Talk:Flydubai Flight 981

Czech Airlines divert

This is FlightRadar24 data of Czech Airlines flight OK914 / CSA914 from Prague to Rostov on 18 March 2016, which diverted to Krasnodar.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ok914/#9232f55 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.143.107.35 (talk) 09:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Relevance ? MilborneOne (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

None, it was a different day. Mjroots (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It arrived to Rostov shortly after midnight, meaning in the early hours of 19 March 2016 local time. It diverted to Krasnodar just a few hours before FlyDubai crashed. Relevance: ABSOLUTE. The pilots decided not to land in Rostov due to weather conditions. Had the pilots of FlyDubai made the same decision a few hours later, the crash would not have happened.

You are wrong because the crash did not occur due to wind, as seen from the video, ATC audio and Flightradar24. The aircraft was at 4000 feet when the incident occurred, the wind was not even a contributing cause. It made two landing attempts which is absolutely a reasonable decision in these wind conditions. Aeroflot's flight 1166 made three attempts before diverting. FlyDubai only made two. It would probably consider diverting to Krasnodar after the second go-around, or waiting in a holding pattern for some more time. The Czech flight is irrelevant because it did not attempt landing, unlike the Aeroflot flight which tried 3 times, and which we mention in the article. The Czech flight was merely waiting in the holding pattern and did not even descend to pattern altitude. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 11:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Which is relevant. Because they correctly assessed the situation and did not even attempt to land in these conditions. This is what FlyDubai pilots should have done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.143.107.35 (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, there was nothing wrong with the conditions at 4000 feet above ground, and Aeroflot made 3 successful go-arounds. So an aircraft that diverted due to the wind is irrelevant. It is absolutely a normal operating procedure to land with these wind conditions. The plane did not crash due to the wind at the airport. It's just as if the Czech plane would divert because of a medical emergency: irrelevant to this crash. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, if reliable sources indicate the Czech flight is related to the accident then we can report it, we cant make stuff up. MilborneOne (talk) 11:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand. I was just pointing to reliable data (FlightRadar24) showing the presence of another plane in the area, which diverted to Krasnodar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.143.107.35 (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Absolute majority of sources only report the Aeroflot flight which made 3 attempts and which is a normal operating procedure. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I have to correct myself. The FlyDubai crash occurred at 01:41 UTC, which was exactly when the Czech Airline flight was arriving to the area and descending to 12,000f. The holding pattern of CSA flight took place shortly after the crash. So, the Czech Airlines flight is not relevant. My apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.143.107.35 (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

L:There is a relevance because hours apart with same weather one was safely dierted.Lihaas (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

You are presuming the cause of the accident was the weather, again it is not for us to jump to conclusions. MilborneOne (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Named pilot was Cypriot, not Greek

See [1], though it doesn't say he was the captain. 62.228.107.188 (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep, the TV aso mentioned the oddity. Just caught the name, I guess.Lihaas (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

EMERCOM have published the nationalities of everybody onboard here. 62.228.107.188 (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, user 62.228.107.188, you are very good at pointing out to the latest and very important development of this story. Daniel (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Flight Aware tracking log

I am unsure how this could best be used for this article, however her is a link to the FlightAware flight tracking log for the subject: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/FDB981/history/20160318/1745Z/OMDB/URRR/tracklog .--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

British English

It's safe to say by this point that this article uses British English (localised, 24-hr. time, etc.), so I've added the British English banner to the top of this page. If anyone disagrees, please leave a comment here so that consensus may be established. Cheers! Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 22:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree , but would you be so kind check the text of this article from time to time, to ensure that its Britishness is not corrupted? :-) Daniel (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but if it's copyedited at some point, the form of English might change depending on the whims of the copyeditor. I've seen it happen before, either from British to American or American to British. The main thing to ensure is conformity throughout the article. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 22:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes non-native English speakers keep different input sources, they might not be conscious of that :-) --TerrainAhead ^×TALK× 23:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Flydubai or FlyDubai?

I noticed that BBC World Service, New York Times Washington Post, Associated Press, Los-Angeles Times and other reputable sources, cited in this article, all spell the airline's name as FlyDubai. So I suggest to use this spelling of the airline's name throughout this article. If anyone disagrees, please leave a comment here so that consensus may be established. Thank you. Daniel (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

You have a point; however, the Wikipedia article for the airline has the spelling as "Flydubai", and so does the company's official website. My opinion is that either spelling is proper, so you should edit as you see fit. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 23:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

New information

Aviation experts among Wikipedians might probably be interested in the following information which was published recently:

• Standard Arrival Chart Instrument 1
• Standard Arrival Chart Instrument 2
• Instrument Approach Chart, ILS
• Instrument Approach Chart, NDB
• Aerodrome Chart
• Aerodrome Ground Movement and Aircraft Parking Chart
• Three METAR during the first approach and two METAR during the second approach

Daniel (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Ignore the news about "fire on board" before the crash which is seen by the cameras

Thе bright light that is visible from the cameras before crash is only LANDING LIGHTS that are very powerful and camera distort this bright light to looking as "the plane is on fire". Only information that can be derives from this cameras is that it hit the ground with first left tail section, left wing and nose up (landing lights are directed to the cameras from right) with speed between 18000-24000 feet per minute vertical speed (about 0.3 sec on the cameras for 30-40 meters distance, i.e. 90-120 m/s or about 18000-24000 fpm ). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBJ32eVWVNc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.65.171 (talk) 10:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree This is just an example of sensationalism, so typical for tabloids. Daniel (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but we have the policy Wikipedia:No original research, so we can't say this unless a reliable source says so. AHeneen (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

short of the runway?

The article currently says "The aircraft crashed about 250m (800ft) short of the runway". If the landing had already been aborted, is "short of the runway" the correct term? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

It actually crashed about 250m (800ft) from the edge of the runway, slightly to the left of it, which can be seen now from the photo of the crash location. Thank you for noticing it. Daniel (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

"before the runway threshold" would work. AHeneen (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

it was after the threshold, not before. Daniel (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Since it fall from the sky, I would say it doesn't matter at what point of the runway. Wykx (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Flydubai's first crash

I don't feel like this trivia belongs in the introduction. Is there a better place for it in the article? 62.228.200.32 (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, according to WP:LEAD, the lead section should explain the notability of the article's subject. I think, that is why this piece of information was placed here. This crash was the only one for an airline with an excellent safety record. Daniel (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

? A passenger aircraft crash is notable irrespective of who the operator is. 62.228.200.32 (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

There were a lot of crashes in the history and many of them do not have its own Wikipedia article. If you take a look on other air crash articles, you will notice, that it is always mentioned in the lead section if, i.e., the crash was the dealiest in history, or in this country, or in this airline, or the only crash of this type of aircraft, etc. Daniel (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

No person is gonna read the first paragraph, where it says both plane and occupants disintegrated, and wonder, 'hey, why is this notable?', only to be enlightened by the revelation that this was the first Flydubai crash. 62.228.200.32 (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

We can't predict what influences the air crash would make on the airline and yet to give a conclusion. This might be the most notable thing we have about the airline so far. After knowing the causes, we could add more details to it. Let's just wait :-) --TerrainAhead ^×TALK× 20:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess. 62.228.200.32 (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)