Talk:Aeroflot Flight 593

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleAeroflot Flight 593 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 6, 2021Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 29, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a child in command of the controls crashed an airplane, killing all seventy-five occupants on impact?
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 23, 2010, March 23, 2018, March 23, 2021, and March 23, 2024.

Citations[edit]

The account given in the article actually appears to be from the episode of "Air Crash Investigation" (mentioned at bottom of page) in which this flight was shown, but as far as I know, there's no real way to show that this is true. I'm not too sure on the reliability of the show, but it did also mention the reason the plane dived was due to a safety mechanism trying to prevent the plane from stalling, and not due to the actions of the co-pilot/captain's son. Again, don't know quite how to cite this, though. --Jsloan31 10:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As well, the show stated that the son was not in control when it crashed. Initally, the G-Forces were too high for the captain to take over, but once the co-pilot had the plane climbing, the Captain pushed the son out of the way and sat back down. WestJet


"45-degree bank ... twice as heavy?" This is incorrect. In constant-altitude turn, a 45-degree bank results in 1.41g (sqrt(2)). A 60-degree bank is a 2.0g turn. As an aside, the AirDisaster reference cites 4.8g, but this occurred later in the flight, not during the initial turn. --203.14.101.3 21:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The figures provided by 203.14.101.3 is correct. But only when the aircraft is staying level. If in climb, Load factor (G) will be higher, lower in descent. En51cm 03:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only for when those on the plane would feel only vertical (into their seat) gs. That may not have happened; all would depend on the airspeed and radius of the turn. Baccyak4H 17:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Guy with the IP 203.14.101.3 is right. Total reaction(lifting force generated by wings)x cos45 = Weight(1G), so Total reaction = 1G/(cos45) = 1.41G. However the aircraft at the time might not have been flying constant altitude(eg desending etc) just like the guy said. en51cm

National Geographic Channel has another dramatization of this event as part of their Air Emergency series, titled Kid in the Cockpit. Broadcast in the U.S. begins 10 July 2006. —QuicksilverT @ 02:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The series of events in the cockpit as currently written in the article don't match very well with what I've been reading elsewhere. I'm beginning to copyedit to improve the grammar and such, but I think the accuracy of the events, as described so far, is questionable. Don't be too surprised if some changes are coming, once I find time to cite reputable sources. - Itsfullofstars 03:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Language[edit]

The language in the main article is unclearly written, with slight gramatical incorrectnesses... Should be changed. --67.49.215.31 02:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence appears in the article: "Unlike his sister, Eldar applied enough force to the steering column to contradict the autopilot for 30 seconds." I believe it ought to say "yolk" or "stick" rather than "steering column." David F (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Yolk"? :D Kar98 (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Airbuses have sidesticks, not yokes or columns. knoodelhed (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's true of the newer variants, but in this case (A310) it was indeed equipped with a control column or "yolk". Tkbrett (✉) 20:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't egg him on. Captain Quirk (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um, was it the child of the relief pilot or the captain?!?: "..his increased the g-force on the pilots and crew, making it impossible for the Captain to replace his son at the controls." Phobal (talk) 07:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Operator of the aircraft[edit]

This is a little known fact, and is one which I will properly reference in the coming days, as I am waiting upon the book arriving from Moscow. Aeroflot was not the operator of the aircraft, nor were the crew members employees of Aeroflot. In order to import the aircraft into Russia, Aeroflot set up a subsidiary which was known as RAL Russian Air Lines. All aircraft and crews belonged to RAL, whilst all RAL operations were on behalf of Aeroflot. I will be writing more on this in the near future as part of edits to Aeroflot --Russavia 11:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably why the aircraft had a French registration then - I did wonder.
The relevant Air Crash Investigation episode on the accident is on YouTube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfF6-MYZB2s&feature=related

This "fact" is "little known" because it's not true. Another "conspiracy theory"? What I especially like is "I did wonder". Well, wonder no longer. RAL stands for Russian Airlines, which IS Aeroflot. The full name of the company is (and has been since 1991) "Aeroflot - Russian Airlines". The airplane had French registration to avoid paying the enormous import duties, which at the time amounted to 80% of the cost. Most Aeroflot (as well as other Russian operators) airliners these days have Bermuda registration for the same reason.

PS I wonder if you received "the book arriving from Moscow"? For Pete's sake, it's been decades since the cold war is over but you still think we have bears walking in the streets? GOSH! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo711 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't they shut off the autopilot?[edit]

I've watched the "Kid in cockpit" Mayday-Episode and read the article, both of which state that if the pilots had taken their hands off the controls, the plane would have levelled itself out. Alternate solution: What about shutting off the autopilot completely? It seems three "people" were "flying" the plane simultaneously when it crashed, with the human "pilots" only controlling the ailerons. The co-pilot should have been able to control the plane any time once he'd shut down the autopilot and told the kid to take his hands off. Am I right? I wonder why that never occured to the pilots, or was it just left out of the documentary? 88.217.73.30 (talk) 13:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The auto-pilot was already off, in case you didn;t notice in the episode it talks about an alarm sounding indicating that the auto-pilot was turning off. the reason the plane would have levelled out if the pilots let go was that the plane has a built in survival mechanism that will do it's best to save the plane from a stall, but the pilots were not informed of this during training. 80.6.71.220 (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, this article, as well as the episode of Mayday on which it was based, lets the pilots off WAY too easy. Some of Airbus' design decisions, strange though they may seem, are an insignificantly small factor in this crash compared to the bad judgment, lousy stick-and-rudder skills, and just plain negligence displayed by the flight crew. Had the NTSB investigated this accident, they would have fried these hacks for the dumb things they did. Letting your unlicensed friend or family member take the controls in a small plane is one thing, but letting a 15-year-old fly an airliner full of passengers is stupid, stupid, STUPID. Then, when the captain let his kid fly the plane, why wasn't either pilot paying enough attention to what the kid was doing to notice that the airplane was entering a steep turn? Why did the co-pilot have his seat slid so far back he couldn't reach the controls? Then when they realized they were in trouble, the idiocy only got worse. When the autopilot fails or it does something unexpected that looks dangerous, TURN IT OFF. When an airplane nears a stall attitude, push the nose DOWN, not up. When the plane is in a steep dive, reduce power, don't firewall the power levers. How could such experienced pilots make so many mistakes and cost so many lives and not be judged for it? Shreditor (talk) 08:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It sure was stupid. But what ELSE do you from DEAD people, Shreditor? They made a lot of stupid things. Even thought I'm Russian and usually quite sensitive about people talking bad about Russians, but I'm with you on this one. But, just like in ANY major disaster, this one was caused not by one but by a whole sequence of factors. Both pilots were too far from the controls, nobody was watching the kid. Actually, I think the episode let off the BOY way too easy. Daddy let you sit at the yoke? Fine. Shut up, SIT and be quiet. He wasn't the first (and not even the 1000th) Soviet/Russian boy who was allowed to do that - I had several friends, whose dads were pilots, and each and every one of them flew with their fathers and sat in the cockpit. But none of them tried to actually pilot the plane. WHY in the name of everything that's holy, did he try to overforce the autopilot? That's what really bothers me. He was 15, not 5. WHY did he do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo711 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the Air Crash Investigation (or Mayday is some areas) episode it reveals at the end that if the crew had just let go of the controls while the aircraft was attempting to stall it would have recovered itself. The Russian investigators discovered this themselves in the Airbus simulator at Toulouse.

Unbroken bottles of champagne? Oxygen Mask?[edit]

In the Air Crash Investigation episode of this crash at one point they mention a flight attendant still wearing an oxygen mask and also unbroken bottles of champagne.. They never come back to these points for the rest of the episode so is it just because they are irrelevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.41.130 (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Sourcing for protocol changes[edit]

An assertion has been added that this crash sparked outrage in the aviation community, and caused significant changes to flight deck protocol and sterile cockpit environments. I've asked for sources that verify these assertions. A Times article was added that was generally about Russian aviation mentioning this flight, but doesn't verify the assertions. We then have some youtube video of unknown source which also doesn't verify the material, and may not even meet WP:RS standards. Tagging with {{cn}} does not mean that I think the statement is false. What it does mean is that these are strong assertions about the outcome of the crash and needs sourcing to meet wikipedia's policy of verifiability. Sticking in sources about the flight, but that do not verify the assertions isn't useful. -- Whpq (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok, so delete it Phobal (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When did the autopilot disengage?[edit]

The article states: "After the plane banked to 90 degrees, the remaining functions of the autopilot tried to correct its plummeting altitude by putting the plane in an almost vertical ascent, nearly stalling the plane." What is the source for this? The AP disengage warning sounded a good time before then, according to the CVR. I believe the official investigation concluded that the first officer had control of the plane when it stalled. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Latest edits made by EurovisionNim[edit]

Rather than reverting again the unexplained edits made by EurovisionNim (talk · contribs), I will let this go for a week or so and will allow other users to post their comments regarding the matter. As to reliability, it's clear that YouTube cannot be over Flightglobal. Furthermore, the changes the user has been making had no sources at all. A reference was provided in the above diff, but an inline citation has not been attached. After the week had passed, the modifications will be reverted unless otherwise specified. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No comments received in a week. I've proceeded to revert the above edit accordingly, as per WP:SILENCE.--Jetstreamer Talk 16:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final accident report[edit]

I would like to confirm that this is the final accident report:

I want to find an English version too WhisperToMe (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has the registration number of the plane so I think this is the report. A Russian speaker would be needed to go through it in depth. In the meantime I want to see if somebody made an English version. I wish the MAK/IAC would post a copy on its website. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An aircraft nearly stalled versus stalled...[edit]

This [1] edit has been reverted, as the source added does not support the facts. <ref name="ASN" /> says "The bank continued to 90deg, the aircraft pitched up steeply with +4,8g accelerations, stalled and entered a spin." This is in contradiction with "the remaining functions of the autopilot tried to correct its plummeting altitude by putting the plane in an almost vertical ascent, nearly stalling the plane". Nearly stalling a plane does not mean the plane effectively stalled. Furthermore, there is no mention in the ASN reference that the autopilot took the actions described in the text firstly quoted. This is original research.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Nearly stalled" is certainly incorrect as the plane crashed which means stall. Ruslik_Zero 20:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... you can crash a plane in a multitude of ways that do not involve a stall. That's a pretty weak assertion. -- 145.228.61.5 (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found this YT video that combines FDR animation and CVR audio. Perhaps this sheds some more light on it. -- 145.228.61.5 (talk) 11:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CVR Transcript[edit]

I removed the CVR transcript—which seems to make up the bulk of this article—because it seemed un-encyclopedic to include it based upon the direction given at WP:LONGQUOTE. Samf4u added it back, but I am unconvinced that it does still not violate WP:LONGQUOTE. Looking at relevant FAs in the aviation accident category, it seems that my assumptions were correct and that it is not standard to include overly long quotations from the CVR (For example. see GOL1907 or UAL93). Unless good reasons are given as to why it is better for us to go against the WP:MOS, it should be removed. Tkbrett (✉) 16:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the removal.--Jetstreamer Talk 16:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see the transcript stay because it helps me to understand better what happened in the cockpit that day. We could remove it and have an external link to it but it's much handier to have it right in the article. I believe most readers would not go the trouble to find it and miss out on reading it. - Samf4u (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to WP:LONGQUOTE, "Quotes shouldn't replace plain, concise text. Intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations instead of constructing articles out of quotations with little or no original prose." The article for UAL93 does a fantastic job of this, using sources to explain exactly what was said on the CVR without simply quoting it in bulk. Doing the same here could prove effective, so long as secondary sources as used (otherwise things may move into original research if you are interpreting the transcript yourself). Tkbrett (✉) 17:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the section again given the discussion above. Tkbrett (✉) 04:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the full CVR transcript is inappropriate, in this case. If miscommunication among the flight crew or ATC had played a part in the accident (as it did e.g. in the Tenerife disaster), then it would make sense to quote in full the relevant portions of the recording, but all it does here is adding a dramatic effect that the article doesn't need.--Deeday-UK (talk) 07:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinions but I do agree with Samf4u as we don’t want people to have trouble finding the transcript. The 1996 Air Africa Crash uses lengthy quotes (even though it’s not a CVR transcript) and the article brings up the lengthy quotes issue, while on other aviation disaster articles that have the CVR transcript, it does not. Plus, they don’t use the quote template for said transcript. If they did, then it would be violating WP:LONGQUOTE. If you still disagree we can compromise is using parts of the transcript that are considered important. Or make the accident section look like UA93. In fact we can do that with a lot of articles. Plus, we even can make it collapsible. Tigerdude9 (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tigerdude9, I can't make much sense of your arguments. 1996 Air Africa crash is another example that violates WP:LONGQUOTE: there's absolutely no reason why all that copied-pasted information should not be summarized into plain text. The CVR transcript from Flight 593 is a litany of half sentences and exclamations that don't convey any meaningful information. It just makes the article more dramatic, but this is an encyclopedia, not an episode from Mayday. Also, whether some quoted text is inside a template or not is irrelevant, and of the two sources removed by the last revert, one is in the External links, the other is a Russian book that is redundant, since the current sources seems more than enough. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have to re-state my position on this and back pedal a little. Only encyclopedic content should exist and the transcript is too dramatic to be included in the article in it's entirety. It would be best if someone could inhale the transcript, pick out the most pertinent parts and regurgitate it (gross) in a plain text format. I'll give it a go but it may be several weeks before I can get good enough to add. - Samf4u (talk)

Nations[edit]

According to the Russian and Chinese articles there were 52 Russians, 6 Chinese, 6 Hong Kongners, 5 Taiwanese, 4 Brits, one Indian, and one American. But I can't find its source. 73.87.74.115 (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No sources, no changes.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is no sources. I am just saying how did they know who was on board without a freaking source? 73.87.74.115 (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should go to those specific language Wikipedias and ask there.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about you ask them where they found that source(s). 73.87.74.115 (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You started this thread, not me. I'm not interested in those Wiki articles.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/23/world/75-dead-in-a-crash-of-a-russian-airbus-on-hong-kong-run.html How about this? TrueLightningStriker (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Policy changes?[edit]

Reading this article for the first time, I found myself left with a question: since the accident appears to have been caused by having children in the cockpit, did this result in any policy changes at the airline or industry level related to having non-crew, particularly children, on the flight deck? 70.73.90.119 (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have the same questions. Also, was the pilot found guilty? Was any condemnation issued, license revoked (posthumously)? Did anyone, officially, say the pilot or the crew made a mistake? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, why did you ask me to comment here? I'm slightly confused. MEisSCAMMER(talk)Hello! 12:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I got you confused with the main author here, I probably meant User:Thanoscar21? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, hi! As far as I know, no, there weren't any policy changes. To quote, "The airline originally denied that the children were in the cockpit". Back then, Aeroflot, as the flag carrier of Russia, was given a lot of leeway, for example, in Aeroflot Flight 6502, the pilot-in-command made a bet with his copilot that he could do a blind landing. He failed, the plane crashed, and it killed 70/94 passengers. The pilot lived, served six years in prison, and is now a free man. Aeroflot was known as "Aero-flop" back then, simply because the USSR/Russian government didn't really care about what happened there. Thanoscar21talk, contribs 12:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanoscar21, Interesting. Was there no public condemnation of the 'no changes' or such, even in international press or by the International aviation bodies? It would be good to add to the article a sentence that 'no policy changes were made', if there's a source for this. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, as far as I know, no. However, family members of the victim did file a lawsuit, but I can't find anything on the outcome of the lawsuit. Thanks, Thanoscar21talk, contribs 12:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were no policy changes regarding non-crew on flight deck, because letting unauthorized persons into the cockpit and giving them access to flight controls was already a gross violation of every applicable policy. The MAK report did issue a recommendation for a system to "increase cockpit discipline in flight and to organize effective monitoring of compliance with flight procedures". According to a pilot interview mentioned here, they started locking cockpit doors after the incident (probably not a reliable source on policy change).
  • A criminal investigation was closed due to death of all suspects (posthumous trials were not a thing in Russia at the time). Pilot error / distraction in the cockpit is the official cause of the crash, so I guess that counts as official admission of a mistake by the crew. Aeroflot also admitted this once the voice recording was made public.
  • The flight manual and crew training program of the A310 were amended to mention the fact that applying a certain force to the control column will partially disengage the autopilot (this is mentioned in in the "Kid in the Cockpit" episode of Mayday several times near the end).
  • The lack of an audible signal in this situation violated Soviet/Russian airworthiness policy, but was apparently only a recommendation internationally. [2] It would appear that a sound warning was added later because of this, but I can't find a reliable source for that. The MAK report issued a recommendation to implement a program for checking compliance of foreign-made aircraft to Russian standards of airworthiness[3] (which was done in 2003[4]).
  • According to this article, this lack of audible signal was grounds for some foreign relatives to sue Airbus for damages. According to this these relatives received "substantial economic recoveries" as a result of a settlement. The 1996 Kommersant article states that the Russian lawsuit against Aeroflot resulted in the company paying damages to relatives, but some relatives demanded greater amounts, prolonging the court proceedings. The exact amount of payouts was disputed and unclear. Aeroflot officials claimed that all plaintiffs received 20000$ plus various material expenses, except for those who demanded more. The plaintiffs' lawyer disputed this at that time, apparently only 4000-10000$ were offered. In this 2019 article the lawyer says that eventually everybody got a compensation as a result of out-of-court settlements as well, with many receiving smaller amounts.--illythr (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Aeroflot Flight 593/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 22:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

That's all I have. What a tragic accident, especially when you read that leaving the whole thing to itself would have worked out... On hold. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man, all fixed. Thanks, Thanoscar21talk, contribs 16:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanoscar21 I think you'd better check the others, a spot check on another archive URL linking to webcitation.org failed too, they all need to be replaced. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man, archive.org hasn't archived ref 9, and the webcitation.org still works, so I've kept that. Ref 16, I've changed it to archive.org, but there, the sidebar and everything comes up, but the page itself is blank. I've changed everything else to archive.org. Thanks, Thanoscar21talk, contribs 16:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks, I think that's it. Cheers, promoting to GA. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man, thanks for your time and responsiveness! Thanoscar21talk, contribs 14:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanoscar21 you're welcome, I enjoyed reading the article. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Thanoscar21 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • Thanoscar21, Date, size, refs, all GTG. No QPQ which does not seem required as I didn't find any evidence of DYKs on user's talk (ping User:BlueMoonset - can you double-check this?). I do however think we need a fix in the hook. The child (minor...) was never in 'command of [the] controls. They just touched some button which caused a cascade failure. The hook needs to be rewritten. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Piotrus, there has only been a single prior nomination, and it wasn't eligible at the time, so it doesn't count as a DYK credit. A quid pro quo nomination is not required for this nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Piotrus, if you look at the transcript, he child was in command of the controls for quite some time, and the summary of the crash was "Pilot error, untrained minor in command of controls". Thanks, Thanoscar21talk, contribs 12:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ages of Eldar and Yana[edit]

The article currently says Eldar was 16 and Yana was 12. This is supported by three of this article's sources.[5][6][7] But the final report, both in Russian[8] and English[9], gives Eldar's age as 15 and Yana's as 13. Interestingly, another source[10] gives Eldar's age as 15 (and doesn't mention Yana's) but also states that Russian TV has given his age as 16 instead. A discrepancy like this probably comes from ambiguity if only their birth year is given (1978 in the case of Eldar, which could make him 15 or 16 in 1994). For now, I think it might be best to go with what the official report says. ThatFlyingSquid (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aeroflot_Flight_593&oldid=1215249694"