Jump to content

Talk:Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2001:16b8:2d5e:8b00:dd86:b175:1e86:75c (talk) at 21:07, 14 March 2019 (→‎RANK). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Another accident

I know it is not the place to write this, but as in the wikipedia is not free open articles, can anyone tell me because it has not been created an article with the crash of a DC-3 in Colombia with 14 dead that happened today? spanish wikipedia: Accidente del DC-3 de Laser Aéreo de 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.109.111.15 (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People probably did not pick it up. Is there any news sources on it in English?   DipperDolphin |talk  14:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a source in English. http://avherald.com/h?article=4c52f8b2&opt=0 --JetBlast (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources in English (BBC, Aviation Safety Network, Aviation Herald). It's listed on the List of accidents and incidents involving the DC-3 since 2000. Mjroots (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure there was only 12 deaths... and this DC-3 Crash occurred around 10+ Hours before the crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planefam (talk • contribs) 03:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go - 2019 Colombia DC-3 crash - Master Of Ninja (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside to Wikipedians - this article deals with a 4 month old airplane, the Colombian crash had a plane that apparently served in the 2nd World War!! - Master Of Ninja (talk) 11:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, I added the imade from commons and the summary, I did that earlier today. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Location

I'm think the crash site is very roughly near 08°42′09″N 38°57′18″E / 8.70250°N 38.95500°E / 8.70250; 38.95500, but am not confident enough to put it in the article. However, please do not put rando coords in the article, such as the coordinates of the town of Bishoftu. The plane did not crash into such a populated area. Abductive (reasoning) 16:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive: The Aviation Herald says "The last transponder data were received from position N9.027 E39.153 about 21nm east of Addis Ababa at FL086.". My edit was not "invented" and with an edit summary "the last transponder received"..―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is not the crash location. It is nowhere near Bishoftu, and the terrain doesn't match the images. Abductive (reasoning) 03:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This source says the plane crashed "around Dobi area east of Bishoftu town in Oromia region". Abductive (reasoning) 05:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Around, and thinking of, all falls WP:OR and prohibited on wikipedia. There is no need to rush to add an exact location, eventually authorities will list full GPS coordinates. --Bohbye (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you look in the article history and see who put coordinates in, and who removed them as OR, before commenting? Abductive (reasoning) 05:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Literally agreed with you, what is the issue? --Bohbye (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2019

There was on the board a wife, son and daugther of member Slovak national council Anton Hrnko. Garbi93 (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Wikipedia is not a memorial. funplussmart (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was done Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made my decision because there was no article about him when I responded to this, but it seems someone did make the page Anton Hrnko since then, so wdyk. funplussmart (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

Hello. I'd like to propose this small set of changes:

In the first two sentences under "Aircraft", which are currently thus: "The accident aircraft was a Boeing 737 MAX 8 registered ET-AVJ. c/n 62450, msn 7243 and was powered by two CFM International LEAP engines.[2] The air-frame was four months old at the time of the accident."

  • Please merge the two sentences to one using a semicolon;
  • Please change the strange hyphenism "air-frame" into the normal word "airframe";
  • Please remove the unnecessary and faintly ridiculous words "at the time of the accident" which make for a silly read and/or some rude questions!

This would give you: "The accident aircraft was a Boeing 737 MAX 8 registered ET-AVJ. c/n 62450, msn 7243 and was powered by two CFM International LEAP engines;[2] the airframe was four months old."

Thanks, 82.39.96.55 (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did the hyphen. The semi-colon, meh--the first sentence is long enough for my taste. But I can't remove the unpretty "at the time of the accident", because it seems to me that if an age is given for the airframe, it matters when you measure that age. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks very much Drmies. I see it's all changed a fair bit now anyway, so my argument has become moot (I can never remember nowadays in which sense I mean that exactly but hey). I'm grateful for your hyphen removal and relieved that when someone later changed it to aircraft they didn't change it "back" to air-craft which would have given me (and others I hope) conniptions. For the record I still think you were, with – seriously – the greatest respect, wrong about the at the time of the accident bit as it presented at at the time of the edit request, though it was clearly never worth fisticuffs. The current version of the sentence makes it work much, much better anyway, giving me excellent grounds to stfu now, whatever that means. Thanks and best wishes 82.39.96.55 (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm...when I read your post I agreed with you, but in the context of that sentence it made sense to me. You can always log in and take care of these matters yourself! ;) Your moot point is interesting: thanks for that link (it was news to me, my education in British English being cut off after moving to the US). I'm sure you're familiar with our article on Janus words. Take care, Drmies (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks Drmies: I have replied at my "Talking Page", whatever and wherever one of those is. Signed with grateful thanks by the IP addressee 82.39.96.55 at about 22:46, 13 March 2019 (GMT)

Nationalities and numbers

Nationalities have been partially adressed above (UN passports) but at present, the total (157) does not match the sum of the numbers listed fot the nationalities (158); also not clear whether those 4 listed as unknown are the same as the 4 UN. The sources used to support the list are conflicting, and as I did not follow the development of the article, I do want to make things more complicted by editing the list. Can editors interested in the list check it? Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiHannibal: I am aware nationalities sometimes don't add up to 157. It might help to only use ET's or the Ethiopian Civil Aviation Authority's lists after the dust settles... WhisperToMe (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One Mexican woman was among the fatalities, but she's not listed [1] 201.165.55.86 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May have used another passport. Just an idea. Ref appears to say she was affiliated with the UN. Jmar67 (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is always an issue in any air accident article,as passengers may have multiple nationalities. The initial list provided by the airline lists only the passport under which the passengers travelled. I would modify the list in the article to include two columns: one for the number of people travelling under those passports, including UN passport holders, and another for total number of passengers with that nationality. The first column (passport holders) should remain unchanged from the airline's list. The second column will initially be identical to the first, but will be appended as multiple nationality holders are identified.DigitalRevolution (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2019

Position of crash site: 8°52′36.5″N 39°15′03.9″E 79.8.203.169 (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 12:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of grounded airlines

Sorry but putting a scoreboard of airlines that are not using the aircraft is just not encyclopedic, the grounding by some authorities is already covered in the text. MilborneOne (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Separate page to address the MAX 8 crisis

Created the page 2019 Boeing 737 MAX crisis to address the aftermath of the recent two major air disasters. I invite you all to edit and improve the page. Since someone already nominated it for deletion, I will say that this will dominate the aviation industry news for a long time, similar to the Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery problems that affected that aircraft and manufacturer for a long time. The situation with the aircraft and the end result of two major air disasters cannot be properly covered in the disaster pages --Bohbye (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No real need for the page it is clearly not a "crisis" and information is better handled on here or at the MAX article. No official connection between the two accidents. MilborneOne (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No "official connection" but multiple airlines and regulators are grounding the MAX, clearly citing both accidents. Not everyone buys the US confidence in the aircraft. --Bohbye (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I have just nominated that page for deletion because it isn't even as crisis yet. No need for such a page. funplussmart (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, this is not yet a "crisis", and belongs here because this crash caused the groundings and reflection. For sure add a section on "Reliability Concerns" to the Boeing Max 8 page if you like.
It is unlikely ever to become a 'crisis' as there are relatively few of the affected aircraft in service, and even if all these aircraft are subsequently grounded the airlines affected will simply rush to lease substitute aircraft from the aircraft leasing companies.
The 'US confidence in the aircraft' is meaningless as what matters is the various Civil Aviation Authority's, passenger's and airline's confidence, and allowing the aircraft to continue to fly before the cause of the first seemingly-related accident has been determined is possibly less-than-wise, because if a third aircraft subsequently crashes in similar circumstances the only people to benefit will be the litigation lawyers as was the case with Turkish Airlines Flight 981.
The manufacturer, Boeing, actually has a pretty-good record of fixing problems once they are discovered, however at the moment very little is known of the cause(s) of both crashes and so some prudence on everyone's part might be a good idea.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.42 (talk) 09:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Even if it is eventually proved that both accidents were caused by dangerous Boeing software that trimmed the HS to the full Nose Down position, the word "crisis" would not be appropriate. Necessary supporting statements in the article, as always, will be added as actual events transpire in this investigation. We should leave the sensationalizing of news events with words of that ilk, to the MSM which, unfortunately, is so infested with the tabloid format type of "journalism." EditorASC (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delivery

A minor nitpick, the aircraft was delivered on the 17th, not the 15th, as the source states 'ferry flight 15-17th November', implying it departed Everett on the 15th and landed in Addis Ababa on the 17th, thereby being delivered at that point. --Biponacci (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually delivery starts at the origin, "keys" are handed over at Everett once to the receiving airline pilots transporting to the airline. --Bohbye (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right thanks for clearing that up --Biponacci (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More detailed witness accounts

Ground witness observations seem more broad and detailed at https://www.Reuters.com/article/us-ethiopia-airplane-witnesses-idUSKBN1QS1LJ. If the reported observations prove consistent and credible they seem likely have considerable impact on global reactions. (I've not modified the article - apologies but I can't contribute more at this time.). --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belongs in the article but unlikely to affect decisions or global reactions. Experts are concerned about the trim response to an aerodynamic stall and the update Boeing is ordered to provide by April due to the crash in October. If an engine failed on takeoff, it's possible the condition caused a loss of airspeed and an aerodynamic stall. Experts aren't going to separate these causes until more thorough investigations are done or the April updates are completed. ConstantPlancks (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2019

In the passenger and crew section, The nationality and number of passengers fatalities it says three Swedish citizens died, it's actually four.


Source (in Swedish): https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/kaAm3j/svenskarna-som-omkom-i-flygkraschen

Evidence/Reference: "Fyra av de 157 som dog var svenskar"

Translated: "Four of the 157 who died were Swedish" Vicky the beast (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The numbers in the nationality section do not currently add up, as noted in the "Nationalities and numbers" talk topic above. It will be better to use official numbers from the ECAA, when released. Nullpixel (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References in lede

This is starting to get annoying. There is absolutely no need to have any references in the lede. If info is in the lede, it should be in the main body of the article, suitably referenced. If it's not in the main body, then it shouldn't be in the lede. Mjroots (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone removed a heading so the text that was in the body is no part of the lede.. Bohbye (talk) 06:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:LEADCITE, 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. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So without a specific consensus that a reference in the lead is required for a particular statement, I agree with Mjroots that references should not be placed in the lead. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RANK

Hi guys do you think we should have list of countries by number? it's gonna be easy for every one to know how many countries

Rank Nationality Number of passenger fatalities
1  Kenya 32
2  Canada 18
3  Ethiopia 9
4  China 8
5  Italy 8

Khoshhat (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do you assign a rank to the countries with the same number of fatalities? How does China rank ahead of Italy? The column header could be left blank, since it should be clear that the column represents a sequential number. However, I would just add the number of countries manually after the table. The number is not likely to change significantly (one Mexican woman seems to be unaccounted for). Jmar67 (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Countries with the same number of fatalities are sorted by alphabetization (alphabetical order). That is the default “tiebreaker” on Wikipedia. It is not random or arbitrary. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As for the rankings, it’s really only appropriate where the countries are trying or achieving to have the highest total, such as in the Olympics or in some sort of election. It would be inappropriate for this, because no country is “trying” to have the most fatalities, it’s not an achievement of any kind. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However, if you had to rank them, then countries that are tied with each other would all receive the same ranking, which would be the highest possible in that group. So for example, China, Italy, and United States all have 8 fatalities which comprises the fourth, fifth, and sixth spots, so they’d all have a fourth place ranking. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To address your concern about allowing the readers to understand the total number of countries, while also not inserting a ranking for each country, I added a piece stating the total number of countries in the preface of the table. (I counted 35 countries) Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrbeastmodeallday: you did the job and you mention the number of (35) countries, thanks Khoshhat (talk) 05:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a contest. And by the way: How does this table deal with victims having more than one nationality? 2001:16B8:2D5E:8B00:DD86:B175:1E86:75C (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trump

I originally added the Trump mention. But not because I am a "Trump apologist", I can assure you. Surely this is relevant, even if only to show it's superficiality? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cant see it is relevant to the accident. MilborneOne (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"On 12 March, President Donald Trump spoke to Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg and received assurances that the 737 MAX aircraft was safe." This was just a coincidence, something that Trump just happened to dream up when chatting to Dennis, for no particular reason? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is HIGHLY relevant in the context of the FAA not grounding the aircraft. Its very simple influence of the Boeing CEO on Trump. i would like it to be back on the page --Bohbye (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now that 2019 Boeing 737 MAX groundings is being kept I think the Trump mention would more more appropriate there. funplussmart (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still not relevant, clearly the reference doesnt actually support any Trump involvement in the grounding. MilborneOne (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bohbye, for both articles. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And Trump just announced the MAX is grounded. --Bohbye (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the `See Also` list, inclusion of another crash with UN workers aboard

The article is locked. Anyone care to add another incident of deaths of UN workers in aeroplane downings? Thanks126.163.102.96 (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that accident is similar enough to merit inclusion in See Also. Daniel Case (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing Plane Crash

Apparently there is a glitch on the Boeing that causes it to dive. Boitumelo Motlhabai (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source stating this? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed rename to crash

I propose renaming the section "Accident" to "Crash," with an anchor of "Accident." Crash is more specific, and in used in articles where the aircraft suddenly impacts the ground, such as United Airlines Flight 553 and Indian Airlines Flight 440. Accident is used in more complicated incidents, such as Pacific Western Airlines Flight 314, where seven survived. Comfr (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_302&oldid=887789632"