Talk:Qantas Flight 32

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A changing media perspective. The article must change too.[edit]

In a mainstream Australian source (The Age) today we have an article (here) titled "Rolls-Royce takes blame for Qantas engines". It reads....

ROLLS-ROYCE made running changes to the design and manufacturing standard of its new A380 engines to stop oil leaks, but it had not done so to the engines fitted to the Qantas A380 fleet. Airbus’s chief operating officer, John Leahy, said the new Roll-Royce engines it would divert from its final A380 production line for Qantas should not leak oil. ‘‘I know they’re [Rolls-Royce] constantly updating their manufacturing standards. We think the engines on the production line will be fine.’’

The new engines ‘‘should not have that issue’’, he said, ‘‘in terms of this one part that seems to have had a problem with leaking oil’’.

European safety regulators identified an oil fire as the likely cause that set off the midair engine explosion on QF32 on November 4 near Singapore.

As a result, Qantas’s A380 fleet remains grounded, three Singapore Airlines planes are each having an engine replaced, while Lufthansa took one A380 out of service temporarily....''

So now we have three airlines involved, and Rolls Royce correctly becoming the centre of attention on this matter. And a cause - an oil fire - has been identified. This article, if it retains its current title and emphasis, will become a side issue. The only long term significance will be that it was the first place this much larger issue became public, and that Airbus planes and Qantas maintenance practices are in the clear. Maybe it also highlights the high skills of Qantas pilots.

Whatever, this article in its current form cannot remain the primary place for discussion of the problem with the RR Trent 900 engines. HiLo48 (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Which is why a change of name was proposed further up the page. MilborneOne (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Apart from the proposer, everyone else has opposed a rename. There was also a proposal to delete, but it was inconclusive. But we now have the media taking a new approach, and I think we need to as well. From my perpective, the rename proposal above is now irrelevant. I think we need to look at the whole scenario afresh. Maybe we need to just freeze this article as is, and create a new one about the RR engines. I would like to hear others ideas on a total approach, not just renaming this article, or not. HiLo48 (talk) 21:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure what should be the right name or location in terms of policy, but would also prefer a rename; which seems at the moment not possible. However, I can also see how the rationale for retaining this is: it is an event on a named flight (naming convention) even after the current events. As the lasting effect on other airlines is a derived effect: it leads to i) grounding, ii) replacing, iii) design changes (?). In that sense the article is named on the incident which started it just as always with airplane problems and everyting what needs to be noted can be perfectly accommodated. Making an engine problems article while retaining keeping this, looks too much as forking to me and would be undesirable. the best idea would be to encourage Lufthansa to induce a similar failure in one of their A380s, after which it would be clear that a single article under a similar name would be needed. L.tak (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A fork is the answer either. - BilCat (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Can't we keep the article name discussion in one place? I don't see anything in the current article that places any emphasis on it being a Qantas "fault" or anything of that nature and I simply don't agree that the article title is "placing too much emphasis" on Qantas. The article is about the incident and the title is appropriate. Of course the article can and should have complete coverage of the investigation and the cause. There are many examples of other accidents and incidents where the operator was not "at fault" (for want of a better term) but where the article title still follows the appropriate convention. There simply is nothing wrong with it. -- Rob.au (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Please think about looking back at these times from ten years in the future. What will be significant is that Rolls Royce Trent 900 engines had a design or manufacturing fault, not that Qantas, or Airbus, or Flight 32 had a problem. I simply cannot see any point in keeping the emphasis on Qantas or a flight number through the title of this article. Both are irrelevant to the real issue. HiLo48 (talk) 06:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
At this point, it might be time to drop the stick and step away from the horse's carcas. No one else seems to share the urgency of your concerns right now. Give it some time, and revisit it in a month or two. Consensus can and does change, but usually not through an editor making a nuisance of him/herself. - BilCat (talk) 08:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree completely. I wasn't planning to post here again unless someone wanting to keep the current form of the article posted something really silly (that's not you), but I do want to present another perspective. Rather than (and well before) what you suggest is my sense of urgency right now, the fundamental problem here was the sense of urgency felt by those who just had to post poorly informed and inevitably non-neutral views on this matter as soon as something sensational appeared in the tabloid media. It also included a number who posted deliberate POV material with the goal of condemning Qantas and those foreign engineers. Fortunately that material is now well gone, but I truly wish WIkipedia could find a way of avoiding all such inappropriate content completely. So now, let time take its course. HiLo48 (talk) 10:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • That's par for the course on an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", and it's not likely to change anytime soon. That sort of thing happens on thousands of articles everyday, so the most we can do is modify or remove it, and take some other actions if it keeps popping in. - BilCat (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Besides the fact that this instance was the textbook example for combination of blind luck, excellent design by Airbus and superb airmanship of the Qantas crew, here's one more thing to consider Hilo48 regarding your 10 years from now perspective: (sure, I'm rubbing my crystal balls here :] ) there are talk about the front wingspar being damaged beyond simple patching. The problems this mean are: 1) you have to change the wing; 2) for that you have to fly the bird to Toulouse to Airbus; 3) for that you have to patch it up sufficiently; 4) Airbus has only one rig for wing assembly and the time it takes to fix up Nancy Bird with a new one (pair?) is time lost on new airframe production; and 5) Airbus has allegedly changed the wing design a little bit since VH-OQA's production. I don't want to rub them balls no more but I'm sure you see where this is going. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.101.152.254 (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The Der Spiegel article Close to Disaster suggests that "excellent design" may be stretching it. It implies that some of the collateral damage from the engine failure reflects serious design defects in the A380. If so, this incident has ramifications well beyond the Trent 900 engines. --PeterJeremy (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Cause[edit]

What specifically caused the bearing box to fail? Putting it differently, what is different about the new upgraded bearing boxes from the old faulty ones? Is it a sealing problem? Was the seal redesigned to prevent leakage? --Westwind273 (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a question that will be answered by the ATSB report and/or further information from Rolls Royce, in due course. Remember this talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not general discussion of the incident. -- Rob.au (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I know. I was suggesting that the answers to these questions become part of the article, when the information becomes available. Also, some mainstream articles have pointed out the dearth of details that have been forthcoming from Rolls-Royce: http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/warning-on-a380-engine-given-months-before-20101113-17s3l.html "The company will be replacing the relevant part "according to an agreed program" as inspections on the engine continue in association with aviation regulators, it said. The company did not provide details." If this information blockage continues to be a common theme in the media, it may be appropriate for the Wikipedia article to mention it. --Westwind273 (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
The preliminary Australian Transport Safety Bureau report is out. See Rolls-Royce Trent 900#Notable incidents and press release, ATSB releases Qantas A380 engine failure preliminary report" - 220.101 talk\Contribs 15:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

40 engines to be replaced[edit]

I don't know if it's a strong enough statement or just a guestimate but according to Qantas there are "around 40" engines to be replaced. It looks like the fall out from this incident is going to be bigger than first expected. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11782579 84.9.39.19 (talk) 08:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This will belong here as part of the discussion on the aftermath. But as you say this is possibly not (yet) strong enough. Now it is: BBC quotes Qantas saying it "understands" from RollsRoys/Airbus that 40 need to be replaced. Suggest to wait for more direct reports from the main players for now... L.tak (talk) 10:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
This story isn't even limited to Qantas, as Singapore Airlines are also working on their engines. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 20:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hull loss / write-off of airframe[edit]

According to Seattle-PI this airframe will be a $300 billion write-off. [See Seattle PI article] A fellow editor deleted my addition. Please give input and weigh in. Thanks. --Inetpuppy (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a blog, just because it is from the Seattle PI doesn't mean it is fact since Airbus, Qanats nor the ATSB (which is investigating the incidental and will release a preliminary report on the 3rd of December) have yet to state it is a "hull loss". Stick with the facts and not speculation. Bidgee (talk) 04:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I consider an airline blog from the Seattle-PI as pretty authoritative and credible because they cover Boeing extensively from nearby Seattle. If you know a better source, please add. Thanks. --Inetpuppy (talk) 04:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Inetpuppy, you've misread the blog. It states: "and the question being asked is whether the damage wrought by the spinning-out-of-control number 2 engine is so great that Qantas will have to write off the $300 million plane." (Italics mins.) It's not claiming the aircraft will be written off, which is what you added to the article. Whatever the status of that blog as a reliable source or not, (and in most cases it is not) what you added should not be included in the article. - BilCat (talk) 04:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with Bil, Inetpuppy needs to go read up on Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material that advances a position before asserting that the blog of an established newspaper has reported that the aircraft is a write-off, as what he had suggested, versus the actual post by the newspaper blog, which begs the question of whether the extent of damage caused by this accident/incident is so serious to the aircraft that it might be written-off as a consequence. Please take note that posting a statement/comment tagged with a reliable source is one thing but adding your own statement/forming your own conclusion is considered as original research, especially so when other editors has verified that it is not according to the original post. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 09:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Joyce said they'll fix VH-OQA... Sometime, though repairs are in the "medium terms." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.101.152.254 (talk) 10:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Qantas are (rightfully) very proud of not ever losing a jet aircraft, and go to great lengths to repair damaged aircraft so that they can maintain this. On occasion this has included making uneconomic repairs to damaged aircraft (for instance, the 747 which ran off the end of the runway at Bangkok and a 717 which made a hard landing at Darwin). Nick-D (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Almost a loss[edit]

Sky News are reporting that a report to be released this week will say that the aircraft was almost lost, and the only the presence of two extra (deadheading?) crew on board who were able to assist the flight crew prevented a crash. Should make very interesting reading. Mjroots (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

We will find out in the preliminary factual report from the ATSB, which is released this week (Friday at the latest), I would be very careful on media reporting at the moment as there has been some misinformation being reported (not just about QF 32). Bidgee (talk) 09:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The ATSB have released a Safety Recommendation, citing a manufacturing defect as the cause of the accident. Press conference tomorrow. Mjroots (talk) 05:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Disk vs Disc[edit]

There seems to be a bit of back and forth on the correct spelling of the word disc or disk in the article to follow conventional Australian English per the style guide. For what it is worth, the Macquarie Dictionary does accept the use of the spelling disk in relation to computer storage, but otherwise considers that usage with a k is a US English spelling of the word disc (a flat, circular object). It is also worth noting that the manufacturer Rolls Royce uses the spelling disc. [1]. Personally I don't think the ATSB is a reliable arbiter on the correct spelling and in any case the URL cited in a recent edit comment [2] uses both spellings in different places. -- Rob.au (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Do we have consensus to change the spelling in this article to disc? I think it is preferable in this article from the point of view of distinguishing from a computer storage disk. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree that "disc" should be the preferred spelling, in the context of this particular article. 65.37.66.115 (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Incident Vs Serious Incident or Accident[edit]

Speaking of the importance of proper terms and spelling, this article frequently uses the term "incident," when it should say either "serious incident" or "accident." That tends to be misleading, since "incident" indicates no serious damage occurred. The ATSB has classified this accident as a "serious incident," which according to ICAO, Annex 13, is the proper term under these facts and circumstances.

"Serious incident. An incident involving circumstances indicating that an accident nearly occurred. Note 1.— The difference between an accident and a serious incident lies only in the result." ICAO Annex 13, Chapter 1 Definitions | 65.37.66.115 (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I added 'serious' to the first usage of 'incident'. I felt it would reduce readability of article to add to all other 27 instances of incident. After the first instance, 'serious' is implicit in the article for the following occurrences. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
And I've removed it. Wikipedia does not write articles about trivial incidents, so adding this to the lede is an example of redundant clarification (not that Wikipedia is even beholden to use ATSB definitions as part of its writing anyway). If there has been some official declaration from the ATSB about the classification of this specific incident, then by all means add that to the main body of the article, but the above rationale for adding clarification to the lede, based on the general definition, looks like original research, aswell as being redundant. MickMacNee (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand your point of view or the 'original research' comment. If you look at the reference I supplied you will see the ATSB categorizes this specific incident as a 'serious incident'. i.e., quoting the reference, "Occurrence Category:Serious Incident". You do not. Your removal is without justification and does not help the reader or enhance Wikipedia. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to the above explanation as OR. If your ref specifically categorises this a "serious incident" in ATSB terms, then by all means add that to the main body of article, with as much explanation as you like about what this actually means, but your addition of it to the lede as a bare two words was not a clarification or addition of any information that helps the general reader in any way, shape or form. The lede is a general summary after all, not an ATSB communiqe. It 'enhanced' Wikipedia about as much as if you had gone to the 911 attacks article and added to the lede a qualifier that it was a 'serious' terrorist attack. It's nonsense and utterly pointless puffery, because Wikipedia does not write article about trivial or non-serious incidents. Although granted this becomes rather a farcical stance when you look at how out of date this article already is, now all the newsies have buggered off and abandoned it. MickMacNee (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I only wish to add one word 'serious' to the first occurrence of the term 'incident' for reasons of readability previously explained. I see the first use of 'incident' outside of the lede already is characterized as 'serious'. I see no reason that the lede should not also have one instance of the term 'serious'. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The edit by L.tak looks fine to me. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
It's still pointless. Classified by who exactly? That's the first problem. But even if you add 'by the ATSB', then you are assuming that the reader of the lede is familiar with ATSB terminology or already knows what the ATSB classes as a 'serious incident', or even that they want to know that at all, before they have digested the lede and decided they want to read the main article, which is where this sort of thing should be explained. You are helping nobody but yourselves by adding info to the lede that you already know the meaning of, but to the normal reader, is likely to be meaningless, and in an encyclopoedia which only has articles on serious incidents (supposedly), is completely redundant padding. MickMacNee (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
And Darrell, this second edit is classed as edit warring. Don't do it, or you will likely find yourself at the wrong end of a block. And you also marked it as a minor edit, which as it was a revert, is also likely to get you into trouble, see WP:MINOR. MickMacNee (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, edit it your way. I believe the addition of 'serious' was helpful. But now I'm simply tired of this discussion. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

In response to

"It's still pointless. Classified by who exactly? That's the first problem. But even if you add 'by the ATSB',... MickMacNee (talk)"

The precise definition of aviation terms is very important to the credibility of Wikipedia, although you don't seem to quite understand that. The definitions of "accident," "incident" and "serious incident," are all found in ICAO Annex 13 and the ATSB was properly adhering to that standard of precise classification, the same as the FAA, the NTSB, and all other responsible aviation accident investigation bodies do, the world over. Historically, Wikipedia provides internal links for various important terms, to enlighten the lay readers, like [| this]. Your arguments against using the phrase "serious incident," are absurd and silly and are not supported by any Wiki guideline policies that I can see.

Darrell_Greenwood was acting correctly, responsibly and bold, according to Wiki policy, when he made those edits, and he quite properly explained them on this page in a civil manner. But, your response with the "I am the biggest bully on the block, and what I say goes" tone, is quite out of line. You need to learn something about precise aviation definitions and to review Wiki policy about the proper way to achieve consensus. Threatening a block, simply because someone disagreed with your erroneous opinion, amounts to harassment and abuse. 65.37.66.77 (talk) 02:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:LEDE as a Guideline, and a whole bunch of things in this essay, adequately cover what I am saying above about assuming what readers know, or want to know, about these ICAO terms, as they read the opening summary of the article. Whether you link to the phrase or not in the lede is neither here nor there with regards to its actual need to be there, as a summary is not very good if you have to keep jumping out of it before you can even finish reading the whole thing. Good for the main body though, as is all the info, as I said. And we can start with WP:BRD in respect of your allegations about what I do and don't know about proper consensus building procedure. That should cover the Wikipedia aspects of what I do and don't know, as a three year plus wiki-veteran, and I don't think there's any point in arguing over who knows more about what as regards anything else in the world, seeing as you sadly know nothing about my background, nor I of yours. MickMacNee (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, I completely agreed with you MMN that writing "The serious accident" suggests the "colloquial use" of the term accident and there serious is "padding". However, formal classifications are very important and worth mentioning in the lead. The way I suggested doing (-classified as a serious incident-) it did suggest a formal system to those not familiar with the subject and it gives very relevant info to those which are familar. I see no problem there, Darrel doesn't and 65.37 agrees with the process; I have changed it back.. L.tak (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the term "serious incident" being an accurate description. Consensus seems to be that this is the preferred term, therefore further revertion will be seen as Edit warring and reported at WP:3RR.
The press have not "abandoned" this story - Latest BBC story this morning. Mjroots (talk) 07:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Try and read what people actually write Mjroots, I never said anything of the sort wrt the news having abandoned this. How very convenient though, that we have now apparently arrived at the consensus following L.tak's second revert (which is not justified by simply stating the same rationale on this talk page a second time, to make the same edit), and your inclination to report is only evident now. Btw, are you posting here as a neutral admin, or just another editor? Either way, what you said is not exactly supportable. MickMacNee (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think L.tak has come up with a good solution for the lead paragraph and it should be left that way. Now, we need to deal with the other places in the body that use the term "incident," since that is a specific aviation classification which indicates no serious damage occurred. That, of course is not only inaccurate, but clearly contradictory to the findings of facts in the ongoing ATSB investigation. In referencing this essay that MickMacNee said we should read, I found the following:

"Use clear, precise and accurate terms
Articles should use only necessary words. This does not mean using fewer words is always better; rather, when considering equivalent expressions, choose the more concise."

We are required to use not only the most concise terms, but also the most "precise and accurate terms." Which means all cases of "incident" being used by itself in the article, needs to be changed to either "serious incident" or "accident," since those are specific aviation terms which indicate serious damage occurred to the plane and that a very serious threat existed to all on board, prior to the plane stopping within the confines of the runway. 65.37.66.77 (talk) 07:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I refer back to my post of 23:25, 1 December. L.tak's edit does not improve the article's lede for some pretty obvious reasons, and it is absolutely not an example of using clear, precise and accurate terms. It is wholly problematic infact for readers who have not already read this conversation, and are not required to read footnotes to be allowed to read a lede. MickMacNee (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Rereading that post in the context of my change and WP:LEAD: The extra info gives information on notability. It gives the suggestion of an authoritive source stating it as "serious incident"; that is interesting for the casual reader and insightfull for those with information (as I said in my post this morning). If someone wants to hear more, he checks the ref (indeed he is not required to, as no-one is obliged to do anything in this world...) otherwise he can just let it go; at least it is well referenced now. I think those are pretty good, but apparently not obvious, reasons. L.tak (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
To reiterate it yet again, because this seems to be what you are missing, Wikipedia does not write articles about trivial incidents. There is zero need at all to add this to the lede to inform about notability (as if 'uncontained engine failure' and a list of damage didn't sound serious enough ffs), and I seriously don't know what reader you have in mind that you think would be 'informed' by this without needing to read the ref. If you are changing the lede on the assumption the reader knows what the classification of a serious incident actualy is, then you are not doing it right.. This article is not written for those people, not in the slightest. Your suggestion that the casual reader should just 'let it go' if he reads something in a lede that makes him think 'wtf does that mean', is frankly disturbing, and suggest to me that you really don't know what the primary purpose of a lede actualy is. MickMacNee (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed I didn't comment on the not about trivial incidents part literally. I disagree. Wikipedia does not consider non-serious incidents notable, but the incident itself is not the only reason for notability so also the term incident can be coined in wikipedia and we have to be specific. I think it is good to use a widely accepted terminology and we should do so while clarifying it is not the colloquial term. As for not reading refs: you point out just a reading style. There are many other more browsing-oriented styles that will only go into depth (read notes/click links) when they are triggered. Assuming every page has >10 links and mostly does not consist of WP:walled gardens, it would be impossible to follow every link presented and that's not what we should be catering for (now I know we are discussing lead sections, but still, clicking every link of something your not familiar with as a general reading style?). On the interest of those knowing the term but still being interested, people who know the difference might still not know or have forgotten about this specific incident. It would be heavily OR for them just to assume the incident was serious simply becasue it is on wikipedia, so it is good to add it. L.tak (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I give up. Most of what you wrote here is frankly not even making any sense to me. You seem to have answered each point, but when I try and figure out what you mean in each sentence, I have honestly not got any idea what you really mean, and tbh, I don't even care anymore. At some point, you just have to throw your hands up, and just apologise in advance to anyone who happens to reads this as a normal reader, who is familiar with what Wikipedia is, and the English language. Frankly, I'm not convinced we are even on the same page as to what a Wikipedia lede actually is, or even how readers actually read.. I've got less than no idea whether you are expecting people to click every link, or what, or whether you understand what you've added is not actually adding any useful precision or non-presumptive specificity, or not. You've certainly just referred to OR in a way I have never seen anyone do before, for the completely irrelevant class of readers that nobody writes primarily for here, except this IP user, and below, you've tried to make the first sentence read differently to every article I've ever seen. So, I'm out. The change to 'accident' from 'serious incident' doesn't even change this, it's still as bad as it ever was, but clearly, it's never going to register with you how or why. And I really feel sorry for anyone who actually starts reading this article from the middle without having first seen the special 'classified as' precision pointer in the lede, as they try and figure out why they are reading about an 'accident'. Do you actually even intend to getting around to writing about the relevance of that awkward add-on, in the main body of the article, or is this to be just the thin end of the wedge, where gradually the lede starts to become just part 1 of a 2 part article? I've seen it before when people start making the exact same arguments, and start adding refs in the lede in the name of accuracy (not normal practice for a well written article). We have a whole section named 'how this incident was like, really significant' (again, not something that is ever done in well written articles) and it's not even mentioned in it, although now it at least does have the rather ridiculous phrase "Tom Ballantyne, a writer on Orient Aviation Magazine, described the accident as "certainly the most serious incident". At least that quote has been left intact in this drive for precision, without actually writing about the precision in the article. Maybe we should take this one step further, and capitalise each instance of the term throughout, just to be even more precise, because that is how this article is now using that term, as an actual, proper definition, which has an actual, specific definition, and not a normal word at all. This is normally fine in 95% of 'accident' articles, but not here. Anyway, like I said, you can turn this article into a Technical Annex for all I care anymore. MickMacNee (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed the Occurrence Category on the ATSB Report has changed from 'Serious Incident' to 'Accident'. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Considering the above change I would propose the wording "The failure occurred on aircraft VH-OQA,..." for the beginning of the second paragraph. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

this surprising end to this thread is making my day ;-). Go ahead I'd say L.tak (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The passengers[edit]

In the infobox it says there were 440 passengers on-board the plane. However, in the "Incident" section, it says 433 (ABC source). Which one is right? How could it be 440? HeyMid (contribs) 09:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the 'heads up', fixed the discrepancies using figures from the ATSB report. https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2010/AAIR/AO-2010-089.aspx Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

First sentence[edit]

I am unhappy with the first sentence as it states that QF32 a flight is that crashed (and have been bold to change it; but the change was reverted, so I am discussing here...). I would say QF32 is a (non notable) daily flight between Singapore and Australia. This article is on the flight that had an incident. To specify that I would like to change the lead to: Qantas Flight 32 of 4 November 2010 was a Qantas passenger flight that suffered... I can imagine with crashes the current standard is better suitable as the flightnumber after a crash is generally retired (although even there this would be more exact). However, this was not a crash, so no retirement (I guess) and therefore we have to specify what the article is about. Of course I am also open to other text suggestions solving this matter, but think it is not good to leave it as it is now... L.tak (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the current wording; it's pretty much the same way the rest of the articles on similar topics are written, and I don't see it as misleading or anything. The proposed change seems like it just complicates things. C628 (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
^What he said. MickMacNee (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The point is a bit that people don't think about this event as AF32. The name of the article is a bit fabricated as a neutral and consistent name (which is ok), but it is not the name used by the press etc to indicate the exident. Therefore when you say "QF32 was a flight that suffered...." that feels a bit weird; QF32 generally just brings you (uneventfully) to Australia. We speak about a very specific flight and my lead change would make that clear. Are there objections against doing it like I suggested (I can imagine consistency with plane crashes, but as this is not a crash...)? L.tak (talk) 08:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I also can't see any issue with the existing wording - it makes it perfectly clear that the subject of the article was the flight on 4 November 2010. It is my personal opinion, but I find your alteration less clear and actually seems to associate it more heavily with the flight number as an ongoing event rather than just the one single event which doesn't appear to be the effect you were after anyway. -- Rob.au (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, then it is apparently just me and I'll leave it at this... L.tak (talk) 09:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Shutdown of engine with fire-fighting foam[edit]

From ATSB report... https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/2888854/ao-2010-089%20preliminary%20report.pdf

"0157 Universal Coordinated Time (UTC), .. departed from runway 20 centre (20C) at Changi Airport,"

"During that 30 seconds monitoring period, at 0202, the crew" (Engine fail)

"It took about 50 minutes for the flight crew to complete all of the initial procedures associated with the ECAM messages. " (0300?)

"The aircraft touched down at 0346,"

"The passengers commenced disembarking from the aircraft... about 55 minutes after the aircraft touched down. The last passengers and cabin crew disembarked the aircraft about 1 hour later." (0600?)

"The crew continued their attempts to shut down the No 1 engine but without success. .... advised the flight crew to attempt....activating a series of circuit breakers in the equipment bay. ... not successful. Attempts were then.... starve the No 1 engine of fuel. However, due to the lack of electrical power, that was not possible. Ground engineers also attended the aircraft .... number of methods to shut down the engine, each without success."

(narrative has indications of many actions taken to shut engine down which could easily consume 30 minutes to an hour.)

"Finally, the decision was taken to drown the engine with fire-fighting foam.... The No 1 engine was reported to have finally been shut down at 0653, about 2 hours and 7 minutes after the aircraft landed."


Obviously typo, it was 3 hours and 7 minutes after the aircraft landed. 0346-0653 = 3 hours 7 minutes. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you please reduce the size of the quote (above) on the copyrighted text and link to the report (as per Wikipedia:Non-free content)? Bidgee (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Done. Feel free to delete more. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This was no Accident![edit]

I know that there's a big discussion from a while ago about the Accident section heading, but I want to look at it again. I really don't care what bureaucratic air safety bodies choose to call it, in normal English, accident implies something that was nobody's fault. That's clearly not the case. How about we correct that heading to Incident, or Event? HiLo48 (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

That you do not care about the correct nomenclature, is of no consequence. Wikipedia policy on the use of the most accurate and precise terms, especially in aviation articles, is quite clear and binding on all editors. Why the term "Accident" is the correct term, is explained in great detail above.
The word "Accident" has been used by National Aviation Accident Investigation bodies the world over, since the 1920s, to describe thousands of crashes that were caused by errors of pilots, or maintenance persons, or aircraft designers, or ATC controllers, or the failure of regulatory agencies to carry out their proper duties (many times, errors of a combination of any or all of the above).
If you wish to edit aviation accident articles, it would be helpful if you would spend some time learning about the history of this subject, so that you can avoid making any more absurd statements. 66.81.52.11 (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback and the information. I can only repeat that "in normal English, accident implies something that was nobody's fault. That's clearly not the case." It's not obvious to casual readers that the aviation industry uses its own version of English, where the meaning of this word is the opposite of the meaning in normal English usage. The snide arrogance of your response is hardly in good faith either. This is a global encyclopaedia available to be read by all people of the world, not just aviation specialists. Is there any way that non-specialist readers of these articles can be advised that they don't use normal English? HiLo48 (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree, it was a incident since the flaw was known by Rolls Royce and was hardly an accident. Bidgee (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
We have an article Aviation accidents and incidents we could link to... In that way we make our definition clear, without focussing only on an audience knowlegable in aircrashes... L.tak (talk) 12:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for posting that link, L.tak. That makes it clear that the label of "Accident," or "Incident," is properly determined by the severity of the damage in any given case, NOT by the cause/fault. As has always been the case, aviation accident investigations and reports are governed by precise rules and definitions, so that the possibility of miscommunication and misunderstanding can be avoided.
That is the problem with "normal English": Many words and phrases will mean different things to different readers. The idea put forth above - that the word "accident," means that no one is at fault - is an excellent example of why "normal English," is deliberately avoided in safety investigations, and why the investigating boards provide precise definitions for the words and phrases that they use, according to ICAO Convention.
Precise and non-ambiguous communication, so that all parties are on the same page at all times, is crucial to aviation safety, and it is also crucial to the proper understanding of aviation safety investigations and reports. Lives have been lost in aviation accidents, because of the failure to use precise and non-ambiguous nomenclature.
Wikipedia would be misleading its readers, if it tried to change precise and unambiguous aviation investigative language into so-called "normal" English. Moving from the precise language to vague and ambiguous phrases and words, will be a disservice to our readers and will injure our credibility. There are already too many news reporters that don't know a flap from an aileron; we don't need to join their ranks. 66.81.52.11 (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
But, as I have already said, the vast majority of Wikipedia readers will not be aware that the the aviation industry uses an almost opposite definition of "accident" from the one the readers know, so will be misled anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Indeed! Since when "normal English" become irrelevant? Most of the people who would read this page wouldn't understand the Aviation industry's meaning of "accident". Bidgee (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Therefore, an encyclopedia should pander to their lack of accurate knowledge? If that is a valid goal and/or argument, then I presume Wiki editors should now descend on all articles about physics, and proceed to change all the jargon nomenclature of physics, to the popular meanings of such words, so that we can expand this idea of reinforcing the ignorance of the common bloke? 66.81.53.87 (talk) 03:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

[[3]]
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)
Aviation accidents and incidents
Aviation accidents and incidents should generally be titled according to the air carrier and flight number for commercial air transport related events. In aviation, the terms "accident" and "incident" are defined in the Convention on International Civil Aviation Annex 13, and these standards should be followed in naming aviation related events.... Avoid using the informal terms "plane" or "plane crash". 66.81.53.87 (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Please don't be so arrogant, and do show a little good faith here. The simple fact is that the bulk of the readers are familiar with a perfectly reasonable meaning for accident which means it was nobody's fault. This is not ignorance, apart from in the sense that they are not aviation specialists. In fact, the common definition makes a lot more sense. It is totally accurate. Quoting rules doesn't justify them. This is an encyclopaedia for everyone, not aviation specialists. Please explain how those "ignorant" readers can get sense out of these articles. HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


The most arrogant statement in this section is this one:
"I really don't care what bureaucratic air safety bodies choose to call it,"
What is an accident site?
ANSWER:
The term accident site is defined in section 3 of the TSI Act and means any of the following sites associated with an accident:
a site containing the transport vehicle or any of its wreckage;
a site where there is an impact point associated with the accident;
if the accident involved destruction or serious damage to property
(other than the transport vehicle) - a site containing that property or
any of its wreckage; together with such area around the site as the Chief Commissioner determines to be reasonably necessary to facilitate the investigation of the accident and securing the site.
However, to be an accident site, as stated, it must be a site associated with an accident. Not all occurrences amount to the definition of an accident under the TSI Act. Section 3 defines an accident as an investigable matter involving a transport vehicle where:
a person dies or suffers serious injury as a result of an occurrence associated with the operation of the vehicle;
the vehicle is destroyed or seriously damaged as a result of an occurrence associated with a transport vehicle;
or any property is destroyed or seriously damaged as a result of an occurrence associated with the operation of the vehicle. [4]
Do you see any statement there, which indicates an accident site is an accident site, only if no one was at fault? Do civil courts allow lawsuits for damages by plaintiffs who contend the named defendants caused an accident, which inflicted damage upon the plaintiffs? Hey, couldn't the defendant defeat the lawsuit just by saying that "if I am at fault, then by definition there was no accident, therefore..."?
Obviously, such an argument by a defendant in an accident lawsuit would be quite absurd, yet it would be consistent in principle, with the argument you have offered. Repeating your absurd argument twenty more times will not cause a metamorphosis from the absurd to the erudite. 66.81.53.87 (talk) 06:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
From the perspective of this global encyclopaedia for everybody I still "don't care what bureaucratic air safety bodies choose to call it". You are ignoring all that I and others have posted here. The vast majority of readers won't understand the meaning of accident as used in this article. Do you care about that at all? HiLo48 (talk)
The proper aviation definitions of Accident and Incident, are very much global in nature, at least since the 1940s, when responsible nations around the world created ICAO|here.
I am ignoring the implicit assumption of your argument: Namely, that the average bloke is too stupid to get it, even if we include an explanatory wiki link, like this one Aviation accidents and incidents that was suggested by L.tak.
It is apparent that I have a lot more confidence in the average bloke than you do. The really stupid ones (those who refuse to expand their knowledge base, under any circumstances) are rather rare, IMHO. I also doubt that the average bloke automatically assumes that the word "accident" can only be a reference to an occurrence that is faultless. He would have to be highly isolated from newspapers, magazines, TV and radio broadcasts, to come to that kind of esoteric misunderstanding of the concept. 66.81.53.87 (talk) 08:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I can see that we're unlikely to agree on the language that would be best for the article, but c'est la vie. I've said my piece. But now I'm genuinely curious. Do you know why the aviation industry uses the word accident for events that aren't accidental? HiLo48 (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia should explain jargon. Wikipedia:JARGON#WP:JARGON. Andries (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
indeed; thanks for adding that. only the blue link in the blue box is a bit unpractical; but that is just estetics... L.tak (talk) 09:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

But what does the common term accident mean[edit]

Sorry for the delay, but I only realized yesterday that there might not even be such a big difference between the common usage and this type of usage. Just to understand each other, can we come up with a "common" definition of accident? Is a car that hits a tree because the steering is faulty in a car accident (or only if it was badly maintained? or unless the car had been called back for a factory error)? Or only a drunk driver that hits someone (or only if he knows drunk driving disturbs his judgement)? Part of it is: does "an accident" mean it was no-one's fault, or it was no-one's intention? L.tak (talk) 09:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

If the occurrence was the direct result of someone's malicious intent, then we are talking about criminal and/or terrorist activity. I would agree, under such circumstances, that "accident" would not be the appropriate term. Precisely why I object to the four airliner crashes on 911 being referred to as "accidents." Same for the 1955 destruction of UAL 629. That was no accident either. But, when causality cannot be laid at the doorstep of criminal intent, the appropriate choice of words (accident vs incident) is determined by the severity of the damage, according to ICAO Convention, subscribed to by most nations of the world. 66.81.53.87 (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I think we all agree about the ICAO frame of reference; but I am trying to establish how far that is away from "colloquial use" and would welcome some background on that. I am not a native speaker, so I have to guess, or to go by accident... L.tak (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Nearly all readers and official bodies would call this an accident, and most readers would think it was strange if it was changed to incident. An incident implies some sort of intent like a bomb or sabotage, I dont see any evidence of any delberate act against QFA32. MilborneOne (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Where is the evidence that "nearly all readers...would call it an accident"? (Just saying it doesn't make it so.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Where is the evidence that "in normal English, accident implies something that was nobody's fault"? (Just saying it doesn't make it so.) 66.81.53.218 (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

... that is exactly why I started this sub-thread to see how the discrepancy is.... I now checked webster.com and it gives: 1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of intention or necessity : chance <met by accident rather than by design> 2 a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance b : an unexpected and medically important bodily event especially when injurious <a cerebrovascular accident> c : an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which legal relief may be sought As I said, i can not determine what colloquial means, but quite some of these definitions do fit our situtation. Looking forward to your views (pref. with refs of course...)! (btw: is this an american english/BE problem/Australian English problem?)L.tak (talk) 07:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Quoted Excerpts:
Australian Airline Accident Lawyers
Airline Plane Accident - Australian Lawyers
Our airline accident lawyers have the knowledge and legal experience to pursue all types of aviation compensation claims against any responsible party including the airline, aircraft manufacturer, aeroplane parts manufacturer or the plane maintenance company. If you have suffered an injury or loss as a result of an airline accident, you should consider pursuing a claim for compensatory damages.
Knowing your rights following an aviation accident... If you have been injured or a family member has been killed in an aircraft accident, you should contact a lawyer who is experienced in this complex legal area in order to protect your rights.
Whether your plane accident has occurred on an international airline, or an Australian airline such as QANTAS, Jetstar, Virgin Blue, commercial aircraft, light aircraft or recreational aircraft, our airline accident lawyers can advise you of your rights to compensation. You may be entitled to compensation for injuries caused by aviation accidents in circumstances such as...
Airline Liability Law
Australia’s liability arrangements for airline accident compensation are contained in the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 (the ‘CACL Act’).
Our airline accident lawyers have expertise in assessing damages for a range of injuries....
If you have been injured in an airline accident, you should seek legal advice immediately. Whether your plane accident has occurred on a domestic or international flight....
Our airline accident compensation lawyers have expertise in aviation law and personal injury compensation.
The word "accident" is used in the above article 24 times. The word "incident" is used ZERO times. Nothing in the article indicates that the term "accident" means no one is at fault. Quite the opposite; there is detailed explanation about available damages, under the "strict liability" doctrine (where fault does not have to be proved) and also under the rule for damages above and beyond the strict liability cap, where fault/negligence does have to be proved. In either case, the word "accident" is used and the word "incident" is never used.
That seems to be consistent with the use of the word "accident" in newspapers, TV and radio stories about airline, auto and truck "accidents."
Quoted excerpts:
Most studies of aircraft accidents reveal not a single cause but a series of interrelated factors, events or actions that — being allowed to progress without appropriate action or intervention — lead to an unplanned termination of the flight operation.
Pilot error is a major factor in 80–90% of all accidents that result in significant aircraft damage; other human error is a major factor in most of the remainder. A study of the factors contributing to fatal general aviation accidents in Australia for the ten years up to 2000 showed that flight planning was a factor in 38% of the accidents, aircraft handling errors in 30%, and fuel starvation or fuel exhaustion in 10%.
Dr Rob Lee, the then Director of the Australian Bureau of Air Safety Investigation, wrote in 1998: "Over 40 years of investigation of General Aviation accidents by BASI and its predecessors clearly shows that while the immediate circumstances of each accident may well be unique....
Costs of Aviation Accidents in Australia -1993
• AVIATION ACCIDENTS COST AUSTRALIA $76 MILLION IN 1993
• THE COST TO THE COMMUNITY OF AVIATION ACCIDENTS IN 1993 WAS ABOUT 5 PER CENT LOWER IN REAL TERMS THAN IN 1988 MAINLY BECAUSE OF FEWER FATALITIES
• AVIATION ACCIDENTS ACCOUNT FOR JUST OVER 1 PER CENT OF TRANSPORT RELATED ACCIDENT COSTS IN AUSTRALIA
NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS
There were 320 aviation accidents in 1993. Most accidents were in the private/business sector (118 accidents), followed by air charter (43), sports aviation -ultralights, parachuting, hang gliding (42) and other aerial work (41). General aviation accounted for 46 fatalities, of which 34 were attributed to private or business aircraft.
Sports aviation claimed another 14 lives. In the low capacity regular public transport category (RPT—38 or fewer seats or a maximum payload of 4200 kg or less) there was one fatal accident (7 fatalities) and five other accidents causing 4 serious injuries and 24 minor injuries. There were no fatalities or injuries sustained in operations involving high capacity RPT aircraft.
A detailed explanation of the methodology used to produce accident cost estimates for all transport modes is provided in Report 79 (1992). The cost estimates in this information sheet are an update of the 1988 aviation accident costs presented in that report.
Thus, I see nothing in the above articles (nor in any of the many others I looked at), which would indicate that the term "accident" refers only to occurrences where no fault is involved. That is why I was amazed when that claim was posted above: I simply have never heard of that kind of interpretation in the many years that I have been reading, researching and writing about aviation accidents. And, I think that if any want to check American news sources too, the same will be found. I don't think this has anything to do with differences in Aussie Vs Yankee forms of English idiom expressions. As far as I can tell, the hordes of civil litigation in the courts of both countries, constantly refer to the "accidents" (not the "incidents"), when plaintiffs are trying to prove their injuries were caused by the negligence of the airline, its employees, the designers of airliners, etc. I am not aware of any court decision which has indicated the term "accident" is improper, when negligence is proved to be the reason why the ACCIDENT happened.
I think this provides the prima facie evidence requested, on so-called "common" usage and understanding of the term "accident." The burden now shifts to those opposed, to prove the opposite. 66.81.53.218 (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Nobody sought the kind of "evidence" you have just submitted. It was quite unnecessary. It's obvious what meaning the aviation industry places on the word accident. There is no argument. My concern all along has been that Wikipedia is not an aviation journal. Its readers are not aviation specialists. A lot of them use the word accident with a different meaning. So all your above work was a waste. Sorry.
It's obvious you cannot comprehend the simple point I have now made several times. I see little point in attempting further communication with you. Good night. HiLo48 (talk) 11:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
My, but you seem to have a very short memory... You made that request, when you said this:
"Where is the evidence that "nearly all readers...would call it an accident"? (Just saying it doesn't make it so.)" HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I supplied the evidence, so that you could no longer claim that it was only a case of just saying it is so, without any evidence. I supplied the evidence and if you want to Google it, you too can find hundreds, if not thousands of articles that refer to airliner ACCIDENTS as ACCIDENTS, regardless of whether or not fault and cause has been established. You are the one that is now saying it is so (your view), just because you keep saying it over and over and over again. You have not supplied any evidence at all to back up your claim. Instead, you just keep repeating the fallacious logic argument of petitio principii. I have news for you: You cannot prove your conclusion is correct by pointing to your premise, as if it constituted valid evidence.
Where is the evidence that "in normal English, accident implies something that was nobody's fault"? (Just saying it doesn't make it so.) 66.81.52.153 (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I doubt there is any such evidence. I consulted OED's definition of accident and did not find that meaning. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, the simple world of absolutes. Consider the expression "It was just an accident". HiLo48 (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Very intuitive, HiLo48! The very first words out of the mouth of a bloke I knew, after I asked him how he got saddled with years of child support payments, to a gal he met in a bar one night. He didn't seem to think he should be faulted for that "accident" child either, but some court disagreed. 66.81.52.37 (talk) 00:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Deadliest crashes[edit]

At the bottom of the article it has a link to other air crashes that states italics is over 50 killed, and black is the deadliest of the year. Nobody died in this one, so why is it in black? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richary (talkcontribs) 10:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The deadliest is Air India on May 22 shown in bold smallcaps. See last line "Incidents resulting in at least 50 deaths shown in italics. Deadliest incident shown in bold smallcaps."
The article one is viewing is not wikilinked, hence the black type for Qantas Flight 32. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Dramatization[edit]

Usually when "Mayday" or "Air Crash Investigation's" do an episode on a plane crash or incident a dramatization sub category is added to that flights page, since it's been announced that this incident will be one of the episode's in the upcoming season should a new section be added? Guyb123321 (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Final report[edit]

The ATSB have released the final report of their investigation into the accident. Mjroots (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I've archived it.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

blurred memory of the pilot + doubts[edit]

There is some edit warring over a text regarding the blurred memory of the pilot and thus the value of his debriefings... The statements are vague ("according to related sources" and "leading to critics believing") and I couldn't find anything in the cited source (here, searched for "blur", "critics"). Can someone help with getting the correct sources, so we can determine if this is all usable for wikipedia, and (if it is to stay) make the statement less vague and suggestive? L.tak (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Nancy-Bird Walton[edit]

The name of the plane is Nancy-Bird Walton: See http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/VH-OQA_%27Nancy-Bird_Walton%27_A380-842_Qantas_%288324049451%29.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.43.201 (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted your latest edits to the article. WP:NOTBROKEN applies, i.e. do not fix anything that is not broken. Furthermore, your changes were unsourced. WP:VERIFY is a policy. Even if you are not aware of it, you have an "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." notice at the top of any page when you click the edit button.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

See photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.186.110.162 (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Images are not reliable sources.--Jetstreamer Talk 02:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

RFPP[edit]

I've requested page protection [5]. The IPs refuse to continue using this talk page and push their preferred version of the article [6], ignoring policies and guidelines.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I am seeing progress here on talk page use. Once the comments on both sides go from single setnence statements, to a decent text block we may actually have a true talk page discussion ;-). L.tak (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The article has been protected [7]. I won't revert the last IP edit [8] until a week or so has passed in order for others to comment on the removal of content. To me, the removal is still unexplained because the paragraph is properly sourced.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Could you expand a bit on the proper sourcing? I did scan the source, but did not find it. That could be, because the source is quite long. Could you cite the part in the source that can serve as source for the section? L.tak (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
@L.tak: For the section? We only need sourcing for the removed paragraph. I also tried to find the ″all a blur″ stuff with no results. And the name Crespigny is not mentioned in the preliminary report.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I meant the paragraph indeed... But in view of the personal points made, we need a good source and more neutral language. L.tak (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Map of flight path[edit]

The flight path of Qantas flight 32 from Singapore Changi Airport

I have removed this picture from the article because of two concerns: (i) the flight path it depicts differs markedly from the one in the ATSB final report; (ii) the asterisk labeled "fuel dump" is misleading because QF32 did not dump fuel. 80.2.106.75 (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)