Talk:TransAsia Airways Flight 235/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Accident images

There is a dash cam video of the plane hiring the bridge. A composite image of 3-4 still images from the video could and should be made and added to this article, under fair use. AHeneen (talk) 09:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

There is an image that has been widely circulated on social media and is linked to on the current version of this page. I believe it was originally posted on Twitter by @Missxoxo168 but this person has now protected their account. Davidreid (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Davidreid: I have been in talks with some users with Wikimedia Taiwan to see if she would be able to release them to us, but that might get drowned out in the rest of the press asking for interviews, the images, and other things. It is part of a video from the looks of it, which are on various YouTube channels for news sources. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

This video is marked as CC-BY and the description says so. But I'm not sure if the uploader is the author. emijrp (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Coordinates need a source

Ktr101, how did you arrive at those coordinates? Anyone know of a source for precise location? ―Mandruss ☎ 13:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Now Pcchou has changed the coordinates. Pcchou, how did you arrive at your coordinates?? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The exact coordinates where the plane hit the road are 25.062866, 121.617007 or 25°03'46.3"N 121°37'01.2"E! They are from Dash-cam video too. As you say Wikipedia:No original research. But original or not, Mandruss, you can use Google Map "browse street view images" to these coordinates and Dash-cam for crash to see if you want. Change them or specify for what coordinates it comes - coordinates of the crash or coordinates where they dragged plane after crash.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.65.171 (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

We will eventually need a source if we can find one. While we are waiting for that, original research with reasoning is better than original research without reasoning. Looking at the dashcam in this New York Times article, it looks like most of the debris is just after the U-shaped structure that spans the road. I place that location at about 25.062876,121.616919. From that I would estimate the entry into the water at about 25.063477,121.617756 which I would round to four decimal positions or 25.0635,121.6178. Do you (or anyone else) disagree? If so, why? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments at the bottom. It is impossible to understand the thread if your responses come before what you are responding to. How do you know that? I do not see any coordinates on the file page File:TransAsia Airways Flight 235.JPG. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

25.063063, 121.618383 or 25°03'47.0"N 121°37'06.2"E. These are the coordinates of the image with submerged plane that is in the Article.

How do you know that? I do not see any coordinates on the file page File:TransAsia Airways Flight 235.JPG. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Use "Google brows street view images" Go to the road near the coordinates where I have given you for image. Turn your head to the left. Do you see specific oval building. Now, look the image in Article again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.65.171 (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Close enough. Done. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss I was talking to another Wikipedian who could read Taiwanese and he told me where the press over there was reporting the crash site to be, so I wasn't coming up with it out of the blue. Based on the video and images available though, I made an approximation to the site, since it was easy enough to triangulate where it would have been in relation to the structures in the area. It might not have been the perfect approach, but as the IP wrote above, it's a start. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ktr101: Thanks. I have just updated the coords per the discussion above, are you ok with them? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine with me, as I knew they wouldn't be perfect, but it would be a start for those who wanted to know where this roughly occurred. Thanks for your help with this! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Scroll down to the bottom of http://appweb.cna.com.tw/webm/menu/akey/201502045005.aspx and there is a map of the flight path. It appears to be upsidedown. Abductive (reasoning) 19:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Alakzi has entered the correct coordinates. One can tell from the pale blue building on the bank of the river in some photos of the rescue operation. Abductive (reasoning) 01:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

25.062866, 121.617007 or 25°03'46.3"N 121°37'01.2"E Exact where plane hit the road, but no matter your new coordinates are good.(Dashcam video http://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2015/02/04/vo-taiwan-transasia-crash-dash-cam-video.tvbs-taiwan). Plane hit water may be somewhere here 25.063022, 121.617694 or 25°03'46.9"N 121°37'03.7"E

Choice of images and placement

(separated from previous discussion)―Mandruss ☎ 08:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest taking the lead from the Chinese version of the page as far as choice of images and placement? Jlick (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Got a link? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

zh:復興航空235號班機空難 Mjroots (talk) 09:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

In general you can find the links to the page in other languages on the left-side toolbar. As this is an event mainly affecting Taiwanese and Chinese, the Chinese language page tends to be more detailed and up-to-date. Jlick (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that link would be very useful if one could find it without knowing the Chinese word for "Chinese". I'll try the one Mjroots provided. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mandruss: - if you hold the mouse over the link, it will tell you what language it is. I don't know if it will help, but the "word" you are looking for is 中文. Mjroots (talk) 11:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok thanks. You learn something every day. So I looked at it, and I'm not thrilled by the choice of images. The tiny-boats-in-river one is particularly bad composition and would add little to the article. And a photo of a fire station? No offense, but I think we're doing ok on our own. Others may differ. But it looks like they picked up our infobox photo within about an hour of our adding it. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Lede

Of course, the AVINAME brigade has arrived to rid the lede of any continuity. Alakzi (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is this supposed to mean? I assume you're referring to this edit to the first paragraph of the lead?

Before:

"On 4 February 2015, 10:55 local time (UTC+8), a TransAsia Airways ATR 72-600 crashed into the Keelung River, 5.4 km (3.4 mi) east of Taipei Songshan Airport, shortly after takeoff from Songshan. The aircraft was operating TransAsia Airways Flight 235 (GE235/TNA235), a Taiwanese domestic flight from Taipei to Kinmen (Quemoy). There were 53 passengers and five crew on board. 15 people have been rescued."

After:

"TransAsia Airways Flight 235 (GE235/TNA235) was a Taiwanese domestic flight which crashed into the Keelung River at 10:55 local time (UTC+8) on 4 February 2015 shortly after takeoff from Taipei Songshan Airport, 5.4 km (3.4 mi) to the west. The TransAsia Airways flight, operated with a ten-month-old ATR 72-600 aircraft, was flying from Taipei to Kinmen (Quemoy) with 53 passengers and five crew on board. Fifteen people have been rescued."

First, the change does create continuity with all other aviation accident articles that follow the guidelines (found at WP:AVINAME). Second, per WP:LEADSENTENCE, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence. I don't understand what you're complaining about? AHeneen (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Does that not read unnatural to you? It's just a roundabout way to say what was previously said in a descriptive manner, in a normative manner. Alakzi (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Taipei Fire Department and rescue efforts

The Rescue crews in Taiwan work to free passengers trapped in TransAsia plane source mentions "Wu Jun-hong, a Taipei Fire Department official who was coordinating the rescue...". I would consider this a sufficient source for inclusion of a mention of the Taipei Fire Department coordinating the rescue efforts. I guess there might be an issue with going from an official coordinating to saying the department itself was doing the coordinating, but I personally see it as semantics, rather than OR or SYNTH. — daranz [ t ] 15:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, if you feel that detail is article-worthy. Thanks for talking. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox photo choice

As far as I can tell, the infoboxes in a majority of aircraft-accident articles use a pre-accident photo of the aircraft when one is available.
The river photo is not particularly informative, showing only an unrecognizable floating object, presumed to be fuselage.

Comments? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Whereas GAs, like TAM Airlines Flight 3054, Adam Air Flight 172 and USAir Flight 405, don't. There's no hard-and-fast rule. Alakzi (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't claim there was a hard-and-fast rule (actually that would be a ridiculous claim, as there are no hard-and-fast rules at Wikipedia). I said it appears that's the case in a majority, and I questioned whether the alternative is better. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

No, but the implication is that a pre-accident photo should be favoured for being the norm. If we're talking about the accident, it seems to follow that we should show a photo of the accident. Alakzi (talk) 03:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so we disagree. Not the first time. That's why we're here in talk. Awaiting other comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Unless I'm blind, there are no pre-accident photos for any of your three examples, so of course we don't show pre-accident photos for them. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of the lack of pre-accident photos, the infobox should have a photo of the accident if it's available since the article is about the accident. AHeneen (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll take the liberty of adding Philipxd to the list of those who support the pre-accident photo. It seems safe since they made the last edit to put it back. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

An image of the crash scene is to be prefered. I can't imagine why a pic of an intact plane is what the readers are expecting. Abductive (reasoning) 05:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I would rather see a photo of that type of plane as it normally looks than a picture of an unrecognizable mess.--Thnidu (talk) 05:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

An uncrashed plane looks like a plane. Add the image somewhere to the article. Abductive (reasoning) 05:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This might look like this to you, but it would be wrong to assume that most readers are like you in that respect. Look, there are pros and cons to both sides of the question. It simply a matter of how much weight to give to each pro and con. We disagree on that, and there's nothing for any of us to gain by acting like the other side is a bunch of idiots because they fail to see the obvious truth. Let's just give this another 48 hours or so to get more opinions, and then count opinions, implement the consensus, shake hands, and move on. There's no real hurry on this. Okay? I would also like to suggest that you read WP:BRD. It's BRD, not BRDRD. The article needs to remain in the state it was when the discussion started, until the the discussion is completed. If you fail to observe that rule, there is no question who the edit warrior is. Trust me, I've seen this situation too many times at AN/EW. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

If you look at all the 2014 plane crash articles, you'll see images of a plane that isn't even the one that crashed used. Why? Because no free image of the plane exists. So you guys have gotten used to it--that's the only reason you think the infobox should hold a pic of the undamaged plane. Abductive (reasoning) 06:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. That's another valid argument for your side. But it is not the only valid argument and it is not the end of the discussion. Now, would you like to self-revert, or shall I do it? ―Mandruss ☎ 06:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, it is the quality of the image which should be the deciding factor. The infobox photo is the first that the reader will see, so it should be a good one. SeeBOAC Flight 712 (a GA), where a really good quality photo of the accident is available and has been used in the infobox. In this case. the photo of the aircraft is better than that of the accident. Mjroots (talk) 06:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, what distinguishes an article with a crash picture is that some Wikipedian went out and took the picture, and when the plane crashed somewhere without easy access, the picture if it taken by those air spotters is used because those guys are prolific. But I say again, lay people (not airplane buffs like I suspect some of you here are) will be looking for the crash pictures. If you don't believe me check how many of the news media stories show a picture of the undamaged plane at all. Abductive (reasoning) 06:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the photo of the original aircraft as it is so on most other articles about plane crashes on wikipedia, and it is weird if this article doesn't follow the pattern. PhilipxD 06:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Abductive - there was no such thing as a Wikipedian in 1968. We are grateful to M940504 for taking the photos and allowing them to be used worldwide. But they do not show up well at a smaller size. Mjroots (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is about the crash and the infobox should contain an image of the crash. It can and should use an image of the plane hitting the bridge, under fair use. AHeneen (talk) 07:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@AHeneen: Are you saying we should put this in the infobox? And despite the fact that it is nominated for deletion? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The photo is nominated for deletion because it was tagged "Public domain" and that the author is unknown. The photo needs fair use rationale, plus it needs to be smaller. It's 1080x600 pixels...too big for Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (see specifically WP:Image resolution). AHeneen (talk) 07:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I could support that, it's a far better photo than the river photo, imo. I could handle the resize, but I don't know how to add the fair use rationale. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I now realize that it was uploaded to Commons, which is where the deletion discussion is. Although there is a case to be made that a pre-positioned recording device doesn't meet the threshold of originality to be copyrightable (see my comment at the photo's deletion discussion). I don't know how to handle the resize, but will handle the upload and fair use within an hour. AHeneen (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I gather (1) we're uploading locally instead of at Commons, and (2) we still need a resize. I now have three versions on my computer:

The original, 1080x600.
A resize of the original, 640x356.
A version cropped on the left, eliminating all of the buildings there and a little more, to give a 4:3 aspect ratio, and resized to 640x480. Since 480 is 34% larger than 356, the plane would appear that much larger in the thumbnail.

If you can tell me which of the latter two you want, and tell me how (I have no image experience except for Commons), I can upload it. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Done File has been uploaded at File:TransAsia Flight 235 crash.png and added to the infobox. I've uploaded a 320 × 178 pixel version, which was one of the other preview sizes available for the image that was uploaded to Commons. I left out "Airways" in the name of the file, but that's not an important issue. AHeneen (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@AHeneen: Only problem is that even at full size you can't make out the taxi. You can in either of my versions (a little better in the 640x480 one). I think that adds something significant. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and uploaded the 640x480. Note that the file page says: "This tag is not a sufficient claim of fair use", etc. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Guys, you're getting there. The image also needs a non-free fair use rationale. See File:G-ARWE-2.jpg for an example of this. Once that is sorted, there should not be a problem with it being nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 09:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Knock yerself out! I don't know how to do that stuff, and I'm not feeling inclined to learn at the moment. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

{{Non-free fair use in}} Mjroots (talk) 09:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@AHeneen:@Mjroots: Just so you know, the image is now tagged for speedy deletion. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

FFS, do I have to do everything myself?

Mjroots (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

LOL. No, just this. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

There was already non-free use rationale? Also, Popular Mechanics don't hold copyright on this photo. Alakzi (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the need for the second template. The first one was added during the upload wizard and already explained how the image meets Wikipedia's NFCC, including a field for the article it's used in. If more needs to be added, why wouldn't the upload wizard explain that more needed to be done. Anyways, I was asleep and just happened to wake up to find an email about the speedy deletion (talk page message), so commented on the image talk page and here...I won't be around to edit for several more hours for further discussion. (It's not particularly easy to navigate & edit WP on a mobile phone) AHeneen (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The first one covers the image. The second one covers its use in an article. It is possible for a NFFU image to be used in more than one article, but a separate NFFUR template is needed for each use - see File:Barham Black.jpg, which is used in Black Mill, Barham and List of windmills in Kent, Mjroots (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not what the template documentation or WP:NFC says. Besides, the first box did quite clearly cover its use in this article. Alakzi (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

See WP:NFCCP, Section 10. part c. Mjroots (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that was already there. Have you read the first box? Alakzi (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Pprune

Pprune is not a reliabl source. However, it is a source of reliable sources. This discussion thread on the accident has many links that may be of use, as well as much original research on the cause of the accident. If we can resist the urge to include the latter, it can be a valuable too in expanding the article. Mjroots (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

"External video" box

The "External video" box in the Investigation section contains links to three dashcam videos, Nearest, Second nearest, and Farthest. Second nearest is now dead and is likely to remain dead. Farthest is so far as to be almost useless. Anyone opposed to dropping the box and keeping only Nearest? In External links? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Was this the second nearest? Alakzi (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Fixed. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone translate the speech in Second nearest for me? Just curious. (I know what I'd be saying at that point, but it's not for mixed company.) ―Mandruss ☎ 19:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: I moved the box from Investigation to Flight. More reader value there. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Need for clarity

The phrase "crash-landed into the Keelung River after hitting Nanhu Bridge" suggests that striking the bridge caused the crash. While the exact cause of the crash is not known at this stage it is clear that the plane was out of control and in the process of crash landing before it hit the bridge. This phrase needs to be edited for greater clarity. Davidreid (talk) 07:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The phrase "crash-landed" is very poor nomenclature, unless it is valid to describe ALL air crashes as "landings" too. Even if so-called "reliable" press media use inane phrases like that, we should not regurgitate such ignorant reporting. Let's not forget popular press media are among the most common "getting-it-wrong" sources we can reference, especially in the first few days after such accidents. EditorASC (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

scissors

"scissors were therefore used to cut and detach the seats" - really? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It might be lost in translation of the jaws of life. Mjroots (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Unrelated "crash", possibly worth mentioning somewhere

Does anyone think there would be any reason to include this skid off a runway of the same plane model on the same day of the accident? I don't have any reason to add it, but it might be worth a mention somewhere. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Nope and nope, imo ―Mandruss ☎ 16:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

As you said, it's unrelated... there's no gain from including it Audigex (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Port or left

We keep going back to "port". Is this a convention specified by WikiProject Aviation? "Left" sounds more appropriate to me, probably because that's the word used without exception by news sources. Google News Archive Search produces these results:

transasia 235 "left wing" - about 650 hits

transasia 235 "port wing" - no news hits, but one hit at Wikipedia (this article)

Granted, a lot of the "left wing" hits are referring to liberals. Nevertheless, even a small fraction of 650 is a lot more than zero.

What is the reasoning for "port", besides someone's vague idea of "correctness"? If av-buff correctness is the goal, we should be referring to a flameout in the number one engine. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with "left", per WP:JARGON. AHeneen (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. A user "John" changed everything back to "left" a few hours ago, so maybe it will stick this time. If not, I call this a consensus! ―Mandruss ☎ 15:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree as well. Alakzi (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem with "Left and right" is that they're potentially relative. If the plane is upside down, is that the left, right or port wing? It also potentially uses a different frame of reference: is it right of the video, on the right hand side of the plane or even the "correct" wing. Port and starboard are unambiguous. Audigex (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

People will generally understand left to mean left-hand, just like if we were to talk about the left side of your car. Alakzi (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The left wing is always the left wing, whether the aircraft is right side up, upside down, or standing on its tail (and all news sources agree, as I showed above). Does your left arm become your right arm when you turn around? No ambiguity here, sorry. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

What flight engineer?

Flight engineer on an ATR 72-600? Wasn't it reported that the guy in the jumpseat was a check pilot? Alakzi (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen that, just going by one of the sources that was already there. It's an English language source, apparently in China or Taiwan. I've also seen reference to a flight engineer's body being recovered. So who to believe? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, the media seem to think that whenever there's a third in the cockpit, then it must be a flight engineer. The ATR doesn't have a FE station. I'll see if I can find a more reliable source. Alakzi (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I am sure it was reported before that he was a check pilot. MilborneOne (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Current Event

Does this still count as a "current event"? I added the banner but forgive me if I'm unfamiliar on the policies on what constitutes a current event. Thebombzen (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The banner is actually about the frequency of edits to the page, which is still quite high. On that basis, it is appropriate to keep the banner for now. WWGB (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Departure time discrepancy

There is a small time discrepancy between Flight and Investigation. According to Investigation, the flight departed somewhere between 10:51:13 (take-off clearance) and 10:52:34 ("contact Departure"). Flight says 10:53. To me, departure time would be narrowly construed as start of the take-off roll, which would have been very close to 10:51:20. Is this worth being concerned about? Is it even possible to resolve it? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The reasons for the crew's action

"The authority made a preliminary determination that it was engine number 2 that went to idle/feather by itself and caused the very first warning sound at 10:52:38.3, but the crew then cut power to engine number 1 at 10:52:43.0. The reasons for the crew's action and the feathering of engine number 2 are undetermined as of yet"

The reason for the crew's action for cut power to engine number 1 after Warning sound is that this engine is start to "choking" due to insufficient flow of fuel to it. This action make a lot of sound, and they think that problem is in engine number 1. Now listen carefully in this video (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/06/asia/taiwan-transasia-plane-crash/index.html) how some of passenger hear sound from the LEFT SIDE (Engine N1) and move to the RIGHT SIDE of the plane shortly after take off. If idle/feather action for engine N2 is automatic this will prevent this engine from "choking" because fuel flow is reduced and probably sufficient for normal work of engine because of IDLE - i.e. engine N2 will look fine and as it action is normal reaction of "broken" noisy left engine N1.

"10:53:06 — Crew discuss cutting power to engine number 1 (left engine) and confirm engine number 2 (right engine) is idle. "

But not confirm that it is FEATHERING - i.e. they don't know it.

Feathering is to set the prop pitch lever so instead of facing at a right angle to drive air backwards and produce thrust, the propeller will instead turn edge-first into the airstream, reducing drag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enchev EG (talk • contribs) 16:44. 6 February2015

As this is not a forum do you have a suggestion based on reliable sources to improve the article? MilborneOne (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:NOR, we wait for official announcements. This has been speculated elsewhere. There is WP:NORUSH to insert details into the article, particularly not unconfirmed rumour or gossip. Mjroots (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

"10:52:38 — Warning sound recorded 10:52:43 — Crew cut power to left engine". For less than 5 seconds the crew decided to CUT THE POWER to the left engine when plane is still in gaining altitude. This can be done only when there is direct danger for MECHANICAL DESTRUCTION of LEFT ENGINE due to some kind of MECHANICAL ISSUE. There are two ways for the crew to determine that: 1. To see something wrong in engine and propellers (like smoke, fire or breakage) or 2. To hear something in engine work. In the dashcam videos it is clearly visible that there is no smoke, fire or breakage of left side. Only point 2 must be the reason for such unbelievable fast decision to CUT POWER of engine in such critical phase in the flight under 5 seconds! As I show you even CNN confirms that some of the passengers heard sound from left engine that scared them. This sound is heard and by pilots and is probable cause for their fast decision. If I do speculation on this subject - authorities make them too. There is no way for them to know what happened in PILOT'S HEADS. Question is why you publish their crap, but mine can not be even in talk section? If you see something ILLOGICAL in them - tell me. The problem with authorities is that they don't tell to public whether "idle/feather by itself" is normal function of the emergency system and whether it is DESCRIBE in CREW CHECKLIST and if the PILOTS ARE AWARE OF THIS FUNCTION. If they don't know about it - this automatically make them free from guilt. AS YOU SEE YOU CHANGED VERSION IN ARTICLE "Investigation" DRASTICALLY after my comment here. Take this as evidence that my comments are productive in one or another way for Wiki. Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enchev EG (talk • contribs) 18:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Enchev EG, you're wasting your breath. If you wanna discuss the aspects of this crash, try PPRuNe. Alakzi (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

May be you are right and I wasting my breath. But I don't want to comment in forums but here. As I said above if you want DELETE MY POST - I wont hold a grudge.

"GE235 flight received take off clearance from SongShan tower at 1051:13, after took off, at 1052:33.8 ATC controller requested the crew to contact Taipei approach. After 5 seconds, (1052:38.3), master warning sounded in the cockpit associated with right engine(2) flame out procedure message on display unit. The crew called it out. At 1053:04.0 the recorded parameters indicated that the left engine power lever(1) was progressively retarded to flight idle. At 1053:24, the left engine condition lever(1) was set to fuel shutoff position resulting in left engine(1) shutdown. Between 1053:12.6 to 1053:18.8, several stall warnings sounded. Flight crew declared an emergency at 1053:34.9 and reported an engine flame out. At 1054:09.2, flight crew called several time for engine restart. At 1054:20 the recorded parameters indicates a restart of the left engine(1). At 1054:34.4, master warning sounded, 0.4 seconds later, CVR recorded unidentified sound. Both recorders stopped recording at 1054:36.

The above information are preliminary and subject to change. Aviation Safety Consul"

Ask question "How something derived from "black boxes" can be subject to change?" and you will understand who is speculate and who not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enchev EG (talk • contribs) 19:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

(a) I'm not in the business of deleting people's comments. (b) We base our articles on WP:reliable sources. An editor, in his capacity as an editor, never is a reliable source. Alakzi (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Question is: Do you want to know the truth or you want to know the version of authorities? I don't make changes in Main Article so you don't need to worry.

The probable sequence of events is the flowing:

1. Fuel Coagulation make fuel system clogged. 2. Emergency system is probably programed to go in to IDLE/FEATHERING mode when some sings of clogging are shown. 3. First problem is detected in the RIGHT ENGINE and system IDLE/FEATHERING it. 4. When the same problem is detected again in the LEFT ENGINE the system did not do anything because this will be illogical to IDLE/FEATHERING two engines at the same time. For this reason the LEFT ENGINE was left to working even though it was suffering from fuel insufficiency. 5. The LEFT ENGINE made "CHOKING" noises that were heard by the passengers and pilots - and let them to conclusion that problem is in it. 6. They cut power to the left engine, shot down it, and try to restart unsuccessfully - leaving the right engine in idle/(and without them knowing in) feathering mode. 7. Crash.

The Pilots shouldn't be blamed even if their actions are wrong - and they are such because of unknowing of system reaction in such situation. Obviously and authorities don't know exactly how system works - whats is left for ordinary pilots. Of course, they are trying to accuse them and will make lie after lie - because to tell truth how you buy low-quality aviation fuels and risk life of thousand of people every day is not acceptable for them.

Now you can write lies from "reliable sources" in the main article without problem. Who ever want "unreliable truths", can see them in Talk section here even they are speculations.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Enchev EG (talk • contribs) 20:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The answer is, we report what reliable sources say at the time, even if it subsequently turns out not to be the case. There is WP:NORUSH to get info into the article the second someone speculates about it. Mjroots (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

As you can see the LIES have started (http://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/02/06/lead-dnt-marsh-transasia-plane-crash-taiwan.cnn). THE PROBLEMS ARE NOT IN ENGINES AT ALL - CLOGGED FUEL SYSTEM IS THE REAL PROBLEM. It is no matter that the crew trying to restart LEFT ENGINE - it was going to stop working on its one(losing thrust) due to insufficient fuel supply shortly after making "choking" sounds. In this situation they couldn't do anything. They trying to suggest you that the right engine is "broken", the left engine is "ok" - so that they can blame the pilots for shutdown "wrong" engine - but in reality this false feeling of "broken" and "ok" is made by the automatic emergency system that chose to idle/feathering right engine first making it "broken" in delude minds of the "investigators" and left engine "ok". As I said: neither engine was broken and problem was in fuel system.

Frankly, when I calculate the data from dash-cam 3570 fpm descent rate and 44 knots speed in the bridge - I was shocked. Of course, I might be wrong in some extent with this calculation but to stabilize it in such low speed and not crash in the building - the pilots deserve only respect. But as everything in this world the price for there bravery will be punishment.

Don't listen so called "investigators". Now days there are no true Investigators. Even such professional agencies as Air Accidents Investigation Branch are nearly broke - they have a minimum budget and can not afford to hire new experts. They hardly survive. And this is on purpose - of course. When you are on the edge of survival - you have no choice to talk truth, but only lies that are given to you from above. And note: I talk for "AAIB" not for such made up castles in the sky as "Aviation Safety Council" with whose "investigation report" I would wipe my ass.

As you see from these theme in Talk - they change all section that must be gathered from "black box" with total different data. Believe me, this information was not only on Wiki. They are trying different lies, and testing them piece by piece, day by day in order to achieve max plausible FALSE DATA that will support their lie. You will not see any real data from real "black boxes". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enchev EG (talk • contribs) 09:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Investigation section problem

I don't see this in your section.

10:52:43.0時提及將一號發動機油門收

Why you refer source 19 without using it?! http://www.appledaily.com.tw/realtimenews/article/life/20150206/555472 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enchev EG (talk • contribs) 10:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I have asked you on your talk page to sign each of your comments with ~~~~. This is "good practice" per WP:Signatures. Please begin doing that.

This is the English language Wikipedia, so please write in English. We can translate using online translators such as Google Translate, but that requires extra effort and the translation is not always good. The above text translates as "10:52:43.0 One mentioned the engine throttle to close". ―Mandruss ☎ 10:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I also can make translate with Google Translate. My question was: WHY YOU USE REFERENCE 19 BUT NOT USING DATA IN IT FOR WIKI ARTICLE. Your section "Investigation" reference only from source 18 by ASC. Enchev EG (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I have verified that all of the existing "sequence of events" content is provided by the first source. I have translated the second source and I do not see any information that I feel needs to be added at this time, so I will remove it. However, the translation is not good. I will make the second source a "hidden comment" so that it can easily be added back if necessary. The Google translation of the second source is as follows. Thank you.

Google translation of www.appledaily.com.tw/realtimenews/article/life/20150206/555472

(Update: Added fly Security Council press conference content)

The complex is difficult for the aviation, flight safety will be open this afternoon press conference description. An executive director Wang Fei said, when the plane took off with two engines are good, the problem number two engine off after a warning, another number of engine throttle is cut, there is no automatic function, is artificially controlled, but fly Security Council now is not going to discuss who is going to turn off, but was sitting in the cockpit Liao Jianzong left seat, is the master.

Wang stressed that normal One engine does not automatically turned off, but the data on it is turned off, but the flight safety will not say who now turned off, and the other as long as there is a revival of the crashed aircraft is a two minute with engine failure. II aircraft engine (right engine) at a height of 1200 feet generate an automatic feathering (a system to automatically feathering), the aircraft will provide the driver a warning system to inform II engine problems, II engine failure, then One engine throttle is slowly coming back, is turned off, actually number two engine has been promoting and fuel door, the last driver to try to re-start the One engine, but did not complete the full start-up operation, the final restart of the engine is invalid.

Flying Security Council, said the aircraft took off after 1 minute warning came cockpit sound, suspected engine on condition occurs within three minutes had five points appear stall warning. Wang said that issue aircraft altitude 5th stall warning, the 1st 53 minutes 10 seconds height of 1600 feet, the second 53 minutes 56 seconds height of 700 feet, the third 54 minutes 06 seconds height of 500 feet, 4 54 minutes 13 seconds times the height of 500 feet is also the first 54 minutes 24 seconds five times the height of 300 feet, Wang said, the aircraft altitude at 500 feet maintained for some time.

Wang said the information came out after the fact-finding, recently discovered in the fly if there is a need to improve the placement of there immediately, and will be immediately on the ATR fleet or TransAsia Airways issued "Interim Flight Safety Notice" will not wait until the end of the whole investigation, but there is no An interim report to be published fly.

Flying Security Council press release said that this year February 4 TransAsia Airways an ATR 72-600 aircraft type, nationality mark and registration number B-22816, flight number GE 235 flights take off from Songshan Airport at 10:51 execution passenger task, on-board positive, co-pilot of a people, a people observer, cabin crew for 2 people, 53 passengers, a total of 58 people. The aircraft crashed after takeoff in Songshan Airport Keelung. According to the latest information the crash of the Central Disaster Response Center released on this day, the current death toll of 35 people, eight were not found there.

Flying Security Council on February 4 after the Civil Aeronautics Administration received a notification, immediately set GE235 ad hoc investigation team to the scene. Survey members include Aviation Safety Council, Civil Aeronautics Administration, TransAsia Airways, French accident investigation bureau BEA, aircraft manufacturing company ATR, Canada Accident Investigation Bureau TSB, Transport Canada and the PWC PWC engine manufacturing companies, such as from about 38 people. GE235 The group is divided into flight operations, airworthiness and maintenance, wreckage, records, a survivor of factors, ATC / meteorological six groups and a total of 38 people.

Grouping the case record was made February 4 cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder, the night complete data recorder download, time synchronization and interpretation (aircraft cockpit voice recorder (CVR) have two hours recording capacity, solid-state type flight data recorder (Solid-State Flight Data Recorder, SSFDR), about 750 parameters were recorded; salvaged wreckage has been completed after positioning and structural damage assessment records, including rafting and scattered wreckage focus placed on the Air Force base in Matsuyama headquarters; other groups investigating the progress of each case has been published in a press release before the progress of the investigation.

Flight Safety will provide information at the time as follows: GE235 10:51:13 eligible Matsuyama flight takeoff clearance issued by the tower in Taipei time. After take-off and at 10:52: 33.8 Upon receipt of a request linking Taipei tower near field units. After nearly five seconds (10: 52: 38.3), the emergence of the main cockpit warning sound. Then the crew 10: 52: 43.0, referring to the One engine throttle back. 10:53:00 begin to discuss the program when the engine stalled. After about six seconds (10: 53: 06.4), the flight crew back again mention One engine throttle and confirm II engine flameout. 10:53: 12.6 to 10: 53: 18.8, the first occurrence of the cockpit stall warning sounds. 10:53: 19.6, the crew already mentioned One engine feathered and off the oil, appeared about two seconds after the stall warning sounds again. Flight crew at 10:53: 34.9 Matsuyama tower when the mayday call and inform the engine flameout. 10:54: 09.2, the crew drove repeatedly call again. 10:54: 34.4 cockpit occur when a second major warning sound, 0.4 seconds after the record is recorded to an unknown sound. Flight recorder in 10: 36.6 stops recording when: 54. (Life Center / Taipei)

―Mandruss ☎ 11:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Current event?

Is it right to rm the current event template because it is still in the Portal:Current events JustPlaneEditing (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I've successfully avoided this squabble until now. I just read the template guidelines and they clearly guide against using the tag in this case. Therefore I'd strongly oppose it. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Per the template guidelines (I'm assuming the OP read this...) - "Generally it is expected that this template and its closely related templates will appear on an article for less than a day". Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out JustPlaneEditing (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Taiwan or Republic of China

I think it might be useful to (1) establish an explicit consensus on this question, and (2) link to this thread in the edit summaries of reverts that return us to the consensus. We can put a {{DNAU}} in the thread to prevent it from being archived. The following could be copied-and-pasted into an edit summary:

see [[Talk:TransAsia Airways Flight 235#Taiwan or Republic of China|talk consensus]]

Comments?

I don't have much of an opinion, except that WP:COMMONNAME would seem to support "Taiwan" per these results from Google News Archive Search:

taiwan - about 86 million hits

"republic of china" -"people's republic of china" - about 50,000 hits

Our article's title is Taiwan, also supporting the above. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

taiwan IS the republic of china. that's the formal name. the people's republic of china is china. just like america's formal name is the united states of america. no one ever refers to the democratic people's republic of korea- we all call it north korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.6.225 (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand that Taiwan IS the Republic of China. This thread is about establishing an explicit consensus about which name to use in this article. I gather you support "Taiwan". Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Dont need a straw pool as the normal convention is to use the name of the wikipedia article that is currently Taiwan and China. MilborneOne (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Technically, you're correct. However, this might reduce the endless back-and-forth that we have been dealing with for days. The idea being that a less-experienced editor probably understands consensus better than COMMONNAME. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with the no need for a straw poll. This is an article about the TransAsia flight, NOT the Country. As such, we stick with pre-existing decisions on the article of the country in question, we shouldn't introduce inconsistencies just because a (smaller) consensus here disagrees with the one about the subject of the argument. I don't care which is right, I care that this isn't the place to discuss it: If you disagree, go discuss it on the Taiwan article, and in the meantime stick with convention. Audigex (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

There is zero chance for a consensus here against Taiwan. As I have tried to explain, (1) I completely understand that we shouldn't need to be doing this, and (2) my hope is that this can be used to reduce the hassle involved in fighting the people who insist on ROC and PRC. Honestly, this thread is becoming more hassle than that for me, and I'm beginning to regret trying to address the problem in this way. Maybe it would be easier to just warn these people a few times and then take them to AN/EW. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Straw poll

NOTE: Support for Taiwan will also imply support for China not People's Republic of China.

Taiwan per WP:COMMONNAME and Taiwan article title. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Taiwan - for 198.49.6.225, per their comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Taiwan (and China) per WP:COMMONNAME Mjroots (talk) 11:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Taiwan for ROC and China for PRC, per COMMONNAME. AHeneen (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Taiwan, common name and stop to turn around. Yug (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Compressor surge

Not a forum

Question: What is the strange sound from the Left Engine heard by passengers and pilots?

Answer: This sound is call "Compressor surge" (http://www.cast-safety.org/pdf/1_basics.pdf) and you may hear it in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFLqOtlyyqI)

Of course, the so called Investigators will not tell you that. They will quietly pass this subject, because then restart of left engine will become with compulsory character and pilots action will be logically.

"Compressor surge" and "Fuel filter clogging" are two events that usually accrue during take off and gaining of altitude. But as I said - they all are silent. The easiest and cheapest thing to do is to blame the pilots.

( If a compressor surge (sometimes called a compressor stall) occurs during high power at takeoff, the flight crew will hear a very loud bang, which will be accompanied by yaw and vibration. The bang will likely be far beyond any engine noise, or other sound, the crew may have previously experienced in service. http://www.b737.org.uk/enginemalfunctions.htm )

(Fuel filter clogging will usually be seen at high-power settings, when the fuel flow through the filter(and the sensed pressure drop across the filter) is greatest. http://www.cast-safety.org/pdf/1_basics.pdf )

Enchev EG (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I participate in creation of the main article, but not directly. After some time in the article will be special section named "Compressor surge" but you still don't know it. Be patient - I know that this is not forum - and for this reason I'm here. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enchev EG (talk • contribs) 17:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Map

As for the map, I think it would be good to have it on the right side, as for malaysian's crash, and to get a sense of the localisation directly within Wikipedia's page. As there is currectly debates on its inclusion, I put it here. Yug (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Crash site

class=notpageimage|

Location of crash site in Taiwan

Thank you for talking instead of edit-warring. I disagree with you. It gives no sense of localisation unless the reader already knows where Taiwan is in the world. If the reader clicks on the coordinates and goes to Google Maps or another interactive map tool, they can zoom in or out as much as they want. This is a waste of page space. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

If the issue is that it's too localised, then perhaps this will do. I disagree for the opposite reason: that it's not localised enough. If people wanna find out where Taipei is, they can just click on Taipei. Alakzi (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll be opposed to any map, since the reader is two clicks away from all the map functionality they could ever need or want. If someone wants to create a smallish map showing the flight path, I think that would be a lot more useful. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Alakzi (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, only the thumbnail needs to be smallish, the image itself could be largeish. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, we need something like this https://www.facebook.com/flightradar24/photos/pcb.844984902207601/844984642207627/?type=1&theater , creating in Open Street Map maybe. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 11:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

- Keep the map, people who don't know Taiwan will easily understanding where it has occurred. _Varma 12:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@User:Mandruss: "I'll be opposed to any map, since the reader is two clicks away from all the map functionality they could ever need or want." : then let's not write any article content and let's just write the reference sections, readers will be 1 click away from all fact they could ever need or want. Let's also not include any images, for the same reason: images are just one click away. 193.49.236.254 (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. There isn't a lot of room in the body for any more images, so we have to be very selective about what we put there. Things are already very cramped. If you have too many images for the amount of text, you end up with a lot of white space which is something to be avoided (or the images push down into the References section). If someone wants to create a gallery near the bottom, a thumbnail for a map like this could be put there. Let's see what others think. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

There's not much room in the article for a map of where Taipei is. However, a map could be created to show the flight path from the airport to the river, with annotations/notes of where events occurred (recorded/available from Flightradar24). I will try to make such a map sometime during the next few days (when I have time to do so). AHeneen (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I was just about to say exactly what 193.49.236.254 said. PhilipXD 04:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

A chinese language map...must be traslated

File:Ge235 milestone.png

- EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 12:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I am the author of this Map, then I made a English version, but I am not a confirm account of English Wikipedia, so I cannot upload the file, so sad..Tonghuix (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Philipxd has uploaded a version with both Chinese and English, and it is in use in this article. I have asked them if they might remove the Chinese. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I upload a English version svg file, so that others language could translate to their own. Tonghuix (talk) 05:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Cause some English strings copied from FDR and CVR, and my english not very good, so I upload svg file is

Tonghuix (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)