Talk:Asiana Airlines Flight 214
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Asiana Airlines Flight 214 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 5 days |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
A news item involving Asiana Airlines Flight 214 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 7 July 2013. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Asiana Airlines Flight 214 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 5 days |
Admin - Please Prevent Edit War re Image Caption for visually impaired
It appears that editor Jehochman is unhappy with some useful edits made by Mareklug and has reverted them. Unfortunately, Jehochman's initial edit was accompanied by needless snarky commentary while his edits both decreased the encyclopedic quality of the article and removed image captioning that assists the visually impaired and is helpful to others.
I would normally just revert Jehochman's latest re-revert but I don't want to set up a situation where "edit war" rules start to get imposed.
If Jehochman wants to argue about style, he can do so, civilly, on the Talk page.
Can some administrator take a look at this series of edits?
If senior admins find I have miscategorized the edits, so be it, I won't take further steps to remove Jehochman's unhelpful edits.
Thanks Ande B. (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, fully supportive of reviewing Jehochman's actions and his snarky edit remarks - it just isn't helpful to deal with issues like that. There are without a doubt many contributors who may not be as familiar with wp, and its markup, but acting like that is not constructive, especially because it is probably pretty safe to assume that most wp admins are not necessarily aviation experts, ATCOs or even type rated 777 pilots - thus, skills, expertise and knowledge should complement each other - what's going on here is plain ridiculous and doesn't help quality at all, I have seen knowledgeable contributions reverted by people due to stylistic issues, and plain wrong stuff being added, reviewed and approved just because it matches wp style, is that intended ? Please, think about it - or just lock the article and have 3-5 guys with a background in aviation act as reviewers, while others can take care of stylistic stuff and proper refs. Thank you --Parallelized (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for noticing that. You guys are a bunch of really uncollegial editors, and I'm not going to waste time arguing with you at all. Jehochman Talk 20:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I specifically alerted you to these developments so that you could provide a little insight - unfortunately, you failed at that, big time I may add. Don't get me wrong, improvements are appreciated - but please don't touch contents that you don't understand, I am sure everybody will appreciate your stylistic contributions - to help those people who actually know a thing or two about aviation with using wp.--Parallelized (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia Single Point Editor specifically discourages that exclusivity, IMHO. Checkingfax (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I've also had a problem with one of Jehochman's edits, which ignored discussion, and removed an edit and its cite, with the comment that the edit was uncited. Hopefully we don't have to waste time on these kinds of issues and can focus on improving the article. guanxi (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe someone could first try to talk to that dude, I mean he seems pretty accomplished over here, and even an admin - obviously not an aviation expert, but there should be an option to get him involved to help people who are not as familiar with wp, instead of having to report him outright? But reverting stuff like that is just crazy, and frankly, pretty discouraging.--Parallelized (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: I have now had to revert Jehochman's removal of descriptive cutline for the interior shot twice, and both edits of that Wikipedian came with snarky edit summaries. Also, now, that he has removed the reference in the text to oxygen masks being deployed on impact (survivor account), the cutline is the only textual manifestation of this, and of course, the NTSB-supplied picture is reliable source in this case. Ditto for the information about the seats remaining in place. The seats remaining in place is a crucial bit of information not mentioned anywhere else in the text, yet responsible for so few fatalities. Seat strengthening to withstand 16G acceleration is one of the hallmarks of improved survivability of modern passenger aircraft. Also, it is entirely within Wikipedia policy to restate pictorial/graphic information in text, precisely for the consumption of visually impaired, as Ande B. already mentioned, as well as readers employing textual browsing. I would hope Jehochman will not cause a need to revert this unjustified edit one more time. I would also like to ask for less snark in edit summaries. --Mareklug talk 00:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe find a citation for the seats remaining in place, otherwise this seems like original research. --Malerooster (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- The NTSB-supplied picture is citation enough. After all, this is the cutline to go with it. --Mareklug talk 01:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is the essence of WP:OR. I am not seeing this "cutline", not sure what that is, not sure if that would matter, but can you link it? --Malerooster (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, it is not original research. Information comes in many modalities. An officially released picture is one of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutline -- is a description of a photograph. You are looking at it. --Mareklug talk 01:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I mean all the seats didn't remain in place, but thats besides the point, since a photo is open to interpretation. Just find a RS and be done with this, why is that so hard? --Malerooster (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Industry experts said the Asiana plane, a Boeing BA +1.31% 777, had a significant advantage over older models: It was equipped with a new generation of seats, the majority of which stayed in place instead of breaking loose from their floor tracks or collapsing, which could have caused many more serious injuries. In 1988, the Federal Aviation Administration began requiring that seats on newly designed, newly certified planes must withstand inertial force equal to 16 times the force of gravity in static testing. Today, that is the world standard. The FAA declined to make a seat specialist available for an interview. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324694904578598041567963334.html Will you revert your removal now? --Mareklug talk 01:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- This supportts my edit. A number of the seats did NOT stay in place, this has been reliable sourced in multiple places and in the photo. --Malerooster (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- The three that were ejected with the flight attendants in them did not stay in place, but no information has been released about any other seats not remaining in place. Apteva (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- This supportts my edit. A number of the seats did NOT stay in place, this has been reliable sourced in multiple places and in the photo. --Malerooster (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Industry experts said the Asiana plane, a Boeing BA +1.31% 777, had a significant advantage over older models: It was equipped with a new generation of seats, the majority of which stayed in place instead of breaking loose from their floor tracks or collapsing, which could have caused many more serious injuries. In 1988, the Federal Aviation Administration began requiring that seats on newly designed, newly certified planes must withstand inertial force equal to 16 times the force of gravity in static testing. Today, that is the world standard. The FAA declined to make a seat specialist available for an interview. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324694904578598041567963334.html Will you revert your removal now? --Mareklug talk 01:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I mean all the seats didn't remain in place, but thats besides the point, since a photo is open to interpretation. Just find a RS and be done with this, why is that so hard? --Malerooster (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, it is not original research. Information comes in many modalities. An officially released picture is one of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutline -- is a description of a photograph. You are looking at it. --Mareklug talk 01:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is the essence of WP:OR. I am not seeing this "cutline", not sure what that is, not sure if that would matter, but can you link it? --Malerooster (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- The NTSB-supplied picture is citation enough. After all, this is the cutline to go with it. --Mareklug talk 01:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe find a citation for the seats remaining in place, otherwise this seems like original research. --Malerooster (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Malerooster removed the information pertaining to the seats remaining in place 3 times now in close succession, without waiting for community input. I appeal to other editors to address this. --Mareklug talk 01:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Mareklug added the information pertaining to the seats remaining in place 3 times now in close succession, without waiting for community input. I appeal to other editors to address this.--Malerooster (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- You do realize that that you are being POINTy, as well as uncooperative. Your Comment: came after I quoted a textual RS you called for. Also, in WP:MOSCAPTION, which you directed me to in your last revert's edit summary, it is stated: Captions for technical images should fully describe all the elements of the image, and the image's significance. --Mareklug talk 02:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is NOT a technical image and why not use alt text? Also, I still haven't seen the "cutline" you referred to earlier. I went to the twitter picture and didn't see it, but might have missed it. Also, the photo shows that some of the seats did not remain in place, but again, that would be original research to say that in the text. Still waiting for a RS that covers this, rather than a stand alone photo. --Malerooster (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure we can say whether the seats did or didn't remain in place, or whether they remained in place, but the tracking or floor itself was displaced. 92.235.125.151 (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- The NTSB did. The floor burned out later. Apteva (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure we can say whether the seats did or didn't remain in place, or whether they remained in place, but the tracking or floor itself was displaced. 92.235.125.151 (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is NOT a technical image and why not use alt text? Also, I still haven't seen the "cutline" you referred to earlier. I went to the twitter picture and didn't see it, but might have missed it. Also, the photo shows that some of the seats did not remain in place, but again, that would be original research to say that in the text. Still waiting for a RS that covers this, rather than a stand alone photo. --Malerooster (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
KTVU pranked
The KTVU article is that a way
|
---|
This sure sounds like WP vandalism. :P --Gmaxwell (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Is KTVU still a Reliable Source, with "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? :) guanxi (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
This needs to be covered in the article under a section about Racism. It's all over the news. We shouldn't ignore it. Jehochman Talk 14:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
No info about this in the article. Glaring omission. I can understand how some want a clean, sanitized article but this is clearly notable and subject of many articles including lawsuits and firing of a female intern— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.38.230 (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
--Parallelized (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Not KTVU pranked, but fictitious crew names released by NTSB and reported internationally
1. Something's wrong? (Captain Sum Ting Wong)
|
What are check pilot and VMC? Are Wiki readers really that ignorant?
Problem areas of text have been resolved without assessing the knowledge of the readers.
|
---|
75.208.16.211 (talk) 00:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
"OK, VMC is linked, but it's a certainty that 99% of our readers won't know what is it and will have to follow the link to find out. And... most of our readers won't have a clue what a check pilot is. HiLo48 (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)"
I would be most interested in knowing what yardstick you used to come up with that certainty of 99% figure. How large was the sample of ignorant Wiki readers, when you measured only one out of a hundred would be able to understand what was written? Do you really think our readers are that dumb? Surely, you didn't just make up that "certainty" figure? EditorASC (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
"The implication that a reader should be expected to look up an acronym is contrary to the policy of documents that are primarily read by people who do know the acronyms." I made no such implication; that is your unwarranted inference. Nowhere have I ever suggested that the MOS rule (to explain the meaning when the acronym is first used) should not be adhered to. What I am protesting is the constant demand by ones like HiLow48, that we dumb down the nomenclature so that the entire article is worded like his so-called "man-on-the-street" person thinks/speaks. Aviation accident investigations do have a very specific and precise nomenclature that should not be discarded, because that is how the NTSB and ICAO reports from other nations are worded. There is a great danger that if we move from the specifically defined terms, to broad and vague terms, which can have multiple meanings, which is more in line with "average Joe Blow" levels of communication, then the risk of getting it wrong increases significantly, IMHO. We already had one such edit in the article (which has since been removed) that the third pilot in the cockpit was a Flight Engineer. One of the constant problems of the MSM, especially right after an accident, is that they get it wrong so much of the time. And, it doesn't require too much reading of their stories to realize they don't know the difference between an aileron and a trim tab, so they just try to use "common" words which can be taken several different ways. In the UAL 585 accident, the MSM constantly used the word "explosion," when talking about the crater left in the ground. There never was any explosion, yet some of our editors (one who was a Wiki Admin) picked up from those so-called RS sources and inserted the same word in that article. I think I had to remove it two or three times, to get the story back to some semblance of accuracy. Explain to the average reader what so called "jargon" words mean; I have no objection to that. But, we should be very careful that we are not changing the actual findings/meanings of the NTSB, when we do so. EditorASC (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
|
Speculation: Pilots unskilled at hand flying? (was: Brace yourselves for an avalanche of edits...)
Not sure this is within the scope of the article, or even constitutes encyclopedic information, but you may want to keep an eye on increased edits injecting/removing this info. --Mareklug talk 18:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- (see the thread before last?) Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- We have far to much trivia and speculation in the article already and really we dont need anything more added until we get an official report, it may be time then to prune or cut back a lot of the page. MilborneOne (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed, also the bloomberg article should be considered more authoritative than this "blog". Still, there's an increasing amount of media coverage related to hand-flying and automation in general. --Parallelized (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- I would want to wait for a statement from the NTSB that it was a factor. Apteva (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- The word manual means "manually manipulating the controls", not "reading the manual to find out what to do". At this point this sort of arm chair speculation belongs in blogs and people magazine, not in an encyclopedia. FYI, no pilot ever takes off or lands without referring to a printed checklist, just to make certain that nothing is missed. Apteva (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- I would want to wait for a statement from the NTSB that it was a factor. Apteva (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed, also the bloomberg article should be considered more authoritative than this "blog". Still, there's an increasing amount of media coverage related to hand-flying and automation in general. --Parallelized (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it becomes relevant either when an Asiana pilot makes this claim, Asiana concedes the point, or the NTSB makes it an official finding from its inquiry. 75.208.16.211 (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Investigation on this page
Can we agree to archive and stop speculation and amateur investigation on this page, it is getting full of nonesense, wikipedia is not here to investigate accidents and only comments should be addressed at article improvement not every newsstory and blog speculation around, plenty of blogs around if editors want to speculate, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- This page is actually getting worse - please note blogs are available for speculation and trivia, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Who needs to read blogs? We have a press release full of nonsense from ALPA to fuel lots of speculation faulting the aircraft and the FAA. 75.210.138.66 (talk) 09:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
No explosion
In the Crash section:
"Eyewitnesses described a short-lived fireball, then a second large explosion minutes after the impact, with a dark plume of smoke rising from the fuselage."
I cannot find evidence of any explosions. The loud sound that was heard on the "Oh, My God" tape, was from the initial impact when the landing gear and tail were ripped off. An overhead view of the wreckage shows the wings still intact, so no fuel tank explosions. Damage to the fuselage is from fire, not explosions.
I would like to rewrite that sentence this way, if no one objects:
"Eyewitnesses described a short-lived fireball, then a second larger fire minutes after the impact, with a dark plume of smoke rising from the fuselage." EditorASC (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- The eyewitness observed smoke that appeared from his perspective to be rising from the fuselage. I favor the edit that you propose. But I think that it should be supplanted by more authoritative or factual information about sources of smoke. 75.208.154.156 (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Good point. I have removed both the references to an explosion and the eyewitness reports of two fires, since I was unable to find any RS for those statements. Right now, what I left has RS documentation from the NTSB briefings. If anyone can find more RS sources to support two fires, or more details about the fire, then by all means add it to the narrative, but only if properly cited. Thanks much, EditorASC (talk) 05:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not fixed. The statement was still in the Crash section. I changed "fuselage" to "wreckage", but it is still misleading and suggests that the smoke started as soon as the aircraft came to a stop. 75.208.112.227 (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- The ILS was out-of-service because the recently relocated runway threshold necessitates moving the GS antennae 300' west. That the ILS was out of service is not material to the crash -- unless you think the NTSB will say that the clear weather that prevailed at the time was contributing factors in the crash. The pilots would have chosen to hand-fly a visual approach even if the ILS had been available. 75.208.112.227 (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Good point. I have removed both the references to an explosion and the eyewitness reports of two fires, since I was unable to find any RS for those statements. Right now, what I left has RS documentation from the NTSB briefings. If anyone can find more RS sources to support two fires, or more details about the fire, then by all means add it to the narrative, but only if properly cited. Thanks much, EditorASC (talk) 05:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Boeing Customer Code
I don't know why do you reset my edit as Boeing 777-28E(ER) or Boeing 777-28EER in the infobox, especially that is to identify the operator or the one who owns the aircraft. If I use Boeing 777-200ER, it would be in general or for the aircraft only not with the operator. Don't mind if i will change the infobox with the details you have resetted and that is not necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinas Central (talk • contribs) 09:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- The customer code doesn't identify the operator (nor necessarily the owner), but the original customer. If Asiana were to lease their 777s from ILFC that ILFC bought first-hand from Boeing, the customer code would be ILFC's, but the operator would be Asiana. If Asiana were to buy ILFC's 777s, the customer code would, again, remain ILFC's. If the fact that Asiana bought this plane straight from Boeing is worth mentioning, then we should just say it. There's no need for fancy-pants codes. — Lfdder (talk) 10:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Also, it has already been agreed on not to add the customer code.--FoxyOrange (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- That discussion was archived too quickly. There should be a style page which sets forth this standard and its rationale to make it easier to share with new editors. 75.210.138.66 (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Also, it has already been agreed on not to add the customer code.--FoxyOrange (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
South Korea flag image broken
This line of code is broken:
|{{flag|South Korea}}||77||14||91
The flag image does not show up; only the image size does Checkingfax (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
A full autoland was not possible.
Time to move on....and don't start another thread to reply to something someone's said here — Lfdder (talk) 11:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
While stated with good intention, that is not accurate. No airliner can do a full autoland without a fully functioning and certified CAT III b/c system (or an equally capable MLS system) in operation at a specific runway. And, at SFO, they cannot have planes landing on both 28L & 28R at the same time, if any plane is doing a full autoland. ATC would have to be informed in advance (even if the wx is VMC) so they can ensure that planes on the ground are not too close to the ILS transmitters. Additionally, the plane itself has to be current, which means it has successfully conducted an autoland within the last 30 days, and the logbook has been signed off on that required periodic test. And finally, BOTH pilots must have been trained, tested and certified to conduct a full autoland operation, and that cannot be done until they have had a required amount of time in that plane, which means no "High Minimums" captains or first officers can conduct such an approach. EditorASC (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
That was a statement by Apteva (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC), in the "Misc sources (CRM, hand-flying, automation, culture)" section, that was closed. The rules require that I reply in another section that is open. EditorASC (talk) 22:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
"The NTSB said that a variety of levels of automation were available, but that zippering in the flights to 28L and 28R was done because the runways are so close together." That does not mean the plane was capable of a full autoland. It wasn't, for reasons stated above. No, there is no rule that says I am required to respond. However, I think it is very important to correct inaccurate information that is posted in Wikipedia, for obvious and logical reasons. EditorASC (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
|
90 second evacuation delay
I would like to propose that the 90 second evacuation delay be included in the lead, as it certainly is a significant fact of the accident. Whether it was a brilliant decision that saved 304 lives or whether it was a decision that contributed to 3 deaths can not be speculated upon. Apteva (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Which sources state that it was significant? And come to that, which sources state that the delay was due to a 'decision'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is a factual description of the accident. We hit the ground, we waited 90 seconds to evacuate. A flight attendant instructed another to ask the pilot if they should evacuate, and were told no. A flight attendant noticed fire outside the cabin and asked again, and were told to evacuate the plane. That was 90 seconds later. It is just a basic fact. Whether it was important or not will be determined by the NTSB. If I was reading an article about an accident, I would assume that passengers were evacuated immediately upon the aircraft coming to a stop, unless I was alerted to a delay in the beginning of the article. This is not the sort of detail that anyone should have to read down into the article to learn. I was not using the word "significant" to mean "important" but to mean "a long time", as in more than 5 or 10 seconds. Apteva (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Without a source indicating that this was a key decision in the sequence of events, it seems overdetailed for the lede. VQuakr (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- As our article stands, it isn't that clear at what point the first question from the cabin crew came - the '90 seconds' was from when the plane came to rest. I don't have time to watch the source (the long NTSB briefing) right now - is there a transcript which might clarify this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Try this.[6] Apteva (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- As our article stands, it isn't that clear at what point the first question from the cabin crew came - the '90 seconds' was from when the plane came to rest. I don't have time to watch the source (the long NTSB briefing) right now - is there a transcript which might clarify this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Without a source indicating that this was a key decision in the sequence of events, it seems overdetailed for the lede. VQuakr (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is a factual description of the accident. We hit the ground, we waited 90 seconds to evacuate. A flight attendant instructed another to ask the pilot if they should evacuate, and were told no. A flight attendant noticed fire outside the cabin and asked again, and were told to evacuate the plane. That was 90 seconds later. It is just a basic fact. Whether it was important or not will be determined by the NTSB. If I was reading an article about an accident, I would assume that passengers were evacuated immediately upon the aircraft coming to a stop, unless I was alerted to a delay in the beginning of the article. This is not the sort of detail that anyone should have to read down into the article to learn. I was not using the word "significant" to mean "important" but to mean "a long time", as in more than 5 or 10 seconds. Apteva (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Apteva's source is a good one. Here are a couple more:
"The pilots are in the front of the airplane," she [Hersman] said. "They really don't have a good sense of what's going on behind them." [7] [8]
That is a highly significant piece of news, since NO evacuation should ever be delayed, even for just a few seconds, when a plane is damaged that badly. That it was delayed and the passengers were actually told to remain in their seats, is solid fact, supported by NTSB Hersman, and should be in the lead as suggested. EditorASC (talk) 05:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- The cockpit told the flight attendants to delay evacuationCheckingfax (talk) 06:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, it shouldn't be. Don't make assertions. Wait for the investigation. — Lfdder (talk) 09:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Just like the fire truck death, we initially put it in the lead, then when it was not certain it was a contributing factor we moved it out, (keeping it in the body), then when it was released that it was the cause of death we put it back into the lead. While we will not likely know for a year if the NTSB thinks that the delay was or was not a mistake, it certainly warrants being in the lead as being totally unexpected and quite unusual. I mean seriously, if you were the only person on a plane that crashed would you sit on the ground for 90 seconds before getting out of there (if you could)? Apteva (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Undue weight on passengers from a school
Thirty of the students and teachers were from Shanxi, and the others were from Zhejiang.[28] Five of the teachers and 29 of the students were from Jiangshan High School in Zhejiang; they were traveling together.[48] Thirty-five of the students were to attend a West Valley Christian School summer camp. The Shanxi students originated from Taiyuan,[49] with 22 students and teachers from the Taiyuan Number Five Secondary School and 14 students and teachers from the Taiyuan Foreign Language School.[50] One teacher received minor injuries, and all three passengers who died were in the West Valley camp group.[28][49][51]
Undue weight about trivia? There was a CEO who was scheduled to fly but changed at the last moment to a United flight. That would also be trivia.
Instead, a brief mention of some school kids would not be undue weight. Auchansa (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- The three people who died were schoolchildren and the schoolchildren themselves made a large portion of the plane's passengers (70 out of 291, 24% of the passengers). The summer camp supposed to host them posted a press release about the accident. As for "There was a CEO who was scheduled to fly but changed at the last moment to a United flight. That would also be trivia." I do know that in cases of 100% fatal crashes that would not be trivia. And if it didn't get covered in reliable sources, it's like the fact never existed (see WP:V). Since the news coverage focused heavily on the schoolchildren and not on the CEO's, covering the schoolkids is indeed within due weight. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- The picture of the one who was killed by the fire truck is on the front page today.[9] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Also I found an explanation on why so many Chinese were on board this flight. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Asiana Airlines releases
ENGLISH
- "Information for Incident Involving Asiana Flight OZ 214."
- "Press Release for Incident Involving Asiana Flight OZ 214 - July 7, 2013 06:30 (Kor. Time) New." July 7, 2013. (Archive) - Alt, Archive
- "Contact for Information on Passengers of Flight OZ214 New." - July 7, 2013. (Archive) - Alt, Archive)
- "Official Asiana Statement from OZ214 Incident Press Conference." July 7, 2013. (Archive)
- "Passenger List." (Archive)
- "Statement from July 8th Press Conference on OZ214 Incident." (Archive) 2013-07-08.
- "Statement from July 9th Press Conference regarding the OZ214 Incident." (Archive)
- "Daily Briefing (July 12th)." (Archive)
- "Daily Briefing (July 13th)." (Archive)
- "Daily Briefing (July 14th)." (Archive)
- "Asiana Laments Loss of Third Passenger." (Archive)
KOREAN
- "OZ214편(7월 7일) 인천발 샌프란시스코 사고 관련 안내."
- "OZ214편 사고 관련 보도 자료(06시 30분 기준) New." Template:Ko icon - July 7, 2013. (Archive)
- "OZ214편 관련 탑승자 안내센터 연락처 안내 New." Template:Ko icon - July 7, 2013. (Archive)
- "[2차 OZ214편 사고 관련 대표이사 기자 회견문]." (Archive)
- "OZ214편 사고 관련 사망자 명단(18시 50분 기준)." (Archive)
- "[4차 OZ214편 사고 관련 기자 회견문 (7월 9일)]." (Archive)
- "브리핑 자료 안내 (7월 12일)." (Archive)
- "브리핑 자료 안내 (7월 13일)." (Archive)
- "브리핑 자료 안내 (7월 14일)." (Archive)
- "[5차 OZ214 사고기 사망자 추가 1명 확인]." (Archive)
- "국민 여러분께 謝罪 드립니다.." (Archive)
CHINESE
- "韩国仁川至美国旧金山OZ214失事航班相关信息."
- "韩亚航空OZ214航班事故相关报道(以韩国时间06时30分为准) New." Template:Zh-cn icon - July 7, 2013. (Archive) - Alt - Archive
- "韩亚航空OZ214航班相关乘客信息查询中心联系方式 New." Template:Zh-cn icon - July 7, 2013. (Archive) - Alt - Archive
- "韩亚航空社长向中国人民的致歉信." 2013-07-07 20:20. (Archive)
- "OZ214航班事故记者发布会(7月8日)." 2013-07-08 15:36. (Archive)
- "OZ214失事航班遇难者名单(韩国时间18时50分为准)." (Archive)
- "OZ214航班事故记者发布会(7月9日)." (Archive)
- "尹永斗社长向遇难者家属鞠躬致歉." (Archive) --- This one seems to be ONLY available in Chinese. It is talking about the Asiana CEO apologizing to the victims
- "致HL7742 乘客及家属." (Archive) 07/15/2013
- "致OZ214 乘客及家属." (Archive) 07/13/2013
- "致OZ214 乘客及家属." (Archive) 07/14/2013
- "韩亚航空OZ214事故确认第三名遇难者." (Archive)
- "韩亚航空向中国人民致歉." (Archive)
Also: ENGLISH TWITTER:
- "Here's an official press release: https://plus.google.com/u/0/114095967881168349734/posts/YiszZ5TSwMZ …. For further information regarding OZ213/214, please contact 800-227-4262." (Archive)
WhisperToMe (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Sensationalism?
Several passengers recalled noticing the plane's unusual proximity to the Bay on final approach,
Those passengers and other eyewitness accounts of aviation accidents are often, pardon my French, crap. They are biased and unreliable.
I once saw a passenger insist that the tail of a plane was broken but that was a normal gap when the rudder turns. The passenger saw the plane at a gate.
Accident investigations usually tabulate unreliable passenger assessments but rely on objective measures, like the altimeter. In reality, when the plane is over water, altitude is very difficult to judge from a passenger side window, particularly if they can't even see the runway.
We have to be cautious because readers with aviation experience will laugh at WP. Let's try to do a good job. Let's axe this sentence in italics. Auchansa (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Even if they were right? The only time the plane was low, though, was in the final seven seconds before impact, beginning just about the same time that the throttles were advanced. Apteva (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- News reports covered the passengers' reactions. (I'm waiting for the OP to tell us that not only were the passengers wrong, but that the plane didn't actually crash.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think his point is that eyewitness testimony can be unreliable. It's not that the passengers are lying; but it's that human perceptions can miss things. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, it can be. Was it, in this case? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Typically they find out once the actual report is compiled by the NTSB WhisperToMe (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, it can be. Was it, in this case? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think his point is that eyewitness testimony can be unreliable. It's not that the passengers are lying; but it's that human perceptions can miss things. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- News reports covered the passengers' reactions. (I'm waiting for the OP to tell us that not only were the passengers wrong, but that the plane didn't actually crash.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Inline citations should not occur in the lead?
I thought the MOS specifies that no inline citations should appear in the lead. The lead is to restate/sumarize the gist of the article, and the inline citations go in the body. --Mareklug talk 20:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's the standard procedure, yes. I think citations are sometimes included in the summary just to head off complaints about things being uncited. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have removed the citations from the lead and put them where they belong. --Mareklug talk 23:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Kudos. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think if something is controversial it should be cited, but if not, and it occurs elsewhere in the article, then the citation goes outside the lead WhisperToMe (talk) 04:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- To quote the MOS at WP:LEADCITE: "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." VQuakr (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think if something is controversial it should be cited, but if not, and it occurs elsewhere in the article, then the citation goes outside the lead WhisperToMe (talk) 04:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Kudos. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have removed the citations from the lead and put them where they belong. --Mareklug talk 23:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Chinese passengers
Here in the article states that "Almost half of the flight's passengers were Chinese because of Seoul's status as a major connecting point between China and North America; as of July 2013 Asiana Airlines operates between Seoul and 21 cities in mainland China. There had been a lack of direct flights between many Chinese cities and the United States, and low prices and territorial disputes between Japan and China have caused many Chinese to transit via Seoul."
I removed these. In this case, there is no need to analyze Chinese passengers' tendency and put these disputed reasons in the article, since more than 90 of the flight's Chinese passengers actually departed from Shanghai taking OZ362 (Xinhua News Agency, in Chinese), where there are multiple choices to fly to SFO, including several direct flights and both Japan Airlines' and All Nippon Airways' flights. The Japanese flights take too long, but the duration of OZ362->OZ214 is considerably short, this may play a more important role than the low price or Anti-Japanese sentiment. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 06:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Tom, one crucial aspect of Wikipedia is WP:V, meaning that verifiability and not truth is the criterion for inclusion. So that has a consequence with point number one.
- 1. "The Japanese flights take too long, but the duration of OZ362->OZ214 is considerably short, this may play a more important role than the low price or Anti-Japanese sentiment. " - Do you have a reliable source saying that the flight length is more important than the price or the anti-Japanese sentiment?
- 2. "where there are multiple choices to fly to SFO, including several direct flights and both Japan Airlines' and All Nippon Airways' flights." - While it is true that there are multiple options out of Shanghai, the WSJ article also mentioned the price factor (as in Seoul connecting flights were fairly inexpensive), and that doesn't account for the other Chinese passengers on the flight who may have originated from smaller Chinese cities.
- WhisperToMe (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- I was fully aware of WP:V but I also found that the WSJ article is from WP:NEWSBLOG which may be acceptable if the author is professional, but should be used with caution. Here I want to cite two news articles in Chinese: China Economic Net's news article, which was republished by Xinhua, Sina and many other websites (Chinese media have legal right and like to simply copy and republish news articles written by other media), compares the price of Asiana Airlines' connecting flight with the price of China Eastern Airlines' non-stop flight like the WSJ blog author, and suggests that the low price is the main factor. But it is very disputed in Chinese forums and microblogs, because by consulting online flight booking websites, in most cases, one may easily find flights cheaper than Asiana Airlines'. {That was what Yangcheng Evening News' journalist did. According to this news article, on Shanghai-based travel agency Ctrip's website, the journalist found an Air China's flight with one stop cheaper than Asiana Airlines'. In this news article, some experts agree that Asiana Airlines' tickets are mostly cheap but not always, "a responsible person of a large flight ticket agency website" claimed that Chinese flights might be more expensive than non-Chinese ones several years ago, but not now; connecting flights may be always cheaper than non-stop flights; Chinese airliners operate both non-stop flights and connecting flights, and people should always compare non-stop flights with non-stop flights, or connecting flights with connecting flights (which is exactly the opposite of what WSJ blog author and the China Economic Net author did). According to the news article, other factors that may make Asiana Airlines more competitive than Chinese or other airlines, include quality of service, airline brand influence, country's visa-free policy, and even psychological factors (Chinese may want to take foreign airlines' flight to have a different experience).} However, I find it not necessary to analyze those complex things and dig it too deep in an article named "Asiana Airlines Flight 214", not "Airlines' marketing strategy towards Chinese passengers", "Aviation market share in China" or something. The current revision of the article is just fine, why insist on adding all those debates in it? --Tomchen1989 (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- We can use a source if a journalist uses, say, the WSJ's argument and directly contradicts it. If a journalist researches the claims and publishes a news article on it, then it's absolutely fair game and should be considered. In regards to using criticism on self-published microblogs and/or Wikipedians consulting flight schedules on their own it may be considered original research to a degree (how does an individual challenge the claims by the WSJ?). I do agree that there should not be too much focus on that aspect, but the reason why I would like to add some of it is because it helps readers understand the significance of the flight, on why so many Chinese were on board. I added similar information to China Airlines Flight 611 (TPE-HKG known as the "Golden Route") and Swissair Flight 111 (UN shuttle, and clientele of diplomats and politicians) as well as Sosoliso Airlines Flight 1145 (Nigerian schoolchildren originating from Port Harcourt used it to fly from Abuja from their boarding school because the roads were too dangerous) WhisperToMe (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- No that's beyond "an individual challenge the claims by the WSJ". That, in my previous post, is a Yangcheng Evening News news article (which is written after interviewing local pros and experts) versus a WSJ blog article (see WP:NEWSBLOG). To make it more clear, I now use braces "{}" to indicate those raised by Yangcheng Evening News in my previous post.
- Now our article says "Seoul Incheon serves as a major connecting point between China and North America", that is good, that's a simple fact, very objective. But if we play that "fair game" like you said, adding a lot of contradictory, subjective points of view, like price, flight length, quality of service, airline brand influence, country's visa-free policy, and even psychological factors (the anti-Japanese sentiment as the WSJ blog says, or the preference of choosing foreign airline to have a different experience as one of the Yangcheng Evening News' interviewees, a Chinese airline's marketing manager said), we need to add lots of these as well as to discuss whether they are main factors or whether they are valid factors, we may be immersed in that "fair game", and I just don't think it's necessary to play any game here. I also found no such game played in the articles China Airlines Flight 611, Swissair Flight 111, Sosoliso Airlines Flight 1145, "Golden Route", "UN shuttle", dangerous roads, they are all simple, objective, non-disputed facts, just like "Incheon is a major connecting point".--Tomchen1989 (talk) 05:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- As I said above " I do agree that there should not be too much focus on that aspect" so if there is a better place for the discussion perhaps it can go in the Seoul Incheon article and that would work. :) - Since many contradictions were published by the Yangcheng Evening News, that makes the issue complicated, and the complexities can be discussed in another article. I don't make a distinction between a "NEWSBLOG" and a regular news article since a "NEWSBLOG" is just a presentation of a newspaper article, as the NEWSBLOG section states. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- We can use a source if a journalist uses, say, the WSJ's argument and directly contradicts it. If a journalist researches the claims and publishes a news article on it, then it's absolutely fair game and should be considered. In regards to using criticism on self-published microblogs and/or Wikipedians consulting flight schedules on their own it may be considered original research to a degree (how does an individual challenge the claims by the WSJ?). I do agree that there should not be too much focus on that aspect, but the reason why I would like to add some of it is because it helps readers understand the significance of the flight, on why so many Chinese were on board. I added similar information to China Airlines Flight 611 (TPE-HKG known as the "Golden Route") and Swissair Flight 111 (UN shuttle, and clientele of diplomats and politicians) as well as Sosoliso Airlines Flight 1145 (Nigerian schoolchildren originating from Port Harcourt used it to fly from Abuja from their boarding school because the roads were too dangerous) WhisperToMe (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- I was fully aware of WP:V but I also found that the WSJ article is from WP:NEWSBLOG which may be acceptable if the author is professional, but should be used with caution. Here I want to cite two news articles in Chinese: China Economic Net's news article, which was republished by Xinhua, Sina and many other websites (Chinese media have legal right and like to simply copy and republish news articles written by other media), compares the price of Asiana Airlines' connecting flight with the price of China Eastern Airlines' non-stop flight like the WSJ blog author, and suggests that the low price is the main factor. But it is very disputed in Chinese forums and microblogs, because by consulting online flight booking websites, in most cases, one may easily find flights cheaper than Asiana Airlines'. {That was what Yangcheng Evening News' journalist did. According to this news article, on Shanghai-based travel agency Ctrip's website, the journalist found an Air China's flight with one stop cheaper than Asiana Airlines'. In this news article, some experts agree that Asiana Airlines' tickets are mostly cheap but not always, "a responsible person of a large flight ticket agency website" claimed that Chinese flights might be more expensive than non-Chinese ones several years ago, but not now; connecting flights may be always cheaper than non-stop flights; Chinese airliners operate both non-stop flights and connecting flights, and people should always compare non-stop flights with non-stop flights, or connecting flights with connecting flights (which is exactly the opposite of what WSJ blog author and the China Economic Net author did). According to the news article, other factors that may make Asiana Airlines more competitive than Chinese or other airlines, include quality of service, airline brand influence, country's visa-free policy, and even psychological factors (Chinese may want to take foreign airlines' flight to have a different experience).} However, I find it not necessary to analyze those complex things and dig it too deep in an article named "Asiana Airlines Flight 214", not "Airlines' marketing strategy towards Chinese passengers", "Aviation market share in China" or something. The current revision of the article is just fine, why insist on adding all those debates in it? --Tomchen1989 (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Victims list
Is there any reason why the three victims' names are not mentioned? I am just curious. Many articles I see list the names of the fatalities. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- We dont normally list names of victims for aircraft accidents unless they are otherwise notable before the accident, normally indicated by them having a wikipedia article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- I assumed that EN Wikipedia might have some kind of privacy policies to protect the teen victims when I found the lack of their names. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, just notability. All three names are publicly available. Apteva (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Personally both the presence and the lack of the victims' names are OK for me. But if the privacy is not we concern about, then I see no reason to prevent adding victims' names. WP:Notability doesn't apply here, since notability guidelines do not limit content within an article. Also, counter-examples can be found, one of the victims' names appears in Atlantic Southeast Airlines Flight 529; among the Swissair Flight 111#Notable victims, there are also someone whose notability may be questioned, like a daughter of an entrepreneur, two university professors. I think if there are too much victims in an accident, then the names should be reasonably limited in our article. But if the victims are very few, their names can be reasonably mentioned. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- There's no reason not to list their names and other info. There would not likely be justification for creating separate articles about them, as that's when the notability rule would come into play. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- All passengers and most of the crew are victims. The reason not to list the deceased victims is because it clutters the article. What about people who suffered permanent injuries? How about people who commit suicide afterward? What if someone is left in a permanent vegetative state, but did not die? There has to be some consistency: Are you going to list the name of every deceased victim when there are hundreds or thousands? Notability is the criterion we have. If we make another criterion, like 5 or fewer deaths of passengers and crew, then it needs to be applied across other disasters and accidents. 75.208.16.211 (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- There's no reason not to list their names and other info. There would not likely be justification for creating separate articles about them, as that's when the notability rule would come into play. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Personally both the presence and the lack of the victims' names are OK for me. But if the privacy is not we concern about, then I see no reason to prevent adding victims' names. WP:Notability doesn't apply here, since notability guidelines do not limit content within an article. Also, counter-examples can be found, one of the victims' names appears in Atlantic Southeast Airlines Flight 529; among the Swissair Flight 111#Notable victims, there are also someone whose notability may be questioned, like a daughter of an entrepreneur, two university professors. I think if there are too much victims in an accident, then the names should be reasonably limited in our article. But if the victims are very few, their names can be reasonably mentioned. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, just notability. All three names are publicly available. Apteva (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Cause of death
Saying they died after being run over by the fire truck does not in any way indicate that the fire truck caused the death, as was stated by the coroner. After could mean 75 years after, and have nothing to do with the fire truck incident. After could mean that after being run over by the fire truck they were still alive, but succumbed to injuries due to the crash, and not due to injuries due to being run over. From is a better word than after. From is also better to use for the other death as well. The crash was not an illness that anyone died "of", it was a trauma that someone died "from". Just as a guess, I would think that they died while they were being run over, but "from being run over" is fine. Apteva (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- "From" is correct. "After" is an imprecise colloquialism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that the girl hit by the truck had sustained injuries that might have proved fatal with or without the collision, and so was deliberately being imprecise. But I went back and reread the article about the firetruck, and the coroner did say she died because she was hit by the truck. So after-> from is fine. Disagree that "died of" is only used in cases of disease, but won't argue the point further. PRRfan (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- If you did argue the point, you would be correct. The distinction between "injury" or "disease" is not important. In English grammar it is quite appropriate to state that someone died of an injury. 75.210.152.163 (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that the girl hit by the truck had sustained injuries that might have proved fatal with or without the collision, and so was deliberately being imprecise. But I went back and reread the article about the firetruck, and the coroner did say she died because she was hit by the truck. So after-> from is fine. Disagree that "died of" is only used in cases of disease, but won't argue the point further. PRRfan (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Criticism of NTSB by ALPA
Proposal: Delete entire subsection Criticism of NTSB by ALPA from section Investigation. Text to be deleted:
- The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) criticized the NTSB for releasing "incomplete, out-of-context information" that "fueled rampant speculation about the cause of the accident" and created an impression that pilot error was entirely to blame.((ref NYT-Autothrottle))((ALPA Asks for Answers to Key Questions in Accident Investigation))
- NTSB Chair Hersman responded: "The information we’re providing is consistent with our procedures and processes ... One of the hallmarks of the NTSB is our transparency.(ref atwonline214) We work for the traveling public. There are a lot of organizations and groups that have advocates. We are the advocate for the traveling public. We believe it’s important to show our work and tell people what we are doing."((In Probing the Asiana Crash, NTSB Gets Busy on Twitter))
- Answering ALPA's criticism, NTSB spokeswoman Kelly Nantel also said the agency routinely provided factual updates during investigations. "For the public to have confidence in the investigative process, transparency and accuracy are critical," Nantel said.((Pilots union says probe of Asiana crash revealed too much, too fast))
---end of text to be deleted. 75.208.16.211 (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Support by proposer. Reasons to delete:
- ALPA initially supported the Korean pilots and complained about NTSB. This is ordinary business and not noteworthy.
- Every question that ALPA raised to attempt to shift blame from the pilots was answered. ALPA was engaging in exactly the kind of speculation that we try to keep out of this article.
- NTSB was shown to be following standard and professional procedures and not releasing misleading information. The public expected timely information. ALPA objected only because the information pointed to the pilots as the root cause of the crash.
- ALPA put its tail between its legs and retreated from all criticism. Therefore, the section should be removed for lack of support showing that the criticism still exists.
- Otherwise, this section misleads the reader by citing early speculation and giving credence to it.
- It is not important enough to an understanding of the topic to be worth mentioning in the article about the crash.
-- 75.210.27.62 (talk) 06:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- When did they issue a public retraction of their statements? The justifiability or veracity of the criticism may not be the whole point. But more the fact that they very quickly supported the pilots? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC) p.s. I was responding to an earlier post, not the one above dated 06.18, 23 July 2013. Thanks.
- They went away quietly. Why would they admit that they were jumping the gun? It is the proper role of pilots unions to support the pilots immediately - such is not noteworthy at all. Have you seen where (1) ALPA continues to press for changes or (2) where the NTSB made any changes in response to ALPA's criticism? If the criticism is unjustified, then it has less relevance than the fake names of the pilots. If you think it is important, you can put it on the ALPA page under "Relationship with NTSB". 75.210.76.122 (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Even Asiana quickly ruled out mechanical failure as the cause of the crash[1], so the criticism really should never have been directed at the NTSB in particular. 75.208.16.211 (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- If the ALPA has since backed off, then the section should be updated, not deleted. VQuakr (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Why retain it? Please state what you think the encyclopedic value is of a complaint that was made early on that the NTSB was releasing information to the public too quickly? How do you feel that this is relevant to the crash or to the quality of the investigation? ALPA's complaint was not the the information was wrong; rather, ALPA wanted exculpatory information released too. The problem is that the exculpatory information hasn't materialized the way they hoped. 75.208.16.211 (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- The scope of the article includes responses to the event. ALPA's response is both significant and germane to an understanding of the broader reactions to the accident. It also drew attention from third-party sources. So it is editorially favorable to include their response in our comprehensive coverage of the event. The article should, of course, make it clear that this was ALPA's reaction as opposed to a broadly accepted theory. VQuakr (talk) 04:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree in that the article should not include overreactions. For example, some argued that the fake pilot names (a/k/a racism!) was notable. It was voted out. ALPA's overreaction must have some relevance. All the issues like failure of the auto throttles that could be raised rationally will be covered by lawsuits (along with more irrational claims, no doubt). ALPA's response is the same as one would expect from it for any airline crash were a pilot was implicated.
- How specifically does ALPA's reaction aid in understanding broader reactions?
- Of course ALPA's ridiculous accusations attracted attention from third-parties. The fake pilot names were reported around the world too. Just because they were reported by third parties does not make them notable.
- What is favorable editorially about the overreaction of a union of pilot unions? You can put it on the ALPA page under "Relationship with NTSB".
- Assuming that you oppose deleting this text, how would you make it clear that this was ALPA's overreaction as opposed to a broadly accepted theory?
- If ALPA had raised the issue that Korean pilots were not trained to hand-fly aircraft, should that be included in the article?
- Why isn't it notable that Asiana threatened to sue over the fake names?
- -- 75.210.27.62 (talk) 06:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with VQuakr, if the ALPA has since backed off, then the section should be updated, not deleted. I see no good reason for it to be deleted wholesale. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Then I ask of you same questions, particularly, why is it notable and how would you make it clear that this was ALPA's overreaction as opposed to a broadly accepted theory?
- Because ALPA raised the issue that autoland was not possible, should that be included in the article?
- The only support that you give for having it in the article is that it is already there. Had I managed to keep this nonsense out in the first place, no one would be clamoring to add it now.
- So, suppose that it was not in the article already. Make your case for why it should be added. The good reason to delete it is because it should not have been added in the first place. 75.210.138.66 (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- You appear to be the only person who thinks it's "nonsense". It seems perfectly relevant to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- That is completely subjective. Can you give any substantive reason why ALPA's criticism of the NTSB has encyclopedic value? Are you saying that you believe that the NTSB was speculating or releasing information too fast? 75.210.201.53 (talk) 11:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Any official statment, by a relevant labour representative organisation, following an industrial/commercial accident, whether accurate or not, and whether later retracted or not, is relevant to the chronology objectively recorded in an article. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- ALPA does not represent the pilots involved; what makes them relevant? Please cite the source of such a policy that makes ALPA's rampant speculation automatically relevant to an encyclopaedia. 75.210.167.48 (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Presumably since it believes the accident equally relevant to the "59,000 pilots of 39 U.S. and Canadian airlines" that it does represent. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- ALPA does not represent the pilots involved; what makes them relevant? Please cite the source of such a policy that makes ALPA's rampant speculation automatically relevant to an encyclopaedia. 75.210.167.48 (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Any official statment, by a relevant labour representative organisation, following an industrial/commercial accident, whether accurate or not, and whether later retracted or not, is relevant to the chronology objectively recorded in an article. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- That is completely subjective. Can you give any substantive reason why ALPA's criticism of the NTSB has encyclopedic value? Are you saying that you believe that the NTSB was speculating or releasing information too fast? 75.210.201.53 (talk) 11:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- You appear to be the only person who thinks it's "nonsense". It seems perfectly relevant to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- The scope of the article includes responses to the event. ALPA's response is both significant and germane to an understanding of the broader reactions to the accident. It also drew attention from third-party sources. So it is editorially favorable to include their response in our comprehensive coverage of the event. The article should, of course, make it clear that this was ALPA's reaction as opposed to a broadly accepted theory. VQuakr (talk) 04:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Why retain it? Please state what you think the encyclopedic value is of a complaint that was made early on that the NTSB was releasing information to the public too quickly? How do you feel that this is relevant to the crash or to the quality of the investigation? ALPA's complaint was not the the information was wrong; rather, ALPA wanted exculpatory information released too. The problem is that the exculpatory information hasn't materialized the way they hoped. 75.208.16.211 (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- You're right of course, ALPA's questions were answered....with a boilerplate response about the NTSB's hallmarks and such other bullshit. You've shown us no evidence that ALPA retracted their criticism. This is their latest press release on Asiana (from July 11): "ALPA again warns about the dangers of speculation based on incomplete data" — Lfdder (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- That "latest" release is from July 11. It does not caution the NTSB against speculating. There is no evidence that the NTSB is overlooking anything.
- This "latest" release is already 12 days old. Not a word in it accuses the NTSB of anything nor asks the NTSB to do anything any differently.
- ALPA clearly has retreated from criticizing the NTSB for releasing data too fast and accusing the NTSB fueling rampant speculation to a general appeal to people (not the NTSB) not to speculate.
- What exactly do you think is the valid criticism of the NTSB that was raised by ALPA which has encyclopedic value?
- The only criticism stated is that ALPA criticized the NTSB for releasing "incomplete, out-of-context information". That criticism is absent from any subsequent press release.
- In fact, it is ALPA that is fueling speculation. ALPA asks:
- What about a laser? Well, what about a laser. Neither pilot said anything about any laser. The pilot who saw the bright light did not tell the other pilots that he was blinded. That is pilot error.
- What about the autothrottles? Okay, let's assume that the autothrottles failed in the worst way possible. Does this relieve the pilots of any duty to notice that the plane is descending more than 1000 fpm, that the PAPI shows three or four red lights, that the airspeed is well below Vref, or to move the throttles manually? That's pilot error. Even the pilot in the jump seat called out "sink rate" in ample time to have detected the error.
- What were the effect of the ongoing construction on and around Runway 28L? Did the construction distract the pilots from noticing that the plane was getting too low? Whose fault is that? Thousands of other pilots managed to land safely during construction. Why couldn't these pilots do it? If there were construction underway on the runway, they would not have been landing on it.
- Availability of multiple accurate vertical guidance cues, particularly when landing at an airport with which a pilot may not be familiar, is critical to pilots. Apparently such is not critical to tens of thousands of pilots.
- The absence of this capability must be further evaluated, as should the availability of other external cues. The pilots saw four red lights on the PAPI. What other "cues" might they have needed? NTSB will examine this thoroughly. If it were a serious problem, the runway would still be closed. ALPA did not call for the runway to be closed. It wouldn't make sense to withhold releasing other information until finding out why these pilots could not fly a visual approach on a clear day.
- -- 75.210.201.53 (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- We've only got the first week's findings to go by, but here you are, putting the blame squarely on the pilots. Maybe this is what ALPA meant? — Lfdder (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed. It is off-the-wall questions like these that ALPA asked which have fueled rampant speculation about the cause of the accident and which seem to have no answer except that the pilots made multiple errors' couldn't land a plane without an instrument approach and autoland, and neglected reporting being blinded by a laser - something that would need to be reported to all pilots in the area immediately. 75.210.167.48 (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- The laser seems to be a red herring. Although why the pilot first reported it is still an interesting question. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Let us be clear that the pilot did not timely report the light (per "All aircrews are requested to immediately report incidents of unauthorized laser illumination by radio to the appropriate ATC controlling facility.") nor tell his instructor to take control or take evasive action. He brought it up only during the investigation. Rather than speculate that it was glare, ALPA speculated that it was a laser, something which is not supported by the facts. ALPA's other questions about the ILS outage, runway construction, and failure of autothrottles are red herrings too. But raise red herrings is what special-interest advocates do. 75.210.167.48 (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. So the pilot reported being blinded by "a bright light", later speculated to be a laser by ALPA, but he was wrong for not "timely reporting" a laser? Maybe he's a "special-interest advocate" as well? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- (If it was likely a laser illumination as ALPA speculated, the pilot who saw the light had a duty to the dues-paying pilots in the string of aircraft behind him to report the event.) If a required crew member becomes incapacitated at any time, he must notify the captain as soon as possible. If it is the captain, he must notify the pilot in the adjacent seat and hand over control at least to the extent that he cannot perform his duties effectively. So yes, the pilot was wrong for failing to timely report it if he was blinded. It seems most likely that he was candidly relaying the sequence of events in great detail. ALPA attached undue weight to this insignificant detail and transformed it into a laser strike. 75.210.167.48 (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Do we know exactly what Captain Lee Kang-kook said? The FAA link you have given is specifically for laser light. Who's speculating? ALP, you or both? And why is it ok for Hersman to mention investigation of ongoing construction in her press briefing, but for it to become a "red herring" when raised by ALPA? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- ALPA is the source of wild speculation that the light was a laser. By publicly acknowledging the published facts of the ILS being out of service and construction in the vicinity of the runway, Hersman was responding to ALPA. Of course the NTSB will look into this. But there is nothing to criticize, nothing being overlooked, nothing misleading, and nothing notable about any of these issues. The only issue that appears to stand a chance at relevance is that the autothrottles are too complicated to arm - but that will not excuse either pilot for failing to notice and correct the low airspeed / high sink rate. But none of this is criticism of the NTSB. 75.208.105.97 (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Let us be clear that the pilot did not timely report the light (per "All aircrews are requested to immediately report incidents of unauthorized laser illumination by radio to the appropriate ATC controlling facility.") nor tell his instructor to take control or take evasive action. He brought it up only during the investigation. Rather than speculate that it was glare, ALPA speculated that it was a laser, something which is not supported by the facts. ALPA's other questions about the ILS outage, runway construction, and failure of autothrottles are red herrings too. But raise red herrings is what special-interest advocates do. 75.210.167.48 (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- The laser seems to be a red herring. Although why the pilot first reported it is still an interesting question. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed. It is off-the-wall questions like these that ALPA asked which have fueled rampant speculation about the cause of the accident and which seem to have no answer except that the pilots made multiple errors' couldn't land a plane without an instrument approach and autoland, and neglected reporting being blinded by a laser - something that would need to be reported to all pilots in the area immediately. 75.210.167.48 (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- We've only got the first week's findings to go by, but here you are, putting the blame squarely on the pilots. Maybe this is what ALPA meant? — Lfdder (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Also voting against removing this paragraph, the ALPA criticism has also been extensively covered by various media, not just online - and the NTSB was specifically asked to respond to the ALPA criticism TWICE during the media briefings, so I really cannot come up with a single reason to simply ignore what happened here? Bottom line being, we would definitely be urged to keep and update the section if ALPA's criticism had turned out to be valid, and the information provided by the NTSB premature/invalid, alas that's not been the case so far, which supports the NTSB standpoint. Obviously, feel free to revisit/update the paragraph after the preliminary/final reports have been published by the NTSB.--Parallelized (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- As I see it, this subsection should be removed as speculative until such time as there is actual evidence that it is valid. As I see it, ALPA is fueling the rampant speculation, not the NTSB. I'm sure the NTSB was asked more than once about the fake names for the pilots. 75.208.105.97 (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- @OP: Thanks for the heads-up, but as previously stated, I'm not sure if we are in a position to determine currently if this is really all that irrelevant or not. So I am not overly concerned from a quality standpoint - just imagine for a second that the final NTSB report said something along the lines of "after evaluation of all FDR parameters, pitot tubes were not working properly ... and IAS readings were thus inaccurate during approach" - all of a sudden, the ALPA/NTSB criticism would indeed have a lot of weight, and be very valid. --Parallelized (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. Sure, there is a lot of speculation that could turn out to be true. It could turn out that the pilots had very little experience hand-flying an aircraft or that they did not know how correctly to arm the autothrottles. But so far, we have kept such speculation out of the article. As for the pitot tubes being blocked, that still would not excuse either pilot from failing to command TO/GA thrust upon seeing the third red light on the PAPI or upon seeing the visual aiming point moving up the windshield. There are plenty of external visual cues when a plane is going to land short. The pilots knew that they were too low, so it is really hard to blame any malfunctioning instrument inside when the eyeballs see the wrong picture outside. 75.208.105.97 (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Almost sounds as if you've decided, quite categorically, who was to blame. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. Sure, there is a lot of speculation that could turn out to be true. It could turn out that the pilots had very little experience hand-flying an aircraft or that they did not know how correctly to arm the autothrottles. But so far, we have kept such speculation out of the article. As for the pitot tubes being blocked, that still would not excuse either pilot from failing to command TO/GA thrust upon seeing the third red light on the PAPI or upon seeing the visual aiming point moving up the windshield. There are plenty of external visual cues when a plane is going to land short. The pilots knew that they were too low, so it is really hard to blame any malfunctioning instrument inside when the eyeballs see the wrong picture outside. 75.208.105.97 (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- @OP: Thanks for the heads-up, but as previously stated, I'm not sure if we are in a position to determine currently if this is really all that irrelevant or not. So I am not overly concerned from a quality standpoint - just imagine for a second that the final NTSB report said something along the lines of "after evaluation of all FDR parameters, pitot tubes were not working properly ... and IAS readings were thus inaccurate during approach" - all of a sudden, the ALPA/NTSB criticism would indeed have a lot of weight, and be very valid. --Parallelized (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
"From what is known, the crew just turned in a truly lousy job of flying. Some would apparently like for this not to be known for a couple of years, when the accident will be all but forgotten." (Richard Collins is a well-known, well-respected, and widely published aviation expert.) 75.208.105.97 (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- ^ Paul Tait, ed. (2013-07-07). "Plane, engines not at fault in Asiana crash: CEO". Reuters.
{{cite news}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help)
- C-Class aviation articles
- C-Class Aviation accident articles
- Aviation accident task force articles
- WikiProject Aviation articles
- C-Class California articles
- Low-importance California articles
- C-Class San Francisco Bay Area articles
- Mid-importance San Francisco Bay Area articles
- San Francisco Bay Area task force articles
- WikiProject California articles
- C-Class Disaster management articles
- Low-importance Disaster management articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class Korea-related articles
- Low-importance Korea-related articles
- WikiProject Korea articles
- Wikipedia In the news articles