Talk:2009 Iranian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 accident

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

July 2011[edit]

Recent edits to this article have left it in an unacceptable state. I suggest that the article be reverted to this version, which is how I left it this morning. I am happy to discuss any issues with that version of the article. I would say that the Huffington Post reference I deleted contains the videon from You Tube, which also appeared in the second of the Daily Mail references. Mjroots (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more, but I, too, reverted once already. I'd just roll back the whole thing and then we can discuss any possible changes. As of now, it's a mess. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to ask for more eyes on this at the relevant WPs. As this has now turned into a dispute, I'm not going to do any more reverting myself either, per WP:EW. Mjroots (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read Urdu, either, but how you get a detached radome without a midair, IDK. Even Sov designers aren't that incompetent. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You get it without a mid-air in the same way as a detached wing on an An-148 (see 2011 Antonov An-148 crash) and engine separation without mid-air impact on American Airlines Flight 191. No Urdu needed - with poor maintenance or structural failure, things fall off from time to time. However, it is known that the pilot called a Mayday because of an engine fire. Next is pure conjecture on my part, but I suspect the aircraft was put into an attitude outside of the permitted flight envelope because of the loss of the engine causing severe wind forces on the randome. This is probably what caused it to part from the airframe and leading to it severing the tail. Farawayman (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Poor maintenance should have occured to me. :( :( (Alaska Airlines & the faulty jackscrew, anyone?) Thx for clearing it up for us dummies. ;p TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huffington Post source[edit]

This is the Huffington Post source, previously removed from the article. Mjroots (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The video itself only shows the aftermath of the accident. It comments that the You Tube commentary states that the radar dome detached, striking and removing the tail fin (which is clearly missing from the aircraft in the video). Whilst YouTube is not in and of itself a WP:RS, I've no reason to dispute the statement that the radar dome detached from the aircraft, collided with, and removed the tail fin, causing loss of control of the aircraft and the subsequent crash. What that source does not state is the reason that the radar dome detached from the aircraft. Others sources state that there was a mid-air collision. It is entirely possible that the mid-air collision removed the radar dome, leading to the sequence of events described. Until such evidence is produced that this was the actual sequence of events, we are straying into WP:SYNTH territory if we claim this was the actual sequence of events.
However, we can attribute the statement on You Tube via the HP reference, leaving the reader to make up their own mind as to the exact sequence of events in the absence of a formal report by the Iranian military into the loss of the aircraft available freely on the internet (It's not going to happen, is it?). Mjroots (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you propose sounds reasonable. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll point out that this version of the article, which is Xonus' last edit to it, contains this reference to the Daily Mail website. That link states explicitly, both in the text and in the included video that the crash was the result of a mid-air collision, although Xonus omits that from the article. I also note that Xonus has still not arrived at this talk page to discuss the substance of his edits. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As we don't know what time zone Xonus is in, I'm not too concerned about that for the moment. Give it 24-48 hours before we decide that Xonus is not likely to be contributing to the discussion.
Contrary to Xonus's claim at ANI, there was no uncited information in the article for Xonus to delete. There was plenty of uncited information after Xonus had finished editing the article, although sources exist for said information.
I've created a temporary version of the article, from the revision I mentioned above. To that revision, I've added in material from the Huffington Post, with the actual You Tube text as quoted by the HP. I've also mentioned that the Daily Mail carried the video, and stated that this was the result of a mid-air collision.
Therefor I propose that the current article be replaced with the text of the temporary article. Mjroots (talk) 05:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and if Xonus doesn't show up, I'll do just that when the sun rises (AZ time). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I firmly believe that the article should be reverted to its previous state but I think that the F5 collision part of the account is speculation and should be omitted. The most definitive citation used is Aviation Safety which makes no reference to a mid-air collision and neither does NY City Aviation website. All the sources (mostly newspapers) which quote a collision say that it is "speculated that...."
An F5 striking the randome with sufficient force to cause it to part from the mounting would most likely not have survived the impact itself - and there are no accounts of a downed F5. A video of the crash site can be found here [1]. Farawayman (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you say above, putting the 'plane into an attitude its not meant to be in would cause the radome to come away. What if the fatal manoeuvre was as a result of trying to avoid a collision , or if the other plane clipped a control surface which caused it to go into the wrong attitude as a result of which the radome came away and finished the job. All speculation of course. All we seem to have is that the some sources (possibly working from the same initial information) have made a link with another aircraft. ASN quotes "Mehr News" and a blog for its sources. I did have a look at Flight but didn't find a mention of the incident there. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you will see from the history, I wrote the original article. It may be that the sources have changed since they originally reported the accident but I would say that I am not in the habit of deliberately misrepresenting sources or indulging in Original Research when writing articles. The Daily Mail is a RS, and it does mention the possibility of a mid-air collision. Other sources that state a collision are Worldtribune, Arabian Aerospace, Live Leak as well as numerous blogs and other non=RSs. Mjroots (talk) 12:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should simply disregard the bad-faith accusations hurled at you by one person who turned out to be a liar to boot; no-one here says you deliberately misrepresented anything. Maybe something new has come up since you wrote that version, new evidence has surfaced or whatnot, and that's all we're trying to figure out at this point. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to try and rewrite the article to take into account the conflicting sources. The You Tube video quote from the HP is the description taken from the Aviation Safety Network webpage on the accident. Mjroots (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, both cases (over-manoeuvreing and mid-air collision) are now given due coverage. What is the provenance of Live Leak as a source? There is a linked page on the webpage linked to above which could be used to add more material, but I want to be sure that the source is good enough to use before doing so. Mjroots (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

This appears to be the site, if not the actual post, that the Air Safety Network uses as one of its sources http://www.uskowioniran.com/2009/09/iran-air-force-il-76-crash-details-and.html

NYC Aviation has this - http://nycaviation.com/2011/04/video-iran-air-force-il-76md-awacs-plane-crashes-during-2009-military-parade/

The former reports "engines" on fire, the later mentions a collision. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the reports appear to be either an interpretation of the video of the crash scene on the ground and the more common one from the ramp of the tanker. Most of it appears to be original research we have no idea that the aircraft in the tanker video is the Il-76 or that it was taken on that day, it looks like a big aircraft falling to the ground, but other than that it is possibly guess work. How many hard facts from reliable sources have we actually got, very little from what I can see. So the fact the accident happened is probably true or why show it on Iranian TV but the aircraft type is not clear from either video or the state of the aircraft. Any reason why the inflight video has been released but nothing else has been seen? Are we sure it was the Il-76 5-8208! Perhaps we should just state that the accident did happen and just suggest that a number of causes have been speculated (with sources), collision, engine failure, structural failure or a combination of all three. To be neutral it may be better to rename the article 2009 Iranian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 accident (crash is a bit tabloid). MilborneOne (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That title is a good one, seeing as there is doubt as to whether or not there was a mid-air collision. Let's get agreement on the content of the article first, and rid of the terrible version that currently occupies mainspace. Then we can make the move, and sort out the double redirects etc. Mjroots (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree no reason why the article cant be updated first then we can gain consensus on the name. MilborneOne (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"original research" coming from reliable sources is not wp:OR ("The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists") Bulwersator (talk) 07:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Beg to differ but some journalist watching a video and making up a story is original research whatever the source and can only be reported as a reliable source thinks that this may/probably happened because we watched the video. MilborneOne (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on[edit]

Are we agreed that 2009 Iranian Air Force mid-air collision/temp is now in a fit state to replace the current article? If any changes are to be made, we have two options. Either suggest them here, and I will make the changes (other admins, please do not edit the page, see WP:AN#Request for explanation), or the text can be moved back into mainspace when normal editing can resume. Mjroots (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider mentioning (If we can find a reliable citation - I think I read this in Air International) that the aircraft was no longer in use in an AWACS role because of lack of spare parts, but was being used as a transporter (with the rotordome still fitted). Farawayman (talk) 07:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources I've found indicate that the aircraft was AWACS capable, having had a new Iranian-built radar system fitted the previous year. Mjroots (talk) 07:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the paragraph about the video, the sentence "The appearance of the video was reported in the Huffington Post. The Daily Mail also reported the appearance of the video" is wholly redundant. That's what footnotes are for. The rest of the article looks in fairly good shape. --Giuliopp (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've given those two sentences a minor rewrite. Mjroots (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really think this needs to be moved into mainspace so other people can edit as well; effectively, this thing has been on full protection and only Mjroots is allowed to edit. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sooner it is in mainspace, the sooner othere can contribute. In the meantime as it stands it implies that Huffington Post goes with the collision theory which it doesn't. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it's fully protected is so that I can do a cut and paste job without needing to worry about attribution. OK, I'll revert the article to the last time I edited it, then c&p the new info in, at which point it's open house. Then I can delete the /temp page. Mjroots (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason was understood. Thanks for moving it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

duplicate[edit]

"following excessive manoeuvreing following" Bulwersator (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT - changed to "due to excessive manoeuvreing following". The artice is available for all to edit constructively. Mjroots (talk) 05:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"This user is able to contribute with an intermediate level of English." - my English is not good enough to fix it :( Bulwersator (talk) 10:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! be bold, have a go. Practice makes perfect, and nobody minds errors in a good faith attempt to improve things. You should see what happened when I wrote an article for nl-Wiki, and I'm only nl-2! The beggars ripped it apart and stuck it back together again! Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

As we cannot be 100% sure that a mid-air collision occurred, although the majority of sources point to this being the cause, I propose we adopt the title suggested by MilborneOne above - "2009 Iranian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 accident" and that the article be moved to that title. Mjroots (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two separate incidents: Adnan and F5[edit]

There is a very interesting personal account of a witness to the crash here [2]. Reliability unknown! However this account states that the Adnan went down because of a detached rotodome while the F5 crashed in a separate incident during the same air show. This could be what lead to the speculation of the two having collided. Farawayman (talk) 05:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The waters get murkier - and that would give us "2009 Iranian Air Force crashes" or "2009 Iranian Air Force flypast crashes" (to paraphrase Wilde "to lose one would be misfortune, to lose two looks like carelessness"). However, if its gone this long without further details, we can't expect much more now. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the F-5 crashed separately, that would be a non-notable military accident. As it happened during the same event, it could get a "piggyback" mention in this article. The loss of the AWACS-capable Il-76 is a notable military accident, and should be the focus of this article. Mjroots (talk) 10:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I note that one post states there if further info on the ACIG.ORG website - which is possibly acig.info. Mjroots (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_Iranian_Air_Force_Ilyushin_Il-76_accident&oldid=1196545480"