86"N   6°26'21.48"E

—178.201.29.149 (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment - there are different GPS co-ordinates for the last recorded location and the crash site. -- Aronzak (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. The suggested coordinates are quite close to those given in the article, and we'd need a good source to make such a specific alteration. If a source becomes available, you are welcome to resubmit a request for emendation of the coordinates. Deor (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I dont think there is a source needed, because just looking at the video footage and the pictures published one can see that the soil is very dark grey, nearly black. The actual coordinates in the box are totallly wrong. The correct crash coordinates are 44° 16′ 54.56″ N 6° 26′ 24.79″ E, about 2,5 kms southwest of the actual coordinates in the box. The geo coordinates mentioned in the article (citation): "At 13:38 GMT (14:38 CET), a second larger area was added to cover a radius of 10 nautical miles (19 km; 12 mi) centered at 44°16′48″N 6°26′24″E from FL000 to FL100" (end of citation) come close or are even correct. Cruks (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Those are areas of flight restriction. No matter how intuitively obvious it may seem, I think it would be original research to derive crash site location from that information, especially given a respected source that disagrees with it. As noted elsewhere on this page, AvHerald is known for making corrections as more becomes known, and no one expects us (or should expect us) to get everything exactly right by Day 2. My opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is the picture which proves the site of the crash. It is No 6 of the series. Translate this picture to Google Maps and we have the exact coordinates of the crash site. Simple as that. Cruks (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Meaningless statements by politicians

The article is beginning to accumulate repetitive, useless statements from politicians who are not involved in the investigation or in policymaking. Abductive (reasoning) 13:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Expressions of grief and condolence are seen by many as "meaningless". Are you suggesting that inclusion should be limited to only statements by leading politicians of France, Germany and Spain? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying to keep it down to a dull roar. For example, if somebody has seen the crash site, their statement is far more worthy of inclusion. Abductive (reasoning) 23:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed the US citizens

They are correctly onboard.GJZHA (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

515 knots?

Where is the speed increase to 515 knots coming from? I cannot find evidence of this in the flightradar24/flighttracker plots. Shouldn't this value be sourced? vttoth (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I use Casper European flight radar and that was the highest speed recorded according to the data provided by it at 09:30:21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.172.97 (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

German students majority

Passenger section of article states majority of German passengers were students, only sixteen of the passengers from there were students. 139.190.230.234 (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

total count

so 153>150. Why? Nergaal (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

That's how maths works. Sorry, I'm not sure. Maybe some had duel nationality? I've not checked all the sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

All sources seem to agree on 150, certainly all that I've seen. That's the number in today's nytimes.com article. The total in the table really needs to be number of bodies, not number of nationalities. For the dual citizenships, we can choose one and, if it's really that important (is it?), use a footnote to note the other. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

We could also have separate rows for the duals, e.g. Dual UK/US - 1, requiring two of the silly flags of course. This would probably be the clearest solution and the one least prone to future "correction". ―Mandruss ☎ 21:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not just US and UK that have got silly flags, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I know, and I didn't say that. US/UK was an arbitrary example and was not connected to the word silly. Anyway, it's not the flags that are silly but their use in this table. Sorry for being ambiguous. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Alas it was a joke Martinevans123 (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

How are the two infants accounted for? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the total number should match the number of victims, not nationalities. Please see my post at Talk:Germanwings Flight 9525#Polish citizen didn't travel on Polish passport. As for the cleanest solution, in Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 article, dual nationalities were indicated with notes. — Mayast (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that that is cleaner than separate rows, which does not require footnotes and does not require us to choose a "primary" nationality. In other words, I'm disagreeing with my own initial comment after further thought. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Names of victims

Several non-notable names seem to be creeping in. IMHO, victims should only be named if they are notable enough to sustain an article on en-Wiki, or would be notable enough. At minimum, I would like to see that a named victim has an article on a Wiki in a foreign language at least. Can we please trim the non-notable names, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL? Mjroots (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree that is fairly standard for aircraft accident articles. MilborneOne (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Ridiculous statement.

"The plane appears not to have deviated from its flight plan during its descent"

It may be a translation issue, but this statement is ridiculous. The "plan" was to collide with the ground ? I don't think so.Lathamibird (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

That's what the source says. I assume it means that it did not deviate from its planned horizontal flight path, but I think it would be considered original research to make that assumption in the article. Flight plan refers to altitude/flight level as well as horizontal route. I'm for removing the statement unless a better-worded source can be found. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I had assumed this meant its planned track did not change, just its altitude. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

All the more reason why we should sit back for awhile to let the dust settle before rushing to include statements which haven't been well-thought-out or properly researched by the News Media. A vast amount of information put out by the Media, shortly after accidents, ends up being wrong, partially wrong or just plain made up. That is a consistent and repeated pattern and I don't see why some Wiki editors seem oblivious to it. EditorASC (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Obviously they mean that it did not deviate from its course. The aircraft remained on the airway, as filed in the flight plan. Alakzi (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Polish citizen didn't travel on Polish passport

The article linked as a source for the Polish citizen says that one of the passangers was an infant with multiple citizenships (including Polish). However, the child didn't travel on the Polish passport.
Shouldn't this information be removed then? Or indicated with a note, as with dual citizenships in Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 article? As of now, the total number of nationalities says 154, which is four people too many. – Mayast (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The source I have just added says "two Spanish babies". So the picture is a little confused. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Silk Air Flight 185 Locked Out Cockpit Door

SilkAir Flight 185 Now that we know one pilot locked out the other from the cockpit door, this should make reference to another similar case where one theory is that one pilot locked the other door and made controlled dive into the ground. The "wild speculation" that was hidden above may have been a "correct speculation".

Germanwings plane crash: A320 pilot says co-pilot can be locked out of cockpit It is possible for one pilot of an Airbus A320 to lock the other pilot out of the cockpit to the extent that he cannot regain entry, even if the aircraft is in a fatal dive, says an Australian pilot of an A320. The New York Times has reported, citing an official involved in the Germanwings crash investigation, that the cockpit voice recorder shows one of the pilots had left the flight deck and could not regain entry. "You can hear he is trying to smash the [cockpit] door down," the official said. An Australian A320 pilot, who declined to be named, said the locked flight deck of the aircraft could be entered using an emergency code on a keypad. In the case of the pilot flying the aircraft being incapacitated, the door will automatically open after a set period of time if the correct code is entered. However, in the event a pilot flying the aircraft does not want the other pilot to enter the flight deck, the one in the cockpit has the ability to block entry if he reacts before the door would be opened automatically.

This is the Wikipedia section on the disputed conclusion that one pilot locked the other out and then set controls to fly into the ground:

The accident was investigated by the Indonesian NTSC, which was assisted by expert groups from the US, Singapore, and Australia, and the American NTSB.

Around 73% of the wreckage (by weight) was recovered, partially reconstructed, and examined. Both "black boxes" – the CVR and FDR – were successfully retrieved from the river and their data were extracted and analysed.

According to the Canadian television series Mayday, at 16:00, the CVR showed that Captain Tsu left the cockpit; five seconds later, the CVR stopped recording. Tests indicated that a click would clearly be heard on the CVR recording if the CVR circuit breaker had tripped normally, but not if it had been pulled out manually. As there was no click, Captain Tsu was speculated to have pulled out the CVR circuit breaker before leaving the cockpit. NTSC and NTSB investigators postulated that if Captain Tsu were responsible for the crash, he returned to his seat and then concocted a pretense for First Officer Ward to leave the cockpit before pulling the FDR circuit breaker which would have been noticed by Ward had he remained, as disconnection would have triggered warning lights on the console. Several minutes later, as recorded by Indonesian ground radar, the aircraft entered a rapid descent, disintegrated, and crashed into the Musi River.

On 14 December 2000, after three years of intensive investigation, the Indonesian NTSC issued its final report, in which it concluded that the evidence was inconclusive and that the cause of the accident could not be determined:

The NTSC has to conclude that the technical investigation has yielded no evidence as to the cause of the accident.

The US NTSB, which also participated in the investigation, concluded that the evidence was consistent with a deliberate manipulation of the flight controls, most likely by the captain.

In a letter to the NTSC dated 11 December 2000, the NTSB wrote:

The examination of all of the factual evidence is consistent with the conclusions that: 1) no airplane-related mechanical malfunctions or failures caused or contributed to the accident, and 2) the accident can be explained by intentional pilot action. Specifically, a) the accident airplane’s flight profile is consistent with sustained manual nose-down flight control inputs; b) the evidence suggests that the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) was intentionally disconnected; c) recovery of the airplane was possible but not attempted; and d) it is more likely that the nose-down flight control inputs were made by the captain than by the first officer.

Bachcell (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You are on the wrong page. This article is not about SilkAir Flight 185. If you wish to discuss this crash, please provide reliable, published secondary sources supporting your claims. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Intentional crashes etc

in the lede... I added EgyptAir990, someone else had Silk Air and someone else added LAN Mozambique... I realize now we need a way to reference all of them without mentioning any specifically, at least in the lede.

But upon hearing the news regarding the lock-out, i think we can't keep deleting every reference to suicide as "speculation," any more 208.100.172.164 (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

We know nothing about this besides the fact that someone was locked out. It could easily be a medical problem with the pilot remaining in the cockpit. At this point, it is completely irresponsible to make any connection whatsoever with deliberate crash events. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

− :The NYT thing is a leak, and uncollaborated. We cannot presume it is 100% accurate, and therefore prejudge the cause. 87.83.31.234 (talk) 02:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)