Talk:Germanwings Flight 9525

Flightradar24 data

ModeS

Flightradar24 ModeS rawdata shows unusual data seconds before decend begin. (09:30:52Z.386 MCP/FMC ALT: 38000 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa / 09:30:54Z.083 MCP/FMC ALT: 13008 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa / 09:30:55Z.397 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa) Between 09:30:52 and 09:30:55 from data can be seen that the altitude setting was changed from 38,000 feet to 96 feet and 9 seconds later the aircraft started to descend.

Data shows that somebody did do something on plane, and setup low altitude and plane transponder/ADS-B equipment send it out to air and Flighradar24 got it. There is no anykindof speculation why data changed or what happend after his. Everyone can do own conculsions from this data. Final BEA raport probably will tell what happend in plane between 09:30.52-09:30.55

Somebody said that RAW data from flightradar is not reliable. BEA has confirmed almoust everything that flighradar24 has recorded. Flightradar24 is only recording data what comes from planes and they do not make any changes to it.

I think this should this be in article because this is start of decend? And it shows that somebody changed altitude setting at plane.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/26/europe/france-germanwings-plane-crash-main/ CNNLatest developments: • 5:32 p.m. ET: Transponder data shows that the autopilot on Germanwings Flight 9525 was reprogrammed by someone in the cockpit to change the plane's altitude from 38,000 feet to 100 feet, according to Flightradar24, a website that tracks aviation data.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.9.106 (talk)

Wait until a reliable independent source reports the 96 foot figure. The prosecutor has already stated that the altitude selector was changed. -- Aronzak (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Forums are not acceptable refs either, see WP:SPS. - Ahunt (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Raw data is put to Flightradar24 forum by Flightradar24 Administrator. Its not regular user, its person who have access data. Flightradar ModeS rawdata and and other sources confirms that what data says. Somebody changed altitude, change and exact time can been sen there. Time when it happend also confirms this.

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. 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

The BEA press conference on 25 March confirmed the times, route and altitude, during the final descent of the aircraft, previously given by Flightradar24.Slide from that pressconference can be found at http://aviation-safety.net/photos/displayphoto.php?id=20150324-0&vnr=3&kind=G That BEA slide confirms Flightradar24 data to be enough accurate to be used.

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

Flightradar24 recorded its last update at 09:40:36; the plane's location was 44°14′02″N 6°24′25″E, altitude 6800 feet, ground speed 378 vertical speed -3520.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.9.106 (talk) 02:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC) 

Here's a WP:RS: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/03/24/world/europe/germanwings-plane-crash-map.html JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Unofficial plots from flightradar24 data and google maps ground height. Whole flight: http://i62.tinypic.com/2poz8sl.jpg Decend phase of flight: http://i57.tinypic.com/2z4e5qb.jpg

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)

@AHeneen: can you add Orange-Caritat Air Base to the map? -- Aronzak (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

More readable at 200/250px? -- Aronzak (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The labels and colors are consistent, with the exception that the country labels for Andorra & Monaco are smaller than the country labels for Spain, France, & Italy. I think the map is more readable at a larger size. When I added the map, I set "upright=1.5" so that it would appear bigger than the standard image. I do not think the airbase should be added. For a map like this to effectively display information, it should not have much chartjunk (term can be applied to maps too). I also think the map should include the relevant information. The map at right should include the airport names (but again, I don't think the airbase needs to be included). I think the map that is in the article is fine, but will need to note the point where the captain left the cockpit (presumably when the plane began to descend). AHeneen (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

If you're referring to the one on the right, My reading of the sources is that the captain left after the start of cruising and returned during the descent. I would argue that the distance from Orange-Caritat Air Base to the crash site is of interest to readers. I'll change the colours of the mountains to make it easier to read the text. -- Aronzak (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

In locator map style.

Sorry, my comments about labels/colors and size was with regard to the previous map. I now see that the airbase is relevant and will try to adjust the locator map to include it. However, I think the locator map is clearer and should be used in the article. AHeneen (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok my comment was just make the text larger so the labels can be read at upright=1.2 -- Aronzak (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I've lowered contrast of the background here.

Flight Path

•  BCN Barcelona–El Prat Airport
•  XOG Orange-Caritat Air Base

-- Aronzak (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

I agree that the wording might seem a bit much, but it is factual so I don't really have a problem with it in it's current form. The removal of "deadliest of 2015 so far" was a good call I think. Gallivant84 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Latest reports point to 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)

Sky News now reporting that an investigator who has heard the cockpit voice tape has revealed that one of the pilots was locked out of the cockpit just before the aircraft went into a steep descent. Apparently gentle knocking followed by more aggressive knocking was heard thereafter noises associated with an attempt to force the door. If these facts are later confirmed the conclusion is obvious. 87.114.172.97 (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Officials have stated that the crash was probably intentional, but none of them has (yet) used the term suicide. Conclusions are not to be drawn here on wikipedia, not even if they seem obvious - let's stay away far from that. Nothing is obvious until the official investigation is over. Jahoe (talk) 16:38, 26 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)

We don't need to choose primary citizenships - they had already been picked by the passengers, who chose to use one passport instead of another during this flight. Anyway, that's how it was handled in the Flight 17 article. As for separate rows for all the dual citizenships, I'm afraid the table would become very cluttered. Also, it would be much easier to make mistakes by counting the same passangers twice. - Mayast (talk) 06:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Very cluttered? We currently show five duals. The worst case, then, is five additional rows, or a 25% increase, somewhat lower if you consider caption, heading, and total. The way to prevent mistakes is to be careful, and any mistakes would be correctable in any case. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:03, 27 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)

More information is now available: the baby was travelling on a Spanish passport with its 37-year-old Spanish mother. The woman's husband and the baby's father is Polish, so the seven-month-old boy had a dual Spanish-Polish citizenship. Source (Gazeta.pl)
The baby might also had a British citizenship, as the couple lived in Manchester and the article says 'several citizenships', but as of now, that's just speculation on my end. - Mayast (talk) 04:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, The Daily Telegraph describes the seven-month old Julian Pracz-Bandres as "British": [1]. So presumably included in that table tally of 3 for UK. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:51, 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. That means don't mention them, period. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that the similar flights should not be mentioned. This seems now to be discussed a lot in flight magazines. So why shouldn't we mention it here? The similarities are objective. So they should be mentioned. Whether the cause is the same as in those cases is a different quesion. --rtc (talk) 03:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

We don't include content simply because it is discussed a lot in flight magazines. I already stated above why we shouldn't mention it here. The only "objective" similarity is a locked cockpit door. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

oh yes we do include that, that's called source-based editing. the locked cockpit door is not the only objective similarity, it was also kicked against and the plane started to descend. There is a lot of similarity there. If there weren't the flight magazines wouldn't discuss this so much.--rtc (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It would be a waste of time for the two of us to argue about it any further, so let's wait for other opinions (which may take a day or two). I have no problem yielding to consensus for including that content if you can get it, but I really don't think you will. In the meantime, per guidelines, please leave it out. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

heres CNN wire service saying suicide in the 2nd headline... so the RS is getting pretty mainstream at this point-- KTVZ.com wire service on Germanwings... 208.100.172.164 (talk) 06:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No read it more carefully. That article says "Theories range from medical emergency to suicide" and they key bit in the first para "according to media reports". They are not saying this happened, they are saying other bits of the media are saying this happened. Secretlady (talk) 07:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

not to mention, people will try and add it back anyways every time there is news... it will be fighting a losing battle to keep any mention of suicide out of the article 208.100.172.164 (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

We don't do the wrong thing simply because it would be easier. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

We don't fight the facts simply because it would be a challenge. --rtc (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

some random leak is not 'facts'. Secretlady (talk) 06:50, 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)

Always somebody who has to insist editors can't state the obvious even when it is stated by mainstream news sources if there is any likelihood of terrorist suicide attacks. Nothing else is a simple, perfect explanation of the evidence. It will probably take a week for governments to admit the obvious, and see if there are any evidence that beyond a suicide the motive was terrorist in nature and not just personal issues, mental illness or an insurance scheme. Bachcell (talk) 03:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The media is reporting this as "the NYT said someone told them that.." we turned that into "this definately happened". We really know nothing at this stage. We can wait a week, seriously. We've not got 24 hours of a rolling news channel to fill. Secretlady (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a speculation by a reliable source, which make direct reference to LAM and SilkAir. Even conspiracy theories can be included if they are sourced by mainstream media. Sourced material from reliable news sources cannot be deleted: Financial review: The investigation into the crash remains ongoing and it is still unclear whether one of the pilots downed the plane in a deliberate act. Mr Bartsch said he would not want to pre-judge the outcome of the investigation but the pilot suicide theory was "not inconsistent with information we have had confirmed already", such as the flight path and the lack of responses to calls from air traffic control. "If the person is suicidal and did that they are probably not going to respond," he said. There are other cases of pilot suicide resulting in aircraft crashes, including the loss of Mozambique airline LAM's Flight 470 in 2013 in Namibia. In that case, the captain made inputs that directed the plane to the ground shortly after the first officer left the flight deck. All 33 people on board were killed. In 1997, Silkair Flight 185, a Boeing 737 en route from Jakarta to Singapore crashed in Indonesia following a rapid descent from cruising altitude. In that case, there was also speculation that the first officer had left the flight deck when the crash occurred.

The media routinely engages in speculation. It sells newspapers and attracts viewers. Wikipedia is not in that business, and RS reporting is never enough, by itself, to justify inclusion of anything in a Wikipedia article. RS reporting is only the first step in a multi-step filtering process. We don't include speculation, especially speculation about whether a man intentionally killed 149 people and himself. It is irresponsible editing. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yet another source that mentions LAM's Flight 470 in relation to this case. How many sources do you need to mention the striking similarities here? --rtc (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• This is unverifiable speculation from unreliable sources. Cease the disruption. Alakzi (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • This is an objective comparison by reliable flight magazines. You are the one who is disrupting by censoring the information, trying to suppress the undeniable fact that other flights with striking similarities do exist. You are reading into that statement you deleted a speculation that you make yourself, but isn't in there. Comparison is not speculation. Cooperate and take back your revert. --rtc (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    • No, it's not censorship. Wikipedia is just a bit slower that the news media. Anybody with half a brain guessed that this is yet another case of pilot suicide as soon as the steep descent was reported. Abductive (reasoning) 04:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

anyways I do agree we need to include some concept of suicide in the article, certainly we don't need to be definitive about things but yes, RS sources are talking about it so there's no reason we can't either. I agree it was my first thought if not when i heard about the decent, but when i heard about the lock-out 208.100.172.164 (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with those who counsel patience. It is way too early to put in possible suicidal pilot speculation. There are other possibilities too, but that is beside the point. We all know the rules about no OR, and right now that is what it would be if we add speculations about the cause. Wait until responsible investigation officials come to firm conclusions about the cause. It is and always should be Wiki policy for us to be slower and more deliberate than the typical News Media, especially right after an accident when so much of what the media publishes turns out later on to be in error. EditorASC (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about having a single brief report of the NYT coverage (there are currently 2 references). I am concerned about the emotive language being introduced that lends credence to the suicide theory. For example, why the constant reference to unauthorised in the crash section? It's not like crashes are authorised. Can't we just stick to the facts for now? Mattojgb (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS. This is an encyclopedia, it doesn't matter if data (breaking news) takes a few days, or weeks, to be reflected here. Remember there's the Wikinews project where wikipedians can dedicate their time, too. Oscar-HaP (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Now officially confirmed as an act of suicide. The official statement from the French authorities should be added to the article ASAP--119.4.95.8 (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I repeat, this is an encylopedia, not a newspaper. The guidelines doesn't say anywhere that info does need to be added ASAP -in fact, there are lots of important historical articles, many of events with a lot more of dead people, missing a lot of info due to lack of collaboration. Oscar-HaP (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Names of the pilot and copilot

Why haven't these been released? I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count. Abductive (reasoning) 02:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

1. a reason, 2. a reason, 3. You're delusional? Leitmotiv (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably because the one left in the cockpit was Muslim or had an Arabic name? Currently speculation is rife: cite 213.174.123.194 (talk) 04:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks very like there were suspicions from the outset. Somebody somewhere knows if one of the pilots was having problems. 87.114.172.97 (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The German Newspaper Express says that the Co-Pilots Name was Andreas. More Details are not knowen at the moment. --145.30.124.13 (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The German Newspaper Bild says that the Pilots Name is Patrick S. --145.30.124.13 (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

BBC reports co-pilot was Andreas Lubitz. Also reports Marseilles prosecutor Brice Robin saying co-pilot "wanted to destroy plane".Mattojgb (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Analyzing the Descending Flight of the Germanwings A320 4U9525

Something (on 2015-03-26, 10:00 still unknown) caused 4U9525 to descent. All the rest is the automatic reaction of a properly functioning Airbus A320 to these initial conditions: The aircraft is disengaging the autopilot automatically at a Mach number of 0.82 as a consequence of High Speed Protection and follows a subsequent descending flight in manual mode (with normal Fly-by-Wire flight control laws) and idle thrust. The pilots probably are neither touching the side sticks nor the thrust levers. At least, it does not need any pilot intervention to explain the cause of the last 9 minutes of the flight and the final tragic effect.

31.19.210.13 (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1356060 (PDF)

http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1356061 (XLS)

http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1356062 (Dataset) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.22.196.218 (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It was suicide

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Admin - Why you delete my section here?! We made a deal to keep it just 2 days. You close it - what other you want?! Is the truth not interesting for you?! My information is VERY SERIOUS - is not speculation. I'm almost never wrong. They know from beginning what happen but they lie. Radar data showed to them exactly when a HUMAN was controlling the plane and when FLIGHT ENVELOPE PROTECTION SYSTEM do it. "Usually pilots(one after other) go to the toilet 2-3 minutes after reaching of cruise altitude. Suitable time for suicide when one pilot left alone in the cabin of the plane." By the way as I said in my blog probably the pilot from inside "WAS NOT SILENT" May be, he spoke something AGAINST LUFTHANSA and now they hide it. "(wild guess) Do you know that probably now they listen from a cockpit voice recorder (CVR) first "SUICIDE NOTE MESSAGE" left behind before a pilot has committed suicide? In it, he explains the reasons for his actions." What exactly these section for SUICIDE here in TALK, not in main article - make you angry?! I don't understand. It is time for you to start DISCUSSING about it. http://encheveg.blog.bg/technology/2015/03/25/what-is-the-truth-about-germanwings-flight-9525-crash.1348923 P.s. A320 is controlled by the Joystick which is positioned to the left and right from the pilots - this mean if some of them have medical issue HE WILL NOT PUT PRESSURE TO THE JOYSTICK and DESCENT will have other flight characteristic! Enchev EG (talk) 06:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC) @Enchev EG:, as you were told the first time, you need to provide extraordinary sources for extraordinary claims, which you failed to do. Also, and you've been told this before, THERE IS NO NEED TO SHOUT! You have a better chance of being listened to if you make a rational argument in a calm manner. That said, it is looking that murder-suicide is a very likely scenario. We can look for reliable sources to report this, and use said sources in the article. Mjroots (talk) 06:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC) @Mjroots: This is TALK page, not MAIN ARTICLE - here you must do DISCUSSIONS not follow strictly rules of Wiki that are make mainly for articles. What source you want, when I WAS ONLY PERSON WHO TALK ABOUT SUICIDE with DATA?! I was not rude?! I show you original data from RADAR that I used them. In fact I am the only reliable source at the moment. Even now they lie trying make case MEDICAL without consider CABIN ARRANGEMENT and JOYSTICK CONTROLS. As I said here is DISCUSSION PAGE, not MAIN ARTICLE you may be more CALMLY with section like this - especially when you soon must make it part of main article.Enchev EG (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC) If I was rude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU#t=120 The people from outside start mock you for this strange rule "reliable sources". Do you see some other source even NOW, except me, to talk about SUICIDE with DATA?! Show me it. Enchev EG (talk) 07:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC) We have experience with this individual from TransAsia Airways Flight 235. They do not edit the article, they only argue endlessly in article talk, ignore user talk page warnings, and refuse to learn basic Wikipedia principles. They earned a one-week block at the other article last month. My suggestion is to simply ignore them. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC) OK, the problem has gone away. I've just blocked him for 2 weeks for a personal attack against another editor on his talk page. Obviously only here to push his own agenda. Can't see him lasting that long. Mjroots (talk) 08:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC) A grammatically incorrect personal attack at that. Looks like I picked a bad week to stop doing amphetamines. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Hatting this section per WP:CRYSTAL and bad faith/vandalism issues. -- Aronzak (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Only here to push his own agenda?? Are you admins for real? In case you haven't noticed Enchev EG was spot on! 87.114.172.97 (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

And this is one of the reasons for me to trust Wikipedia less and less. The guy was 100% right but got blocked out of no reason!!! Someone else was trying to push his/her own agenda, but not that guy! 179.153.241.50 (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC) added by Martinevans123 (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

For a proper analysis of the log-file see http://figshare.com/articles/Germanwings_4U9525_pdf/1356060.

You may compare that analysis with Mr. Enchev analysis --Foolssanma (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure about that "100%". But you're saying this analysis by Dieter Scholz was the source of his comments? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can say Mr. Scholz is popably not the source of Mr. Enchev --Foolssanma (talk) 05:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

You may compare that analysis with Mr. Enchev analysis - Analysis is something we do not do as Wikipedia editors. See WP:SYNTH. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, what to do and what not as Wiki editors is one thing. I presonally would like to have an expert statement about both analisys, whether they match or differ, whether they made mistakes, etc. etc. But checking articles by experts ist rather the way how sinetific magagzins work. --06:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is further data/analysis:http://forum.flightradar24.com/threads/8650-We-have-analysed-the-raw-data-from-the-transponder-of-4U9525-and-found-some-more-dat I've picked that link from the german wiki page. --Foolssanma (talk) 06:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Obiosely the AP setting for the altitude is logged and transmitted and can therefore be found in the RAW data of the log-file catched by Fligthradar24. This article is about the changing of the altitute settings from 38000 ft via 13000 ft to 96 ft within 3 seconds.--Foolssanma (talk) 07:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Terrorist attack

I think despite some odd conspiracy theories found in the media stating that this "was not a terrorist attack", we can now be completely sure that it was one. The evidence is overwhelming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.245.117 (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you provide a source for this "overwhelming evidence"? A humble contributor (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Cause in infobox

How should we treat the cause in the infobox? Personally, I think it should remain as under investigation until the investigation is closed and include a hidden comment informing people not to change that (a prosecutor does not make decisions on causes and a manslaughter case has been opened). The question then becomes, at what point do we consider it no longer under investigation? Ryan Vesey 12:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

For the time being, I've added a hidden note pointing people to the discussion here. Ryan Vesey 12:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Deliberate sounds acceptable as this is now an official designation and highly unlikely to change. "Suicide" or "Murder-suicide" should not be used as this has not been officially determined by the investigation. Having "under investigation" in the infobox is also fine as far as I can see.--60.255.0.20 (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Support use of deliberate. Not sensationalist.Mattojgb (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

So basically writing "under investigation; suspected deliberate crash"? I think that sounds fine. The discussion should be allowed to go further before we change things, but I wouldn't be opposed to changing it to something like that if another editor comes by and changes it to something like "murder-suicide" despite the note. Ryan Vesey 12:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the cause should remain as "under investigation", until the official announcement is made as to the cause (by either the French authorities or Lufthansa/Germanwings), and that the hidden note is worthwhile. The case is no longer under investigation when the relevant court makes its findings. However, due to the high profile of the case, I expect that Germanwings and Lufthansa may complete their investigations and release sufficient findings before that point. EP111 (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Suggest use of the term 'suspected suicide' as that is what it is being called unless of course some feel flying an Airbus into a mountainside at over 400 kts was an accident? 87.114.172.97 (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Some people owe Enchev an apology

Vist WP:ANI if you want to discuss admin conduct and/or unblocking

Enchev EG who is now blocked because he made a silly comment in his frustration, made a case for suicide which although slightly ranty in places was a fair comment. He was shot down in no uncertain terms for making such a ludicrous and preposterous suggestion...how dare he!! Now we know the terrible truth and that is that the co-pilot flew the aircraft into a mountain can we at least have some sort of apology from the member concerned as IT WAS SUICIDE? 87.114.172.97 (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Our task here is to accurately represent WP:RSs; our task is not to engage in prolix speculation, in the off-chance that some of it might turn out to have been correct. Also, it's still not been confirmed that it was suicide. Alakzi (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Enchev EG does not appear to have English as his first language (apologies if this is wrong) so allowances must be made in the way he put his case forward. One must remember that Wikipedia is not all about the academic. I propose Enchev EG is reinstated with a warning about his language. 87.114.172.97 (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Controlled flight into terrain

The current link in the infobox is to Murder-suicide, should it also have Controlled flight into terrain? -- Aronzak (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. the CFIT page clearly says unintentional.Naraht (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I have changed it back to "Intentionally flown into terrain". There is no indication that this is a suicide yet vs a mass murder and as per the article CFIT accidents are unintentional by definition. - Ahunt (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be 'mass murder-suicide'? 87.114.172.97 (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Not unless you can cite a ref that says that WP:V. - Ahunt (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

While still under investigation, there are a number of WP:RS indicating an intentional act by the copilot:

• Alone at controls, co-pilot ‘intentionally’ destroyed plane
• Prosecutor: Co-pilot Deliberately Crashed Germanwings Plane
• Germanwings pilot ordered jet down to 100 feet, trackers say
• Post-9/11 cockpit safety measures may have helped co-pilot Andreas Lubitz crash Germanwings plane, experts say Officials revealed Thursday that the young German co-pilot on Germanwings Flight 9525 locked himself into the cockpit and methodically steered the plane into a remote French mountain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeSperrazza (talk • contribs)

Nobody denies that. Intentional act ≠ murder–suicide or CFIT. Alakzi (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The article Murder–suicide states A murder–suicide is an act in which an individual kills one or more other persons before, or at the same time as, killing oneself. I don't see how an "Intentional act", as described by the WP:RSs, can be anything but murder–suicide. Pardon me if I don't understand your assertion. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I will add the CFIT, by definition, is not intentional, per that article. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Police at Lubitz's house

Police have apparently been stationed at the house of co-pilot Lubitz suspected of having crashed the plane. Should this be mentioned? Tkuvho (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I fail to see what it had to do with the flight. Yes, there is speculation about Lublitz (which is mentioned already), so it is prudent for the police to post someone there, less someone interfers with his family, property, or evidence as there may be. A humble contributor (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

We certainly had the searches of the houses of the aircrew for MH370? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

How do we know which pilot was at the controls?

News reports say that the captain was locked out of the cockpit and the co-pilot was at the controls. How do investigators know it wasn't the other way around? Does the flight data recorder show which entry code was used in the failed effort to reenter the flight deck? Is it just that the captain was so much more experienced? TypoBoy (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The recorder that was found was the CVR. Alakzi (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe the recording is alleged to have allowed identification of the person banging on the flightdeck door. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The pilot is heard yielding the controls to the co-pilot to leave. Then leaving noises. Then a pause. Then the knocking-banging noises. Stands to reason that the pilot actually left, and the copilot remained. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32063587 A humble contributor (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The French Prosecutor also said in his briefing that screaming could be heard, shortly before the impact. Should this be added as a fact or is that too distressing for the victim's families? It shows that at least some of the passengers were aware of what was happening. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No this should not be added. Also why should that be relevant for an encyclopedia? MfG Seader (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It's already there, in the "Investigation" section. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Andreas Lubitz, 28, was the co pilot

Here are the name of the co pilot: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/26/us-france-crash-idUSKBN0MK2U020150326 --IvarT (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Number of victims by nationality

Note, on de iw or pl iw, there is only 35 victims from Spain (with source).--Kacir (talk)

It may be best to use whatever nationality list the airline will provided. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Reaction of other airlines

The paragraph on the immediate reactions of other airlines was removed here, with edit summary "none of this is relevant to the accident and we dont really need a long list of the airlines of the world and individual policy on the minimum needed on the flightdeck". I would suggest that the reaction by other airlines are very much "relevant to this accident". Maybe we don't need "a long list", but I think complete removal of any mention is a little hasty. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes it was me that removed it, sorry I was probably hasty but I saw more and more airlines being added, perhaps we can simplify it to say a number of airliners have either changed or explained current policy without adding a long list of the actual airlines? MilborneOne (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

A very good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I have re-added a simpler statement. MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. On a related topic - I don't think the article makes clear that the door has three modes - open, locked with key-pad entry and completely locked. Obviously these modes are controlled by a manual switch on the flightdeck. What do you think? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like you might be back soon MilborneOne, with those scissors of yours. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there is no need to have a list of airlines that always have two people in the cockpit and that a general statement is sufficient. I have just trimmed another iteration of this quickly growing list and it is just not relevant to this event. - Ahunt (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

(I'd still be interested to see a before and after policy comparison - but probably not in this article). Martinevans123 (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh I am sure many airlines will change policies because of this, but it is still not required to list them all in this article. - Ahunt (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Nationalities

I don't know if there's a general wikipedia policy on this, but several victims had dual citizenship. How should they be listed? Up until now it seems that they're just arbitrarily moved back and forth between nations. Either they should be listed according to the passport on which they travelled, or with both their nationalities, or as a separate category. For example, why is the Bosnian-German couple listed as Bosnian only while there's already a note that they didn't travel on their Bosnian passports? It shouldn't be the criterion to try and add as many countries to the list as possible. There must be a system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.136.20 (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it's unsatisfactory. The problem is that they are not clearly identified in the table. So we don't know which five in the table they are. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The number five (earlier four) derives from the fact, that with all the nationalities summed up, the total number of victims was indicated as 155. So I listed the number of dual citizenships separately, however, that number may not be correct.
Anyway, I used a note to identify the baby with Spanish-Polish-British citizenship. The baby boy is definitely included in the Brtish victims count, but I don't know whether he is also counted as a Spanish victim. As for the Bosnian victims, I agree that they should be counted as Germans (travelling with German passport) with a similar note saying that they had dual Bosnian-German citizenship – I'll do it right away. I've already proposed a similar solution at Talk:Germanwings Flight 9525#total count. — Mayast (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It may be clarified the list the airline may provide. Generally the airline counts passengers based on what passport they board with (since this was intra-Schengen it may be based on national ID cards when passports were not provided) WhisperToMe (talk) 07:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

"Revision 0" technical problem

It has happened at least twice, so it's not just a one-time freak accident. After an edit, the article will not display and there is a message about "unable to access revision 0" or some such thing. The workaround is to revert the last edit, and then it can be tried again. It would be interesting to know whether the problem is only with this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I've only seen it happen in diff view; the article still loads fine, I think. Alakzi (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

By diff view, are you referring to the page history? If so, there would be no way to revert the last edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

When viewing the difference between revisions, like this. Alakzi (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

(I've had to make the same edit twice (my hidden note in the Reactions" section). The first one just disappeared. No idea if this is related). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi, no, what I've seen wasn't in a diff. It occurred immediately after hitting "Save page", which should return to article view. That said, you might well see an error as well if you attempted to view the diff for that last edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I saw the problem last night too. Maybe worth raising at WP:VPT. Mjroots (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Repeated attempts at censorship

We know what both the authorities and the company say have happened: the co-pilot deliberately crashed the plane. There are an enormous amounts of WP:RS saying this. Yet some users repeatedly either remove it entirely, or downplay it with wording such as "investigators believe". That's WP:OR, the investigators have explicitly said it was intentional, not that it "maybe" was intentional.Jeppiz (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This is Day 3. I don't think it's unreasonable to hedge our language a little on this, and it's certainly not censorship. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

We need to see a proper investigation, and conclusions before claiming it was suicide. I am not clear on French law, but in the UK we would need the conclusions of an inquest before reporting this as a murder/suicide. Martin451 22:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

We don't say it was mass-murder and suicide, we say that the "authorities, prosecutor and company" say it was. It's not for us to believe anything. We know what they have said, we have WP:RS sources for it and we report it, we don't make personal guesses, which is WP:OR. If the authorities, the prosecutor and the company all would say Elvis crashed it, and no WP:RS source would say otherwise, we would say Elvis crashed it. Wikipedia is not the place to put forward personal beliefs about what happened, nor to hedge the language of the authorities as quoted in reliable sources. Jeppiz (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not a "personal belief" to say that investigators believe, unless you want to question the competence of the sources where you got that information. "Investigators believe" is not the same as "the investigation has shown". The operative word is "believe". This early in the investigation, their belief should not be presented as fact, no matter how many of them believe it. If mainstream RS states it more definitely, we can too. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but news sources like to make a leap of faith, don't they? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that, even if mainstream RS states it more definitely, we should still hedge? Because mainstream RS can't be trusted on these things? I hope not. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Almost certainly. News channels love to make more drama, don't they? We have one interpretation of one black box recording. And difficult to arrange a criminal trial, no? But, as we both know, in the contest between "truth" and "verifiability" there is only one wiki-winner. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Your last sentence is true. And the alternative is everyone's personal opinion of "truth" which, trust me, would be far worse and would probably kill Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, little point in discussing if the premise is that we should disregard all WP:RS because they "love to make more drama". You're free to hold that view, but you're not free to edit Wikipedia according to it. Simple as that.Jeppiz (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we all make mistakes. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I have added the new section heading "Cause of crash". I copied the sentence already in the lede that states cause of crash under this new heading. I added yet another source asserting this is the cause of the crash. In this edit, I made no other changes. Prhartcom (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiProjects 'Class' quality

I am looking at the talkpage, and many of the WikiProject tags are classified as "Start-class". I have read the article, and assesment for WikiProject's quality scale, and many of these tags should be updated to "C-class" because this article passes quality scale for WikiProject Germany, and WikiProject Aviation accidents. Again, this is a personal opinion. If you read the article, and read the WikiProject (WP Germany & WP Aviation accidents) quality scale, this article seems like it should be "C-class" instead of "Start-class". Please update it if it passes "B-class" quality scale on these WikiProjects, or shoot me a reply with your concerns about the issue. Thanks. CookieMonster755 (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree; this article is at C-class now, please feel free to go ahead and make this change. Prhartcom (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done CookieMonster755 (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with C class, it's not far short of B class, but not there yet. Mostly due to the fact that it can't fully cover the topic due to the fact that it is still a developing story. Mjroots (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Obama quote

Obama has no relevance to this incident and thus I propose deleting the quote and keeping the political response section Germnan/French/Spanish unless further developments take place - as they are principle countries involved. Cantab12 (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree. HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Me too. WWGB (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree as well. CookieMonster755 (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Angela Merkel's quote would be much more appropriate: (one source here) Prhartcom (talk) 06:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)