Talk:Saratov Airlines Flight 703

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

Location[edit]

At present there are two Russian sources for the location; the Russian Wikipedia article and Wikimapia. These coordinates are very close together. Images and video from the crash site show a row of trees in the background which probably corresponds with the row of trees in the vicinity of both sets of coordinates. However, the photos from the crash site do not have much wreckage, suggesting that further work needs do be done to pin down the location. Abductive (reasoning) 16:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

33ryantan why do you keep removing the second aircraft from the infobox? It has been reported by at least three reliable sources that I know of. Mjroots (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you can provide a registration of the helicopter then include it. I also don't see Russian Wikipedia including it in their pages.33ryantan (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The helicopter in the photos looks intact and is probably from the rescue services. Abductive (reasoning) 16:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because we don't (yet) have a registration doesn't mean we can't include it in the infobox. We have reliable sources stating that wreckge of a helicopter has been found. Do we have any reliable sources catgeorically saying that there was no mid-air collision? Mjroots (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are relying on Russian sources for information. Think about that. Abductive (reasoning) 16:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Russian News Agencies Lenta and Interfax reports the remains of a second aircraft, a helicopter, were found near the crash site, the two aircraft collided in midair. Interfax later dropped the reports of a helicopter being involved, Lenta still reports the second aircraft. Russia's Ministry of Emergency Situations confirmed flight 6W-703 crashed and was found near the village of Stepanovskoye in Ramensky district. Rescue forces including helicopters have been dispatched on site. The Ministry reported no other aircraft was found near the crash site.[1] I think this clears it all. 33ryantan (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, AH has changed its story. On the other hand, we have eyewitness evidence of the aircraft being on fire before the crash. A mid-air collision is a possible cause of that, but so are many other things. Mjroots (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://avherald.com/h?article=4b4cb236&opt=0

Reactions[edit]

I have removed the reaction section again, this is standard fare and not noteworthy, encyclopedic or relevant to the accident. Suggest that it is not added again, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MilborneOne it was added again. I removed it. Mjroots (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree these things are basically "the usual platitudes" and have no place here unless someone has something substantive to say. - Ahunt (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war[edit]

There appears to be an edit war brewing. Either it ceases, or I will lock the article at Admin level. Mjroots (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The war is over, belligerent indeffed. Mjroots (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weather[edit]

Would it be of benefit to add the METAR in force at the time - UUDD 111100Z 14006MPS 1800 R14R/1900U R14L/1800U SHSN BKN007 BKN026CB M05/M06 Q1019 R14R/590293 R14L/590392 NOSIG (source=Aviation Herald). If added, a translation would be required, but it would explain the weather better than currently. Mjroots (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was the weather at Domodedovo Airport rather than the crash location so we would need to make that clear. MilborneOne (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the crash site wasn't that far from the airport. The METAR will give a good indication of the weather in the area. Mjroots (talk) 06:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There were commercial flight deaths in 2017[edit]

That Forbes’ article used in the introduction is wrong, there were deaths in commercial flights in 2017, please check West_Wind_Aviation_Flight_280 or Nature_Air_Flight_9916. Thanks. MarcosPassos (talk)

Actually, the Forbes article takes that into account. Quote:

"The Aviation Safety Network also reported there were no commercial passenger jet deaths in 2017, but 10 fatal airliner accidents resulting in 44 fatalities onboard and 35 persons on the ground, including cargo planes and commercial passenger turbo prop aircraft.

That figure includes 12 people killed on Dec. 31 when a Nature Air Cessna 208B Grand Caravan aircraft crashed minutes after takeoff into a mountainous area off the beach town of Punta Islita, Costa Rica."

It appears to be more like the following: there were no commercial passenger jet deaths in 2017 (with the exception of two commercial turboprop plane crashes).

Is a turbo prop plane not a passenger jet? (Excuse my ignorance, I am an not an aviation expert)

YantarCoast (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, assuming that a “passenger jet” is an “aircraft powered by one or more jet engines” (and not by a turbo prop engine), I think the info is correct, then, thanks for the clarification. MarcosPassos (talk)
FTR, a "turbo prop engine" IS a jet engine, with an external propeller driven by that jet engine. EditorASC (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While it is true that both turboprops and turbojet/turbofans are forms of turbine engines, in common media use "jet engines" and turboprop engines" are non-overlapping classes of powerplant and that is how this claim is made. There were no "jet" airliner crashes in the last year, but there were "turboprop" crashes. - Ahunt (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


It seems also to me that turboprops and jets are not to be mixed, with jets having at least 20% of thrust coming through the nozzle and turboprops having virually no nozzle at all. 194.174.76.21 (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin[reply]

Once again we return to the "standard" which says Wikipedia should always parrot whatever ignorant MSM reporters say, no matter how misinformed they might be. And we wonder why Wikipedia tends to be viewed as the most inaccurate and unreliable ENCYCLOPEDIA on this planet.

Why not just admit that this isn't an ENCYCLOPEDIA at all, but just another trash tabloid publication which seeks to conform to the lowest possible denominator of human expression?

Yes, I know it has been stated numerous times that Wikipedia is not about TRUTH, but about what others have to say on a particular subject. The fly in THAT ointment, however, is that in our judging what is a "reliable source" -- which we can use to conform to our "citations required for all statements," rule -- we don't base it upon the quality, nor the accuracy of statements in the popular press, but upon some vague and unfathomable tradition which the "experts" of Wikipedia have DECLARED to be WP:RS. The very same basis upon which Galileo was convicted and forced to recant, IMHO.

THAT kind of strange concept anomaly is why this article already includes a misleading (and, IMHO qualifies as a false) statement, when it says: 

 ::"The crash followed 440 days without fatalities on commercial passenger jets worldwide; the last event was LaMia Flight 2933 on November 28, 2016.[1][2]"

Eight COMMERCIAL AIRLINER crashes are listed in our own Accidents/Incidents page for the year 2017. A combination of fanjets, turbo props and cargo flights, but they ALL were COMMERCIAL airliner flights that crashed and the result was 66 total fatalities for the year 2017.

If any have ever bothered to read comments by fearful flyers in those kinds of forums, they are not concerned with misleading distinctions between turbo props and fan jets, when it comes to the actual risk they might incur, when traveling on any commercial airline flight. They are rightly concerned with ALL commercial airline flights, not just ones that are powered with "jet" engines as opposed to jet engines with propellers on them.

In short, the distinction between "jets" and "turbo props" is facile at the least and a blatant falsehood at its worst, when we are talking about how long it has been since anyone has lost their lives as a result of a crash of ANY commercial airliner. EditorASC (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence in question has been edited several times; at the point you copied the sentence to here it had been edited so that it was unclear that the subject criterion was fatal crashes of jet airliners, yesterday it said that "the previous fatal commercial passenger jet crash was LaMia Flight 2933 in November 2016". Now the sentence once again clearly states that there hadn't been a fatal jet airliner accident for 440 days. Most people would never fly in a turboprop in their lives, so the distinction is a valid one. YSSYguy (talk) 05:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Valid points of discussion -- up until the last sentence. I have read enough of your Wikipedia commentary over the years to conclude you don't really think your last comment is logically valid. That is why I view it as a legitimate form of hyperbole... (Actual world total of 6.2 million turbo prop flights, in 2015)
While I agree that many travelers might prefer to fly on a fan jet regional airliner Vs a turbo prop -- if they are given a choice between those two -- the fact remains that millions do fly on turbo props each year.
Airlines use them for short haul routes because the break-even load factors are much lower for regional TPs than for FJs, AND because maintenance costs and fuel burn per RPMs, are significantly lower too. Factors like that give confidence to Flight Global's forecast that more and more passengers will fly on them in the future (a 11% increase over 20 years -- total of 833 more turbo prop airliners than are in service now), so it is hard to understand what relevance there is to how much thrust is provided from the tail pipe of a fan jet, vs that of a turbo prop. That argument is as irrelevant as one which claims most folks will never fly on one.
The real question should be:
"Why is there any need at all for that kind of vague and misleading statement in the lead?"
Does it really contribute to this article about this accident? If so, will we be putting in such a statement in each new crash article from now on?
The reason it is there is because some ignorant reporters (who usually don't know an aileron from a flap) have phrased it that way in their attempts to increase the sensationalism of their articles, in hopes of gaining more attention on the Internet. If one reads the entire citation articles, it will be noted they were inconsistent in what they said in various parts of those articles.
In the first part it said "Airlines recorded zero accident deaths in commercial passenger jets last year." But, is "commercial passenger jet" defined in those articles? Definitely not. Then, it changes to: "making 2017 the safest year on record for commercial air travel." Does that mean passengers who buy tickets on turbo props are NOT engaging in "commercial air travel?" Contradictory, meaningless and thus absurd.
It then goes on to give the numbers for "fatal accident rate for "large" [LARGE] commercial passenger flights. What, constitutes "large," when talking about "commercial passenger flight?" If it is a reference to airliners that have more than 100 seats, then that eliminates the Regional Jet, AN-148, which has seating from 68–85, depending upon what version of that plane. The largest regional ATR-72 has 78 seats.
As is par for the course for so many news media articles on airliner crashes, the article is incredibly sloppy and uses various contradictory phrases to tell its story.
The solution, IMHO, is to dump that entire vague, sloppy statement. It adds nothing of value to the article, especially since many folks are likely to misinterpret what it says. EditorASC (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In reading what many MSM outlets have written on this subject and most of them have got it wrong, I tend to agree with you that we would be better off just omitting this claim from this article. - Ahunt (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LaMia 2933 was a special sport team charter and the decision not to stop for gas was at least partially due to this. Can I propose that the definition should be a random person being able to go online and buy an A to B airline ticket, then board the plane and be killed. It is unlikely that this random person is going to research if the plane is a turbo-prop or a jet. By that definition I’d say the previous event to this one was Pakistan International 661 at 431 days. A standard use definition could be “bookable flight” as opposed to an “arranged flight” like LaMia or Nature 9916. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:285:4080:26F5:B48B:CD5B:B1C4:A46B (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well by that definition the last fatal crash was probably West Wind Aviation Flight 280 on 13 December 2017, so less than a month before this accident. If that is the case then we should just remove the claim entirely, as it is too short a time period to be notable. - Ahunt (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know someone later died, so yes, I'd agree with you, Ahunt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:285:4080:26F5:B48B:CD5B:B1C4:A46B (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that was a turboprop aircraft, not a turbojet aircraft. Stop getting the two confused. Mjroots (talk) 08:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:EditorASC made the point above that the public doesn't differentiate between the two and the MSM constantly confuse them as well, that an airliner is an airliner, which I think has some validity. - Ahunt (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Can we all agree that the image in the infobox of the aircraft in Saratov Airlines livery is sufficient. The addition of an image of the aircraft in its earlier livery causes issues as there is not really room for it along with the map and other media. Mjroots (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree but I dont think the first map actually adds anything to the article as the accident was so close to the starting point. MilborneOne (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, agree with you both. - Samf4u (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any source about the "raid"?[edit]

"The office of Saratov Airlines was raided in response to the disaster."
Is there any source? A weird and somewhat significant claim, I can't find anything with a simple Google search in English or Russian.--Adûnâi (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This Interfax story? Mjroots (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That story sounds like just routine impoundment of documents, nothing about "a raid". - Ahunt (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Passengers[edit]

Sources say 1 passenger was from Kazakhstan but the list List of passengers and crew of Antonov An-148 flight 6W703 Domodedovo – Orsk in externa links does not show the passenger. Or does it? BTW Kazan is not in Kazakhstan. WikiHannibal (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair warning[edit]

The next editor who alters the fatalities/survivors fields in the infobox will be blocked indefinitely. I've had more than enough of this silliness. IT STOPS HERE AND NOW! Mjroots (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crash coordinate correction need[edit]

55°17'57.7"N 38°24'18.2"E 55.299361, 38.405056 Exact coordinate http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2018/02/12/16/49235A4C00000578-5379925-image-a-64_1518451976394.jpg 90.154.141.204 (talk) 09:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pitot[edit]

Pitot tube says it's named after Henri Pitot and that article capitalizes it. Here, however, Pitot gets repeatedly lowercased, although it was pointed out that as a surname it should be capitalized. Could someone clarify the issue? Brandmeistertalk 23:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford English Dictionary uses pitot with a lowercase p. Andrewgprout (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidences of the date of the Saratov Airlines Flight 703 accident[edit]

The Shrove Sunday of 2018, a World Day of the Sick, was the day of the Saratov Airlines Flight 703 accident. This commemorative date was the day of this tragedy. Injust reversion! 2804:18:101A:A94A:1:0:806E:3BF0 (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So what? The day of the crash was also the 100th birthday of Russian general Alexey Kaledin. If you want to see what other events happened on that same day in history see February 11 - there are lots. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we don't report unconnected events as if there is some connection. If you really think this needs to be included then you will need to cite a reliable source that shows that the two dates are connected as per WP:PROVEIT. - Ahunt (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saratov_Airlines_Flight_703&oldid=1210969543"