Talk:Asiana Airlines Flight 214/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Paucity of information

Is there any word on survivors, injuries, or fatalities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakubz (talk • contribs) 19:50, 6 July 2013‎

  • Not yet. Abductive (reasoning) 19:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The media reports several injuries requiring transport to a hospital, one serious. No fatalities, though. --Kevin W. - Talk 20:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  • San Francisco coast guard reports finding one body
Please don't add unsourced information. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  • NTSB just announced a press conference for 5:30pm Eastern, about 45 minutes from now. - Dravecky (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
It appears that the planes tail section hit the breakwater, and broke off. CNN and MSNBC are reporting this as well. Too early for a reliable source, but with regards to this article, it bears watching (But too early to add in to the article yet) Juneau Mike (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
And please don't add this as the 'cause' - it is too soon to be making any assertions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
That's what *I* said! LOL Juneau Mike (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Passenger count

Here is a source: http://news.sky.com/story/1112466/boeing-plane-crash-lands-in-san-francisco I cannot add it from mobile due to the edit rate and the complexity of adding refs. Could someone add this for me? Prodego talk 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Topic experts forum

Some informed discussion at FlightAware: http://flightaware.com/squawks/view/1/3day/popular/35350/Asiana_777_AAR214_crashes_upon_landing_at_SFO

Blogs are not reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, but the people who comment there watch airplanes everyday. Some know what they are talking about. Henk Poley (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
We do not cite blogs as sources. This talk page is for discussions relating to article changes only. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
That 'blog' is pretty damn authoritative - as in TV channels use its ATC vids on air. Wonder when Wikipedia is going to wake up to the conceptof 'new media'. And you keep nagging me for contributions!!! Yikes. Not with this sort of attitude.--101.113.236.126 (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I think you're confusing the raw data, which may or may not be reliable but is not particularly useful to us for most purposes as it requires intepretation i.e. WP:OR with the discussion forum style commentary which clearly does not meet RS requirements. Nil Einne (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
As a pilot, I can assure you that some of the FlightAware contributors are full of hot air, and even some knowledgable ones have been jumping to conclusions today. I would not cite the comments there. Falconusp t c 23:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
As a long-time editor of WP I can assure you that some WP editors are just as full of hot air, and their bias against blogs, whether authoritative or not, is not going to disappear soon. Paul venter (talk) 11:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't really get why people keep talking about blogs. The above link is to what is basically a discussion forum, not a blog. There is a news article attached, which may or may not be reliable but doesn't add anythting more than what other sources provide and I'm pretty sure wasn't what the OP was referring to. The discussion forum commentary may have some useful information, but we are unlikely to use it anymore than we use similar commentary in news articles, even news articles in scientific journals which sometimes have subject matter experts commenting. Nil Einne (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

ATC Audio

This was posted on http://forums.radioreference.com/california-incidents-breaking-news/270011-boeing-777-crashes-while-landing-sfo.html#post1999269 This was posted by one of the Database Admins: http://archive-server.liveatc.net/ksfo/KSFO-Twr-Jul-06-2013-1800Z.mp3

Audio starts at roughly 20:00 as plane reports final

Was cleared to land 28L

Crash appears to be at 22:00 and pilot tries to radio from the ground at 22:33.

Coasterghost (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Also available here. Mjroots (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Passenger and crew numbers

We have many reliable sources, citing the airline, stating the number of passengers and crew on the flight. Why do we need to wait for FAA confirmation? If the airline made an error (and I'm not sure why they would have), we can correct it later. -- tariqabjotu 21:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you made the right call. We don't need to wait for FAA on simple info for who was on board, if Reuters and other reliable sources are reporting. Steven Walling • talk 21:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree, passenger and crew numbers are appropriate, citing the airline (I believe they provided the numbers). Additions of fatalities, injuries, and survivors shouldn't be though since the news sites aren't good primary sources. Cat-fivetc ---- 22:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
According to a CNN reporter in Seoul, South Korea the plane had 291 passengers and 16 crew members. Coasterghost (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm all for entering preliminary numbers that MANY outlets or sources are reporting, BUT according to the Wiki Rules, we need to wait for 'official' info from the FAA and NTSB when these current events are in play. You don't like it, change the Rules and don't complain. Kennvido (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What Wikipedia "rules" are you talking about? The airline, which employs these crew members, transports these passengers, and is responsible for knowing who is on the planes, is as about as reliable a source you can get. Please stop revert-warring over this. -- tariqabjotu 22:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC
Are we all forgetting about WP:NORULES - one of the five pillars of Wikipedia! Oddbodz (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Many of these edits are adding the numbers without even adding the refs which is just sloppy. I question Kenn's hardline stance too but this info needs to be added just like the crew and passenger numbers, with a ref that cites the agency/organization itself or a news source that clearly does so. Cat-fivetc ---- 22:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
We can't control what anonymous, inexperienced editors do. However, this information has been placed in the article (including by myself) with sources a couple times, and yet it's been removed. Even when it was sitting in the article unsourced, you should have made a reasonable (and very easy) attempt to find sources that corroborate the information, rather than reflexively removed it. If one is going to continually remove unsourced information, rather than finding sources to corroborate that information, you shouldn't spend time on current events articles where people rapidly make changes. -- tariqabjotu 22:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
We can and we should, it's just that the requests for semi-protection for this and the San Francisco International Airport article are still in the queue because no admin wants to touch them, despite the fact that that stopping IP edits on these articles right now are justified. I'm not going to revert the numbers now that they're in there and sourced but I will say that policy or no policy having unconfirmed next to each one right there in the box makes Wikipedia look horribly unprofessional because it makes it look like we're jumping the gun just like the media sources. Like it or not, and I really don't, is something that we should be concerned about. Cat-fivetc ---- 22:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I could semi-protect the page, but I don't think it's justified. There are just a flurry of edits at this point, that's all. Many IPs are contributing useful information, and it seems very few of them are contributing unverified information. This thread was just supposed to be about the number of passengers and crew, which has been verified by the airline for at least an hour now. The injuries and fatalities are much harder to enumerate and I agree that those figures are not yet available. -- tariqabjotu 22:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
The request to protect this article isn't from me so I can't withdraw it but I'll defer to you and strike my comment supporting it on WP:RPP. I created a new section, Talk:Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214#Injuries.2Ffatalities, to handle any discussions that come up on the fatality/injury numbers so anyone who wants can find them. Cat-fivetc ---- 22:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
CNN is now saying they have information from the hospital on injuries but of course we can't cite that. I'm not sure we need FAA/NTSB numbers but we at least need numbers from an official source such as the hospital, either directly in a statement on the respective site that we can cite or through a news outlet clearly citing that agency/organization. Kenn, can you link the policy that you see as requiring that we get it directly from the FAA/NTSB? Cat-fivetc ---- 22:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Getting passenger numbers wrong isn't that critical - but we MUST be sure of sources before reporting fatalities. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
CNN is apparently citing San Francisco General Hospital which will be having a Press Conference today. CNN is also saying 8 Adults and 2 Children. Also CNN is saying that the nationality of the Passengers was 1 Japanese, 61 Americans, 77 South Koreans, and 114 Chinese. Coasterghost (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Can we agree that KTVU, KNTV, et al. aren't reliable sources for the purposes of this? We need a national source saying we heard this directly from so and so from the NTSB, FAA, or whoever the official source is. Cat-fivetc ---- 22:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Here is a cnn link that has the breakdown on the ethnicities and number of passengers if anyone wants to use it. Giving the ethnic breakdown though may be more info than is necessary at this point. Cat-fivetc ---- 22:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
The sum of the nationalities provided (Chinese, South Korean, and American) is 141+77+61=279, so that certainly doesn't account for all passengers. We also don't know if any of those passengers are dual citizens (so there may be some overlap). We can perhaps mention something like "Nearly half of the passengers on board -- 141 passengers -- were Chinese", but I don't think the information is particularly important right now. -- tariqabjotu 22:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Great point to just wait for officials to say. CNN just said they don't know how many fatalities or injured or survivors. Kennvido (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Really, a minor edit? — Lfdder (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Reuters ref

That Reuters ref very clearly says that the number of fatalities/injuries is unknown so stop using it to reference re-adding those numbers. Maybe it had preliminary numbers at one point but it's been changed since then if it did. Cat-fivetc ---- 22:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why the passenger/crew numbers are still being removed. The Reuters reference has confirmation from the airline of those numbers so they're solid. Cat-fivetc ---- 22:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Please stop changing and wait. Kennvido (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Why wait when we have confirmation? When we have confirmation we add it to the article. Cat-fivetc ---- 23:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
You don't have confirmation until an official news conf. Kennvido (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
From whom? If they say they have confirmation from the airline I'm willing to believe them until we have reason to think that they're lying (unlikely). You haven't been able to point to a policy that backs up your claim requiring NTSB/FAA confirmation and this is confirmation from a reliable source which fits every sourcing guideline that I can think of. Cat-fivetc ---- 23:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
If you were citing a news conference you'd still be citing Reuters, CNN, or one of these other sources so what is the difference between getting it from the airline and getting it from the FAA/NTSB when they both know how many passengers were on board? Cat-fivetc ---- 23:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Injuries/fatalities

See also: [[:Fatalities]] and [[:"first fatal crash involving the 777"]]

Creating a new top-level header for this since we're off passenger/crew numbers. Cat-fivetc ---- 22:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The important thing is not to report fatalities until we have a clear statement that they are from an official source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
The Aviation Herald (generally fairly clued up) is reporting no fatalities: [1]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
From the above: "Emergency services reported all occupants have been accounted for and are alive. Emergency services repeated ALL occupants have been accounted for in response to media reports that two people have been killed and said, these reports are untrue". AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Fire chief just reported 2 fatalities during press conference. No source yet. — RockMFR 23:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

When we get a source we can use it, until then it's frustrating but policy says we can't add it. Cat-fivetc ---- 23:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Got one, [2] Cat-fivetc ---- 23:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
This is exactly why we WAIT for official sources. It is better to be right later than wrong now.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

San Francisco Fire Department OFFICIAL: At least 2 people dead

You have not cited any source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/06/usa-crash-asiana-injured-idUSL2N0FC0HJ20130706

Not an official source: "a city fire department dispatcher...". AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
The CBS source I linked above at least initially cited the fire chief that stated the number dead at the press conference, she would have been an official source. Unfortunately it looks like they rewrote the article to expand it and they kept the header but removed the reference to the press conference making it unusable now. Cat-fivetc ---- 23:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to stop trying on this article because Reuters et al. keep rewriting and ruining their articles as sources. Reuters has killed my will to edit, thanks Reuters. Cat-fivetc ---- 23:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Reports at the SFO press conference (carried live on FNC, if nothing else), according to the SF fire chief, there are two confirmed fatalities, and 238 confirmed alive so far; a little quick math says that leaves 67 still unaccounted for. rdfox 76 (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

If this is official, sources we can cite directly will report it soon enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
See USA Today: "Fire Chief Joanne Hayes-White said two people were killed. Mayor Edwin Lee said not all passengers had been accounted for." [3]. I think this should do as an official source now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

According to NBC, 2 Dead, 130 Hospitalized, 60 still unaccounted for. Justinhu12 (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC) http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Boeing-777-Crashes-at-SFO-214483741.html

Washington Post has indicated all passengers have been accounted for. Specifically "Airport spokesman Doug Yakel said 182 of the 307 passengers and crew were taken to hospitals, and 49 were reported in serious or critical condition." From: Wilber, Del Quentin; Halsey III, Ashley; Aratani, Lori. "2 killed, 182 hospitalized as S. Korean jet crash-lands in San Francisco." Retrieved 8 July 2013. --TRL (talk) 04:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Title

Maybe we should change the name to Asiana Airlines Flight 214 Crash? Kennvido (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Probably because we need some way of identifying the incident other than just the aircraft model (for an unnumbered flight), but there's (likely) only one notable incident for any given numbered flight (especially as the airline will often change the number of the route if there are fatalities). Ignatzmice•talk 15:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

'Unaccounted for'

I think we should be cautious in implying that the 'unaccounted for' are likely to be fatalities, at least without further confirmation - it is possible that, as often happens in such situations, errors in counting, and individuals who have simply left the scene may explain at least some of the discrepancies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

They are not fatalities, if that had been the case they would have been picking up bodies. They simply arent listed, they are scattered in hospitals --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 00:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I think (and hope) that you are probably right. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:31, 7 July
I agree. Said unaccounted person could be dead, but also could be in a luxury hotel in San Francisco...so said person is unaccounted for, but not necessarily dead. WT101 (Chat • Count) 02:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Left side engine

does anyone know where the left side engine wen't? Is it possible the it disintegrate? -pdog1111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdog1111 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 7 July 2013‎

This query is a bit off topic, but if it is mentioned in a reliable source will probably be added to the page. I have no source, but it seems unlikely that the engine would totally 'disintegrate' from this type of crash. They are extremely strong. IIRC the engines or large parts of them from the September 11 attacks at the World Trade Centre were found afterwards. Though not at the Pentagon IIRC?? However United Airlines Flight 93 crashed at "563 mph (906 km/h, 252 m/s, or 489 knots) at a 40-degree nose-down, inverted attitude. " quoting the Flt 93 WP page. Even after such a violent event an apparently large portion of an engine was recovered (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flight93Engine.jpg) 220 of Borg 06:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
From the photographs published to date, it seems apparent neither engine is attached, which is contrary to the current statement in the article that "One engine and the tail section behind the aft pressure bulkhead became separated from the aircraft". As pointed out in at least one aviation forum, we have no guarantee that the engine resting against the right hand side of the fuselage is the right hand engine, it could potentially be the left hand engine. Where the other engine came to rest is probably in the realms of speculation given available data. Equally the APU (a smaller turbine) is clearly detached in that the fuselage aft of the rear pressure bulkhead where it is located no longer exists. At least one separated landing gear bogey was also visible in the debris trail in news reports.92.235.125.151 (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
For what it is worth, this [4] BBC article has a photo (halfway down the page) indicating that an engine ended up beyond the right hand side of the runway, about as far down as the fuselage/wings. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I think a photo is pretty good evidence as to where it is. Should probably be noted on the graphic too. Reedy (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Reaction section

I think, while the reaction section contains only condolences and thanks from the White House/Obama, it's nice but it's basically fluff, not facts. I'm going to remove it for now, unless folks would like to present a case for it being vital. Steven Walling • talk 02:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Such sections provide no real information, and are liable to fill up with comments from people of little relevance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Asiana Airlines releases

ENGLISH

KOREAN

CHINESE

Also: ENGLISH TWITTER:

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Boeing statements

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Ref # 12 not working

The ref re ILS &" ... navigational glidepath on Runway 28L were inoperative at the time of the crash. " "06/005 SFO NAVIGATION INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM RUNWAY 28L GLIDE PATH OUT OF SERVICE WITH EFFECT FROM OR EFFECTIVE FROM 1306011400-1308222359". Clicking on this reference,https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/PilotWeb/radiusSearchAction.do, returns a generic search page with "Invalid Query Request."
I have tried entering various search terms but can't get the relevant NOTAM to appear. Can anyone get this to work? --220 of Borg 08:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

SFO 06/007 SFO RWY 28L PAPI OTS WEF 1306011400-1308222359 CREATED: 01 Jun 2013 13:41:00 SOURCE: KOAKYFYX is also very relevant is this is the visual precision approach path indicator. This Notam replaced by SFO 07/046 SFO RWY 28L PAPI OTS WEF 1307062219 CREATED: 06 Jul 2013 22:19:00 SOURCE: KOAKYFYX as no restoration date is now applicable.

The equipment were taken out of service to displace the landing threshold 100 m further inland and is most likely a project to make the airport safer, [1] refers to a height of 36.7 ft vs 35.4 ft for B777-300. Note that H1 for the B747 is about 45 feet! [2]. The take-off threshold remained the same.

  • Searching here for location: SFO and number: 06 007 returns nothing. Maybe they took it down? I can't seem to find a NOTAM archive... Ignatzmice•talk 15:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Heh, woops. It's 005, which is there. I've made a WebCite (it'd be nice to get it on its own, but whatever) and put it in the article. Ignatzmice•talk 15:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

BA link in see also section

Should there be a link to the BA Heathrow crash in the see also section or not? It doesn't seem appropriate for it to be there, as explained in my edit summaries. Insulam Simia (talk/contribs) 11:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Article says this is the first fatal crash of this type of aircraft. it seems reasonable to me that anyone reading this page would be interested in (to a non aircraft fan) a similar accident with a same type of aircraft. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
How is the crash of a 737 into a mountainside especially relevant?IdreamofJeanie (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
It's the same airline. Insulam Simia (talk/contribs) 11:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I would argue linking to Speedbird 38 is relevant for multiple reasons, 1) this is only the second crash of a 777, it elaborates on the exemplary safety record of the aircraft, 2) only two crashes means that Speedbird 38 is the only parallel incident WRT aircraft model, a more significant parallel than other incidents involving the same carrier, one of which happened 20 years ago, 3) both incidents occurred in the same phase of flight (though I suspect the causes are unlikely to be identical), 4) crash survival issues - Speedbird 38, a similar aircraft, survived a similar landing without fatalities, and with the worst injury a single broken leg, while full details of injuries on Asiana 214 are unclear, the preliminary data suggests a significantly worse outcome in terms of both significance and prevalence of injuries 5) speculation - not ours, the readers - I've already seen people asking on aviation fora if it could be the same cause - i.e. fuel icing, readers will be coming to Wikipedia looking for an explanation of what happened on Speedbird 38 and why Asiana 214 is different, which means meeting their expectations demands a link to Speedbird 38 and an explanation of what is different - P&W vs RR engines, fixes put in place to prevent fuel icing and so on 6) the Flight 38 article already links to this one, and, if nothing else, the article is a good model for this one 92.235.125.151 (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
To a non-specialist such as myself it seems that as the circumstances of both accidents was the same - 777s crashing just short of the runway after a intercontinental flight the two should be linked in the see-also sections. Doubly so given that they are the only significant crashes of this aircraft model which has been in service 18 years. It doesn't matter that the cause might be different - I remember the first accident and want to read the article to find out about it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I originally had the same concerns, but after considering I think the link should stay. IP92 summed it up quite nicely. Ignatzmice•talk 14:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Parallels between the two have also been covered in this newspaper article, FWIW: Crash landing at San Francisco mirrors that of BA Boeing 777 crash at London Heathrow five years ago EdChem (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Identity of deceased passengers

There are two passengers who are deceased. I am not sure if the protocol is to post the names of the deceased or not. I remember in some accidents the names of the deceased were not posted even though there were only a few of them. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Even if it's permitted, I don't think it's necessary. — Lfdder (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
+1 Ignatzmice•talk 16:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
No we only identify victims if they are notable, normally measured by them already having a wikipedia article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Ok. I remember that with the TACA crash in Honduras (TACA Flight 390), the victims were one of the pilots, a Wikipedia-notable businessman, and the wife of an ambassador, so they are named in the article. Now, if we find that Jiangshan High School has established a memorial to the girls and there are articles in Chinese-language, English-language or other newspapers that discuss this, then would circumstances change? (After the Sosoliso Airlines Flight 1145 crash in Nigeria a school which had many children on the flight did establish a memorial) WhisperToMe (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I dont think we have a problem with describing a permanent memorial to victims but that still doesnt mean we need to identify the victims by name. MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

New article added - Boeing 777 hull losses

New article authored by yours truly: Boeing 777 hull losses — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gay airline editor (talk • contribs) 18:49, 7 July 2013‎

I find this highly redundant to the section which is already in the 777's article, which is more detailed at this point. If there is to be a separate article on 777 accidents, it should encompass all accidents, not just hull losses. Otherwise, I'm not sure that such an article would have enough weight to stand on its own. Airplaneman ✈ 19:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
No comment either way, but there also exists List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 777. Ignatzmice•talk 19:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Just a note: the section you linked is the same as the one I linked. Airplaneman ✈ 20:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
See Boeing 747 hull losses - comparable article it is based on.--Gay airline editor (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
It is indeed comparable. The difference here is that there have been a multitude of hull-loss incidents for the 747, whereas the 777 has experienced three hull losses and only a handful of accidents in general, all of which can be (and have been) described well in the main article with appropriate detail. At this point, a separate article on 777 hull losses alone would be meager at best, and wholly redundant to what is already written in the main article. That being said, I don't want to come across as one of those deletion-mongers who seems to want everyone's hard work destroyed. An article on 777 hull losses is a good idea, but I'm just not convinced that it's necessary at this point in time (and hopefully, it is never necessary). Airplaneman ✈ 20:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I have redirected the first one to Boeing 777#Incidents and accidents not seen the other before but it was created by a banned/blocked editor. MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Redirected that as well to the main article MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Additional sources

Sources which may be useful:

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikinews

I've removed the Wikinews interwiki link cos the article's littered with factual inaccuracies. — Lfdder (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Point of separation

The article claims that the tail separated "behind the rear pressure bulkhead". I read "behind" as meaning "aft of".

But one passenger reports deplaning through the rear of the aircraft (see http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/07/us/california-plane-crash/index.html?hpt=hp_t1). There is also some evidence, though it is not clear how reliable it is, that some passengers were either ejected from the plane, or were seated in the section that detached. Is there evidence to support the statement in the article? If not, then this statement seems overly specific, at best.

Tail snapped right where the bulkhead is and there's a visible hole in the bulkhead. [5] — Lfdder (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Quotation not in source cited

The article quoted Yoon Young-Doo of Asiana Airlines as saying "Currently we understand that there were no engine or mechanical problems" - but this doesn't appear in the source cited. [6] I've removed it for now. If we can find a reliable source that cites it, it can be restored, but be very careful to avoid circular sourcing: I have a suspicion that some media outlets may have been using our article as a source. Ideally, a source from earlier than our first use of the phrase needs to be found. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It's in the BBC article. I'd be fine with taking that whole sentence out though; Asiana's CEO is not an investigator. — Lfdder (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Second engine location

Might be worth adding the engine location to the map too. See this BBC article with the image at bottom. One of the engines was still next to the wings, the other on opposite side of the runway. Reedy (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Shanghai

This article states that the flight originated in Shanghai with a stop in Incheon. This is certainly not the case as Asiana Airlines hub is Incheon. Which means that flights originate and terminate here.

Please amend the article and quick stats board on the right to reflect this correct information.

What do Asiana 214 and Korean Air 007 have in common? its the plane tail number are the same. HL7442 should be retired

  • Asiana 214 was HL7742, while Korean Air 007 was HL7442. Jakro64 (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Fatalities

See also: [[:Injuries/fatalities]] and [[:"first fatal crash involving the 777"]]

[7] just said 2 based on SFO FD source. Bit hard to source a live video Reedy (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Local source says two dead. Looking for confirmation from a second source. Steven Walling • talk 20:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Please be careful with citing KTVU here, as they have already reported nonsense that turned out not to be true today. — RockMFR 20:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't see your comment till now. Will remove. Steven Walling • talk 20:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Major news networks all reporting 2 fatalities? Dp51499 (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems like the crash wasn't fatal- running in front of a fire vehicle is currently the COD Tim Wochomurka (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Picture

The current article has a picture of the aircraft in 2011. Given that the article concerns the crash and not the aircraft, I thought a picture of the aircraft after the crash would make more sense. Here is one, but not sure how to proceed in asking the author for permission to use it (or if it is even necessary since he posted on a social network): https://path.com/p/1lwrZb Eduardo Neuhaus (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The person taking the photo will hold the copyright. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I've uploaded my own photos here (I was a passenger in another plane), feel free to use: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jkhoo Jkhoo (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The NTSB has published a series of photos from the scene via Twitter. These should be public domain per Template:PD-USGov. Oktal (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I have uploaded most to commons:Category:Asiana Airlines Flight 214. File:NTSBAsiana214Fuselage2.jpg, for example, but there were others. The Twitter images are not the highest resolution, but only a couple of older ones are on their Flickr stream right now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS

Why does this have an article now? Shouldn't this wait until it's confirmed that this isn't just a run of the mill plane crash? This seems to be a case of somebody seeing something on the news and hopping onto Wikipedia to make an article about it. Beerest355 Talk 22:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It is already notable as a complete hull loss (only the third to a Boeing 777). MilborneOne (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Just that doesn't guarantee notability. There's other guidelines here too. I say we should wait, and if nothing really pops up outside of "Gee, this sure was a crap day, fellas!" then deletion should be considered. However, I'd like to know other people's stances. Beerest355 Talk 23:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
It's as notable, if not more so, than numerous of plane crashes that have articles. I realize that's generally a terrible standard but some of them are pretty notable. Cat-fivetc ---- 23:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, maybe we could go through some of them and nominate them for deletion. I think an article for an event still early in development is pointless, as we don't know what could happen over time. The officer could just go "Welp, there's some dead people. Sucks to be them. Good night." and nothing else happens. Beerest355 Talk 23:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I know that people at deletion discussions are pretty touching about canvassing but if you ever decide to do that please feel free to drop a note on my talk page. There are numerous "Current" event type articles that are just long forgotten cruft at this point and don't have the long term notability to deserve to avoid deletion, that being said you would definitely have a fight on your hand if you tried from the inclusionists. Cat-fivetc ---- 23:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm generally in favour of enforcing WP:NOTNEWS, but the article is here, and given the alternative on Wikinews (a crock of s*** if ever I saw one), we are at least keeping to some sort of standard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, I suppose the Wikinews article should be fixed up, then. Beerest355 Talk 23:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I doubt they'd appreciate my approach... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Andy. I think rushing to delete simply because it's news doesn't consider that the crash may be notable in addition to being merely newsworthy. As it seems to be the first fatal crash involving this plane and the first fatal crash in the U.S. for some years, it's probably notable. Steven Walling • talk 01:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Jesus Christ what is with people wanting to delete every new article? I'm really getting tired of people invoking the WP:NOTNEWS in every single event. You people did it with the killing of Osama bin Laden, you did it with the Sandy Hook Shooting, will you people stop? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.51.110 (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2013‎

OK, so every editor is the same? Yeah, I totally also wanted Death of Osama bin Laden and Sandy Hoax deleted when they first popped up. Sheesh. Beerest355 Talk 00:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
But apparently this doesn't count.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.51.110 (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2013‎

FYI. This is the first major plane to go down in U.S. Airspace since 2001, when American Airlines Flight 587 Airbus A300 crashed on takeoff from New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport: Sanchez, Marcio Jose. "Article Photo". Retrieved 7 July 2013..--TRL (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Edited so source is accessible. 220 of Borg 04:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Just for completeness, as I don't think it alters the discussion, the last non-regional, scheduled flight to crash in US airspace was actually http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549 on 15 Jan 2009 when it ditched in the Hudson.92.235.125.151 (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

News or not, this passes WP:aircrash.SYSS Mouse (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Any hull loss event is noteworthy- especially when it's on an aircraft type with this many hours/cycles as a 777 Tim Wochomurka (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

"first fatal crash involving the 777"

We don't seem to have a source for this - is it correct? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's only been one other 777 crash ane nobody died in that one so, seemingly, yes. — Lfdder (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
The only fatal incident involving Boeing 777 before this crash, was a refueling fire at Denver International Airport which caused one ground worker's death, and that was not a "crash". Tomchen1989 (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
See Boeing 777#Incidents and accidents, where following is one of 2 refs:"DEN01FA157 entry". National Transportation Safety Board. February 24, 2005. Retrieved January 2, 2011. Apparently no fatal crash/s, but one fatal ground 'incident'. As Tomchen said. --220 of Borg 02:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Mind you, it was lucky there were no prior fatal crashes as British Airways Flight 38 (47 injuries) could easily have been worse with 152 on board. Likely that is the one Lfdder mentioned. --220 of Borg 03:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I found a source and just posted this in the "Aftermath" section. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I added that it was the first "passenger" fatality. Perhaps a footnote is needed re 'related' refueller death from on-ground fuel fire on September 5, 2001? (as per "DEN01FA157 entry" above. ↑ --220 of Borg 06:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to argue that the fatalities in this article, while related to the crash, were not caused by the crash, much as the refuelling deaths weren't caused by a crash, but ground crew errors. Tim Wochomurka (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Crash detail

Speculative; WP:NOTAFORUM — Lfdder (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

METAR at the time -

KSFO 061856Z 21007KT 170V240 10SM FEW016 18/10 A2982 RMK AO2 SLP098 T01830100
Conditions at: KSFO (SAN FRANCISCO , CA, US) observed 1856 UTC 06 July 2013
Temperature: 18.3°C (65°F)
Dewpoint: 10.0°C (50°F) [RH = 58%]
Pressure (altimeter): 29.82 inches Hg (1009.9 mb)
[Sea-level pressure: 1009.8 mb]
Winds: from the SSW (210 degrees) at 8 MPH (7 knots; 3.6 m/s)
Visibility: 10 or more miles (16+ km)
Ceiling: at least 12,000 feet AGL
Clouds: few clouds at 1600 feet AGL
Weather: no significant weather observed at this time

28L is very interesting because the thresholds for 28L/R have been displaced very recently by ~300ft. Furthermore, new glideslopes have been installed/are in the process of being installed. Aircraft are usually cleared for a visual manual landing to 28L on a CAVOK day like Saturday.


Track Log - last 120 secs using Flightaware/Flightradar24 data

19:26 37.5847 -122.2940 298° West 178kts 205mph 1,700ft -1,020 rate Descending
19:26 37.5900 -122.3070 297° West 169 194 1,400 -1,380 Descending
19:27 37.5988 -122.3270 299° West 145 167 800 -1,380 Descending
19:27 37.6016 -122.3340 297° West 141 162 600 -1,320 Descending
19:27 37.6045 -122.3410 298° West 134 154 400 -900 Descending
19:27 37.6073 -122.3480 297° West 123 142 300 -840 Descending
19:27 37.6103 -122.3550 298° West 109 125 100 -120 Descending
19:28 37.6170 -122.3740 294° West 85 98 200 120 Climbing

Bold is extremely interesting...

Evaluating the photographs of the aircraft and seawall, and collaborating eyewitness statements, I would hazard a guess that the sequence of events were

1) Starboard gear strikes seawall as photographs and witness reports suggests
2) Aircraft banks left to port after collision of starboard gear
3) #1 ripped off, deposited near sea wall
4) Loss of port-side weight from loss of #1 combined with loss of starboard gear causes starboard wingtip collision with ground and consequently that massive damage to the starboard wingtip
5) Tailstrike due to the missing gear and #1 resulting in complete separation at the point of the R P Bulkhead

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Feedthepope (talk • contribs) 02:11, 7 July 2013

We base articles on published sources, not guesses. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of that, which is why I'm writing this in the article's talk page as discussion.
The METAR data, lack of ILS/GS on 28L (Latest NOTAM - 06/005 SFO NAVIGATION INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM RUNWAY 28L GLIDE PATH OUT OF SERVICE WITH EFFECT FROM OR EFFECTIVE FROM 1306011400-1308222359) and the aircrafts ROC descent profile during finals are all from published sources and are relevant to the article, however. The last two will be very significant in the investigation into the accident. I'm just waiting for it to be published in the press/by the NTSB but it's patently clear the collision with the seawall was the starboard side main gear, it's currently resting on the chevrons by the seawall 800m away from the fuselage for a reason. Feedthepope (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Feedthepope, do you have any more detail / citations on the ILS and threshold changes to runways 28L/R? Interested in what's changing and why. --WikiWikiPhil (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
If you look at this NY Times photo (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/07/06/us/where-asiana-flight-214-came-to-rest.html?ref=us), you can see how the fixed distance marker, runway end line, and other runway markings, were recently painted over and moved further from the bay. When the end of the runway moves, the ILS also needs to be moved, which could explain why it was offline. It was probably in the process of being moved, as part of measures designed to increase safety. Perhaps this theory can assist in the search for sources. Jehochman Talk 14:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
And here's a source saying exactly that: http://millbrae.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/pilot-sully-sullenberger-sfo-runway-construction-could-have-been-a-factor-in-crash. Chesley Sullenberger says project to increase runway safety zone required pilots to temporarily rely on sight instead of electronics with automated warnings. He said this project will be looked at a possible factor in the crash. In addition, SFO planned to complete by 2015 the addition of porous concrete to the end of the runway to absorb the impact of an airplane. Jehochman Talk 14:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Irrespective to what may or may not have happened to the runway markings, aircraft are supposed to land ~200m beyond the actual start of the runway. (In practice an average of 500m for 28L based on Google Earth.) Even if the runway started at the seawall, the pilots should have been aiming for a point 200m further than that. Hitting the seawall would require either mechanical failure, or for the pilots to have been extremely unwise, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't the latter. I regretfully must point out this accident has aspects in common with the BA Flight 38 crash. (Normal approach. Sudden loss of altitude. Hard landing short of the runway.) Googling and <sigh> yes, Asiana does indeed uses Rolls Royce Trent 900s. <Please don't be the engines, please don't be the engines, please don't be the engines...>ANTIcarrot (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The section discussing the Instrument Landing System is incorrect. It states that the ILS was out of service. The ILS is actually composed of two components, a localizer, and a glide slope. The glide slope was NOTAM'd out of service, the localizer was still in service. Recommend editing the language so that is does not claim that the entire ILS was out of service. It was only the glide slope that was out of service. tdnicholson. Tdnicholson (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Given the time of day and visibility, the ILS being out-of-service or not would only be relevant if the PNF had used the ILS/glideslope for raw-data monitoring during the APP - modern airliner cockpits are all about MCC, where the PNF would typically be monitoring the approach using instrument navigation. It is much more likely that RNAV/GPS or DME would be used by the PNF, while the PF would still have visual guidance via PAPI/VASI (depending on visibility/daylight conditions) --Parallelized (talk) 06:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Redirect

San Francisco Plane Crash currently redirects here. Perhaps a {{redir}} notice to Pacific Air Lines Flight 773? 69.46.168.130 (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Not to sound morbid, but this seems fairly shortsighted. Is the Asiana crash the ONLY crash that has happened at SFO? Or for that matter will it ever be? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Should it maybe redirect to San Francisco International Airport#Accidents and incidents instead? Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. VQuakr (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Second'd Tim Wochomurka (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

'Porous Concrete'

The article currently states "As part of the same project, the airport plans to add porous concrete to the end of the runway to absorb the impact of an airplane, scheduled for completion by 2015.[20]" While the quoted reference does say that, I think it has misinterpreted what Chesley Sullenberger said, and that that misinterpretation carries on into the article. What seems to be being described is an Engineered Materials Arresting System, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineered_materials_arrestor_system This is a runway extension composed of concrete intended to crush under the weight of an overrunning airliner's wheels and bring it to a stop without damaging it by exerting substantial drag on the wheels. This is actually intended to deal with an aircraft overrunning in the opposite direction to Asiana 214, and it doesn't absorb a vertical impact, but rather the horizontal momentum of an overrunning aircraft. It's probably simplest to take the entire sentence out and not get into unnecessary details.92.235.125.151 (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That's what it sounded like to me too, so I went searching for better info. I found an article from the SF Examiner from the start of the construction (http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/sfo-runways-to-be-lengthened-for-safety/Content?oid=2179189) and they're much more clear that this "porous concrete to absorb impacts", is in fact EMAS for overruns. Since that was not the issue here, and retaining it in this article only serves to confuse the reader, I'm going to take it out.Dworjan (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
The RSA/EMAS project is on the 1s, not the 28s.

Excessive use of "According to..."

Wikipedia is written in an encyclopedic tone, and so there is no need to beleaguer the reader with "according to Xinhua..." type constructions. That sort of language is used by journalists (WP:NOT#NEWS) to give inline attribution to their colleagues (and to cover their asses if it turns out to be wrong). Since Wikipedia has refs and only reports the consensus of many sources, these inline attributions are not needed, and disrupt the flow of the article for the reader. Please help me remove this sort of language. Abductive (reasoning) 02:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

No. I recommend extreme caution. At this early stage of reporting on this incident I can almost guarantee that some things we add to the article today will be found to be wrong at some future time. Attribution is good. Writing uncertain things as certainties in Wikipedia's voice is problematic. HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
If anything is so dangerous, it shouldn't be in the article. STOP using garbage and attributing it to a garbage source inline. Abductive (reasoning) 22:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

First fatal crash at SFO?

I thought I heard an airport spokesperson say during a press conference that this was the first fatal crash in the history of San Francisco International Airport. However, I can't find confirmation online. Anybody else hear this, or find a Reliable Source confirmation? --MelanieN (talk) 05:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Definitely needs a reliable source. As I take a look at what is currently listed on San Francisco International Airport#Accidents and incidents, there was BCPA Flight 304 with 19 deaths, but it crashed in the SF Peninsula hills during its approach to SFO, instead of making it all the way to the runway and crash-landing. And then there was Flying Tiger Line Flight 282, which crashed into the hills shortly after takeoff from SFO. So I guess it depends on what their definition of "the first fatal crash in SFO history" is. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Explanation needed: What is a "Boeing 777-28EER"?

Someone with a better expertise needs to explain this subtype. The term is linked to Boeing 777-200ER, but there isn't any information about what this "-28EER"-suffix is supposed to mean, either. For someone with not that much knowledge of aircraft types, this is unsatisfactory.--FoxyOrange (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

8E is the customer code. Probably not necessary but last time I tried to take it out I was rv'ed and was told it's the norm. — Lfdder (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Ah, now I see. If I get it right, the type designation is Boeing 777-2xxER, with the placeholder identifying the airline which had ordered the aircraft, according to List of Boeing customer codes. In any case, this must be explained inside the article (at least by somehow adding this wikilink). But come to think of it, is it really necessary? I mean, the customer code does not seem include any other information, so that from a technological point of view, any 777-200ERs are the same, or are they not?--FoxyOrange (talk) 08:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
The customer code holds no other information, no. (With Airbus codes, the second to last digit identifies the power plant make, e.g. A320-21x is equipped with CFM engines and A320-23x with IAEs.) We could add a note to the article akin to this one. — Lfdder (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
We need to bear in mind what readers will expect to see. Identification of the aircraft type in other media is universally as 777-200ER, if the article uses 777-28EER, it needs to explain what that is, perhaps something like this "a 777-200ER (specifically a 777-28EER, the Boeing Customer Code for an Asiana 777-200ER)". Personally my preference would be to use 777-200ER, 28EER is equivalent to specifying needless decimal places in a number, even for someone intimnately familiar with the 777 it doesn't add any relevant information.92.235.125.151 (talk) 11:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
What readers want to see is something they can understand and that is meaningful to them. 99% of our readers are not industry insiders, and we must write for that 99%. HiLo48 (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Definitely no need for overspecificity, in my opinion. -200ER is plenty fine. Ignatzmice•talk 11:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The proper way to reference the craft is just as its model number, 777-200ER. -28E would really only be used for Boeing's purposes, and would identify internally to Boeing what specific configuration was used (e.g. power plant, FDS if there are options, initial seating configuration, etc.). All reports, investigations, etc., will refer to it as a 777-200ER, and it should be that way for consistency.Mahka42 (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

West Valley Christian page

http://westvalleychristianschool.com/index.php is the announcement regarding the accident - the two deceased girls were to attend the school's camp

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed text under Aftermath

Removed this text from Aftermath:

"Whilst the lack of experience in flying a 777 by pilot Lee Kang-kook has been central in investigations, investigators will be looking to Ariana Airlines for proof of replacement of the crashed aircraft's heat exchange units after the crash of British Airways Flight 38. If Ariana failed to undertake this directive then it will be clear why the aircraft failed to maintain speed and altitude on approach."

  • no evidence experience is yet central (mechanical failure is not?)
  • Britsh Airways Flight 38 investigation showed problem was restricted to Rolls-Royce engines; flight 214 has Pratt-Whitney
  • no citations
  • misspelled Asiana Airlines name?

Comfortably Paranoid (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's a completely unreasonable set of suppositions. Even if the aircraft had RR Trents and hadn't had the relevant AD implemented it would still be completely unreasonable supposition.92.235.125.151 (talk) 11:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC) 92.235.125.151
Not only speculative, but almost certainly wrong, from the details we already have. Seems to have been added by an IP. If this sort of nonsense continues, I'm inclined to ask for the article to be semi-protected again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

NTSB photos

The NTSB have released two photos if the interior of the fuselage post-crash. Not 100% sure, but I believe they are PD. The first is the better of the two. Mjroots (talk) 10:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

They're already on Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214 :-) — Lfdder (talk) 11:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Investigation sections: On-site and Off-site

I have added these sections to help organize information about the accident and investigation. Given that, as standard practice, the black box has already been removed and taken to Washington D.C. by the NTSB for analysis, there are two clear sources/categories of information. The site of the crash and from analysis done elsewhere. One user, User:Lfdder, apparently does not like this and has reverted it three times now. What are the other editors thoughts on this? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The top section is called 'Investigation'. These aren't separate investigations; they're two 'categories of information'--as you've rightly said. — Lfdder (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I can't see any logical reason to split the section in this way. What matters is the results of the investigation, not where different parts of it were carried out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
My "logical reason" for the split starts with the tag at the top of the page...
Of course the results of the investigation are what matter most, but they aren't available yet. We (as editors) have a hard enough time keeping track of information that the media reports some of which is unverified, but gets included because its from a purported WP:RS. I'm simply trying to present a framework to better organize information. Do either of you see no conceivable way that the format could be beneficial? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't see how arbitrarily dividing the investigation into two sections helps. There is only one investigation, and our readers shouldn't have to guess where to find particular bits of information about it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Wow Andy, you've always given me the impression that you're a pragmatist from your edits and comments, I'm kind of surprised that you're against it or don't see any use for it. The split is not arbitrary, Lfdder admits (see above) that there are two clear delineations between the sources of information. Furthermore, the split clarifies where "particular bits of information" originated since analysis is going on in multiple locations. Yes, you are correct in that there is one "investigation", but it does have multiple aspects to it. I'm basing this on my law enforcement training, I guess your experience is different than mine. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Dont see much point in dividing the investigation bit, it is one investigation with one resulting report. When that report is issued then we would have to combine all the info to make it flow. MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. Motion Defeated...  Done Next! --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Approach Profile

Useful addition to the article...I was wondering what fair use qualification educational screenshots fall under?

http://i.imgur.com/DbSgDoU.jpg

Feedthepope (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You can't claim 'fair use' for a graphic that anyone with the same data can reproduce. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to contributers

Just like to thank all the contributers to the article, it is difficult with a real time event to keep the article factual and remove speculation and removal. I raised the class to "C" for the air accident project. MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of the term "Fatal?"

Just wondering, if the two deaths related to the crash were (as currently reported by the media) not caused by the crash itself but due to *ahem* getting hit by a fire truck, should we be calling the crash a "fatal crash" or should the deaths be acknowledged in the article elsewhere? It seems a little wrong to be attributing the deaths to the crash as the sole cause of death. I'm interested to hear other's take on this. Tim Wochomurka (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Only one of the two fatalities is in question, the other was due to the crash. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

NTSB Conference

From cockpit voice recorder.


Aircraft configured for approach, flaps 30, gear down and target speed called for 137 knots.
A call to increase speed 7 seconds before impact
Sound of stick shaker heard 4 seconds prior to impact
"Go around" called 1.5 seconds before impact
No discussion of aircraft anomalies by crew

From Flight data recorder

24 hours of recorded data, 1400 parameters captured entire flight
Throttles set at idle and airspeed slowed below target airspeed to "significantly below 137 knots we are not talking a few knots"
Throttles advanced a few seconds before impact and engines appear to respond normally.

Other

Tower controller didn't see anything wrong with approach until it hit the wall.
No reports of adverse weather.
PAPI lights were operational but damaged in crash so NOTAMed post crash.
1100 777s delivered.
169 with Pratt and Whitney
700 GE
223 with RR
Runway was 11380 in length.
Localiser was in operation
Glideslope was out of service and NOTAMed as such.
9 fire and rescue vehicles
NTSB looking at crew, cockpit and instrument configuration, passenger response, CRM, fire service response, passenger injury vis a v seat location relationship.
No similarities seen so far between this and LHR accident.
Investigators will be on scene for a week.
Too early to rule anything out as the cause.
Previous information are facts and should not be reported as an indication of NTSBs view of cause of accident.

Useful content additions to article.

Feedthepope (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Added some information to the article, linking back to YouTube post from NTSB's account. What is the take on citing individual tweets from the official NTSB Twitter account? Unfortunately NTSB hasn't verified their account, so it may not necessarily be an "official" source, but it is about as official as can be. In addition, they have posted a number of photos, which, being the work of a government agency, are public domain and can be useful in illustrating the crash. Mahka42 (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be some back and forth regarding throttle settings. In the first NTSB conference on July 7, Hersman used the phrase "throttles set to idle", which implied that they were idle throughout the entire approach. However, on July 8, she states that after documentation of switch and control lever positions in the cockpit, along with further analysis of the FDR, that throttles had been advanced approximately 7-8 seconds prior to impact, and that engine power was also increasing just a few seconds prior. "Throttles set to idle" is therefore an incorrect and misleading statement. On an aside as general aviation notes, engines are often left at idle power, especially in early phases of the descent/approach, as a means to bleed speed and altitude from the craft. A well-executed, well-planned approach can in fact practically "glide" all the way to the runway; often times though, and with current approach patterns, planes need to take a "step" approach, descending a set altitude and then holding at a set altitude, requiring engine power to come up again to arrest the descent.Mahka42 (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Still operated

As Asiana still operates this flight as Flight 214 (as it did today), the article cannot begin by saying...

Asiana Airlines Flight 214 was a scheduled transpacific passenger flight from Incheon International Airport, South Korea, to San Francisco International Airport, United States.

The sentence needs to either be changed to the present tense (a la Nepal Airlines Flight 555) or reworded (a la British Airways Flight 38) to explicitly reference this particular incident. Given I was tersely rebuffed for attempting the former, I've done the latter. But perhaps others don't feel the same way, so I'm putting it out there. Should the latter formulation stay, it should probably be noted somewhere in the article (as in the BA38 article) that Asiana still operates this route as Flight 214. -- tariqabjotu 02:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It varies, it seems; see, for example, Emirates Flight 407 and Air France Flight 358. I think your version is the best, but it's not something to get hugely fussed about. Ignatzmice•talk 02:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Emirates Flight 407 seems like a better example than Nepal Airlines Flight 555 of the present tense format. For most aviation incident articles this isn't an issue, as the flight number is often retired after the incident or the flight number is otherwise no longer used. But there are the rare cases (as here) where it is. I genuinely don't care which approach is taken, though. I originally just changed the tense because I assumed there would be less objection to the change of one word. But, with the latter approach requiring a major modification of the intro, I thought I'd pre-emptively raise the point on the talk page rather than wait and see if someone reverts. -- tariqabjotu 02:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:AVIMOS#Accidents — Lfdder (talk) 07:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That's funny. That link highlights the weird language that surrounds air crashes. Most aren't really accidents, but that's what we call them. HiLo48 (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
They aren't really accidents? You're gonna have to elaborate. — Lfdder (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Almost every time, a cause is found, often human error in some area of operations. In normal English, accidents are not something caused by someone's error. HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, I must've been living outside the 'normal English' (prescriptivist) sphere. Regardless, investigators define their use of accident, incident, etc. — Lfdder (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
That's precisely my point. (And perhaps you're too close to the industry to appreciate language outside it.) HiLo48 (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
This is news to me. Car accidents are almost always due to human error rather than mechanical problems, and yet they're still called, well, accidents. That being said, the precise terminology is not really important in this discussion. -- tariqabjotu 11:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, I guess that settles it; I didn't realize there was a manual of style prescribing the approach (and apparently editors on at least two other articles didn't realize that either). -- tariqabjotu 11:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
In several areas where car crashes are studied, the word accident is now being avoided. I know this is radical, and many will oppose any change due to normal human conservatism and an "I've never thought of it that way before" response, so I won't push any harder. But the seed is sown. HiLo48 (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
What you said earleir about normal English use is not true. Accident is avoided where car crashes/collisions/what-have-you are concerned 'cos reckless/drunk driving is a real issue and a point/the distinction needs to be made. It's not relevant here. — Lfdder (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
It is. It's just as relevant. But it's OK. As I said, I know you won't concede it. I've made my point. That's how change begins to happen. HiLo48 (talk) 05:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
What a revolutionary. — Lfdder (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

why photo change?

the section in infobox is supposed to carry photo of intact aircraft type be it the one involved in accident or not, that was the case some hours back, but its been replaced by the post crash wreckage photo which could have been added to the article instead, please change to former. 139.190.138.27 (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Dont think we have any guidance on this, normally free accident images or even free images of the actual aircraft are hard to get in the first few days but I dont see a free image of the post-accident aircraft a problem. MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
The actual, pre-accident aircraft image is still in the article, just further down. Chris857 (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I was just suggesting that the intact aircraft photo be put back in the infobox as it was originally, while the wreckage one can be inserted anywhere in the article and should not be in infobox. 139.190.138.27 (talk) 05:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
The article is about the crash itself, not the plane... seems best to have an image more related to the crash itself be in the infobox, if possible. Not sure why you're saying the two-year-old photo "should" be in the infobox. It's often hard to find a free photo depicting the crash, so often a plane photo is the best we can do. US Airways Flight 1549 shows a picture of the plane in the water, not an earlier photo, for example. If the subject of the article was the plane itself, I'd tend to agree, but the subject is more the crash to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

engines "spooled up"

What does "spooled up mean? Sounds like jargon. Could somebody change this language to something everybody can understand? Abductive (reasoning) 22:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done 22:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I thought this was a real term, rather than just jargon... as in "throttles were moved to full, and the engines required 7 seconds to spool up before delivering maximum thrust". Hiberniantears (talk) 00:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure it is a real term, but I can't imagine that very many readers know what it means. Abductive (reasoning) 00:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-152013.html Seems we could do with an article spooling up. As it is, there is no mention of it either under turbojet or turbofan, or even spool. --Mareklug talk 01:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that at best the term could use an entry in Wiktionary. Abductive (reasoning) 01:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
It makes perfect sense to incorporate the term in the description of how the turbine works, and how the propulsion is effected by its rotation, also the compressor's. We could then easily link to that section, even if you won't want to have even a small article on Wikipedia. The salient point is that there is a delay between applying the controls to when the engine generates power that then translates into useful lift, other aerodynamic factors permitting (no stall condition). --Mareklug talk 02:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

"Spooled up" is correct nomenclature for the rotation speed of a jet engine which is measured in percentage on the RPM gauges (N1 & N2).

The modern engines have an "inflight idle" speed, which means the idle speed of those engines, while inflight, is a higher percentage of rotation speed, than when the plane is on the ground. The purpose being to ensure that power will be very quickly available to the pilot, if he needs it right away inflight.

The first generation of jets did not have that higher inflight idle speed and they did take as long as 7 to 9 seconds to put out significant thrust, once the thrust levers were advanced from idle, inflight.

Now, it only takes 2 to 4 seconds to get substantial thrust, when the levers are advanced from that higher inflight idle rotation speed. Pilots have to use their speed brakes more often, when descending, because they still get a significant amount of thrust from the engines, when they are at that higher inflight idle speed. EditorASC (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me like a viable stub for spooling up right there! EditorASC, would you do the honors? You sound like just the type with experience on the type. :) --Mareklug talk 08:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Considering holding back on investigation reports

The Air Line Pilots Association International is decrying the release of so much partial information so early in the investigation. They're concerned that these little bits of information will lead to erroneous conclusions and interfere with the investigation.[8] I don't have much of an opinion on what Wikipedia should do about reporting the available information, but I would especially caution against synthesis, or even repeating media synthesis. -- ke4roh (talk) 01:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The ALPA statement is directed at the NTSB:

It is imperative that safety investigators refrain from prematurely releasing the information from on-board recording devices

As can be seen from the discussion above, the contributors are working very hard to stick with the facts. Comfortably Paranoid (talk) 02:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes - as I see it, if we work within Wikipedia policy, we shouldn't be reporting speculation anyway. I don't think that 'special caution' should be required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary removal of factual information

I'm concerned that a certain user has taken to removing factual information cited by reliable sources. I have talked to the user and the user defended his actions. Here are two diffs that illustrate the point:

I would like feedback from others about how to handle these two cases. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe both are items given WP:UNDUE weight. In addition:
  • The 1st item is sourced to the blog section of the New Yorker - blogs are not considered reliable sources.
  • The 2nd item seems a bit out of place in the flow of the article.
Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
For the first item: Per WP:RS, "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." This is not a personal blog.
For the second item: The statement can be reintroduced elsewhere in the article, but it's still a reliably-sourced fact.
CaseyPenk (talk) 04:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the 1st item, as it is, IMHO, given undue weight. As for the 2nd, it is properly sourced (and, with apologies to Andy, not "Boeing PR", simply a fact). Perhaps another editor can find improved wording and/pr placement.
Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I don't agree that the Chinese netizen blurb constitutes undue weight, though. The victims were both from China and microblogging provides one (you could say the only) outlet for citizens to publicly express their views on a given topic. Sina Weibo, to which the blurb and the article refer, are analogous to Twitter, and Twitter has certainly served as inspiration for various news articles from reliable sources.
That being said, Andy raised his concern that including information about the socioeconomic discussion taking place (namely, some netizens complained of the divide between the haves and have-nots) may not be entirely germane to the article. In that sense I could see the claim about undue weight.
I am more than happy to compromise and reintroduce the sentence about the netizens with an agreed-upon scope (e.g. only mention that netizens mourned the loss), as well as the sentence about the Boeing 777 in an agreed-upon place.
It is not clear there's a WP:CONSENSUS to re-add the "netizens' concern" materiel. I don't favor it, but if the wording is changed as you indicate, I'd likely be neutral. To stimulate comments from others, perhaps you could enter your suggested addition here, on the talk page? Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
CaseyPenk (talk) 05:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that another user rephrased the Boeing 777 reliability sentence, perhaps making it more amenable to others. The sentence was factual as written before but the new version also seems fine. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I invited Andy to comment on this part of the discussion (see [9]). JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
The Boeing 777's safety record is among the best of its type. has no relevance to the accident, the opinion pilots think it is among the best record should be left to the tabloids not an encyclopedia. It creates more questions with little value. MilborneOne (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
As I said in my edit summary, this sort of comment might belong in our article on the 777, but I don't see why it belongs here. We simply don't know the cause of the accident, and accordingly, we can't say whether the past record is relevant. Furthermore, the paragraph in question wasn't even supported by the source cited:
"It could very easily have the safest record for that size of aircraft," said Robert Herbst, a retired American Airlines 767 pilot and aviation industry consultant in South Carolina. [10]
We are taking a subjective opinion, and presenting it as objective fact. That isn't acceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/tech_data/General_information/Airbus_Aircraft_Data_for_Visual_Aids_Calibration-May12.pdf
  2. ^ http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/faqs/icaoadmpart4.pdf
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214/Archive_1&oldid=1146658943"