Talk:2002 Überlingen mid-air collision/Archive 1

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

New development

Don't know where this goes, but the airline has sued the German government in connection with the disaster almost 4 years later...Ranma9617 06:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Possible damaged PDF?

I've tried to download this from the external links section:

"Intermediary report by the German BFU"

http://www.skyguide.ch/scripts/ueberlingen_docs/happen/e/BFUStatus_Aug02_E.pdf

Several times I've tried to download it, and after getting 15 KB of it, the download stops. The latest version of Adobe Acrobat (7.0.9) refuses to read the PDF. If anyone else has the same problem we should probably delete the link. In the meantime I added a notice next to the link to indicate it may not be working properly.

I'll add this Skyguide page about the accident, while I'm at it: http://www.skyguide.ch/en/Dossiers/DossierUeberlingen/ Itsfullofstars 04:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That PDF File does not exist anymore... The URL is redirected to a generic page. So I deleted it. --Homer Landskirty 05:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Since the original publisher (some swiss private organisation?) withdrew that document from public, I removed that link the second time today. Furthermore we find the final investigation report on a really official web server (BFU; the official german authority for that investigation) in the link section. --Homer Landskirty 17:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree it's best to simply remove the link. Thank you. Itsfullofstars 18:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sliced through fuselage?

Wouldn't that have destroyed both airplanes, instead of destroying one and damaging one? How can they hit at a right angle and one of them still survives for a small while longer? Could someone please add a diagram of the positions of the airplanes in the crash? Thank you. Ilikefood 19:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Only the tail of Flight 611 hit the Tupolev. The rest of that plane passed underneath. So while its tail broke off, dooming the flight and causing the pilots to lose control, the plane remained mostly intact until it crashed. Fagstein 01:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I added the requested diagrams, which are from the official crash report. I also tried to smooth out some of the phrasing in one section to hopefully improve the readability a little. There's another section that I think needs some help, namely this:

"Russia commented on that same report, that the Russian crew was hindered to obey the TCAS advisory, since it was given when they were already at 35500 feet, while the controller (ATCO) wrongfully stated, he had conflicting traffic at 36000 feet, that the controller did not contribute to a successful solution, and that the DHL crew had a real chance to solve the situation, since they heard the communication between the Russian crew and the ATCO."

Perhaps it's just me, but I have a heard time following what's being said there. It's a very long sentence that could be helped by being broken up and rephrased. Itsfullofstars 03:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

After reading Appendix 10 in the official crash report, I've gone ahead and made changes to the long sentence I mentioned above. - Itsfullofstars 20:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Category

I'm questioning if this article really belongs in the following category...

"Airliner crashes caused by design or manufacturing errors"

I thought this was a human error accident. Should that category be removed from the article? - Itsfullofstars 22:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

(aa) Since the operation procedures belong to the design of the piece of technique (TCAS), and (bb) since those operation procedures (russian versus international) were contradictious, this accident is caused by a design error (this accident could have been avoided by a simple prohibition of access for the non-standard russian pilots, who want to enter non-russian airspace, years in advance). In that situation it was nearly impossible to rescue those people due to the not-so-well-laid design of the security measures (maybe other crews would have avoided that accident by chosing another sink rate (the acceptable range for that kind of pilot (I prefer test pilots) seems to be 2500-3000)) or another bearing (I still wonder why the russian aircraft moved so funny... strong side-wind?) or by doing something else different (flying slower, starting later, oversleeping, ...) -- but that would be more a happenstance than a consequence of a well-laid design). Furthermore that TCAS does not do an active radar scan but just a passive transponder read-in, which could explain the careful sink rate (it looks like the Brits were afraid of traffic below them). --Homer Landskirty 23:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore: The german defendant in that compensation-related law suit stated, that the russian pilots are not fully responsible for the accident (they r thinking of 60%). So the official opinion concurs at least partially with mine (contradictious orders (see section heading in article) are always a design flaw, because the design of a system must not endorse contradictions). --Homer Landskirty 23:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There's more to the story

I've recently been reading various online accounts about the tragedy, and I've realized there are aspects of the story that might be worth mentioning in the main article. A sampling of a few stories I've read are:

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=455&id=717372002 http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20020703/ai_n12633934 http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4153/is_20020702/ai_n12012074 http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20051127/ai_n15874125

From those articles above and others, I learned a few things that the wiki article hasn't mentioned yet:

  • Most of the passengers, and all of the young students traveling as a group, were from the eastern Russian Urals region of Bashkortostan, where the tragedy had a large impact; there were 3 days of official state mourning in Bashkortostan (and elsewhere in the Russian Federation?... I'm unsure at this point, but I hope to find out.)
  • The students, some of whom were children of influential people in Bashkortostan, were supposed to attend a festival organized by Unesco, the UN's education and cultural body. The children as a whole were a bright and gifted group, and as such the trip was a reward for their doing well in school.
  • A series of events delayed the excursion of the students, who should have already been at the Estival Park Hotel in the seaside resort of Salou near Barcelona when the accident occurred. They had missed their original flight and were stranded in Moscow. Flights to Barcelona on scheduled passenger airlines were full, so a charter had to be hastily arranged with the airline of their home region. The charter itself was said to have been delayed in Moscow for 18 minutes from its scheduled departure, but I'll have to double-check on that.
  • The family of the man who murdered the flight controller only got on that flight because of circumstance of fate, and were not part of the group originally chartering the plane, nor were his family from Bashkortostan; they lived in North Ossetia, in the Caucasus.
  • The article as it stands now doesn't mention that some buildings were set on fire on the ground (without injuries, however), or that Lake Constance was searched by a flotilla of boats looking for remnants from the crash.

Those are just some rough ideas, and would be re-worded for entry into the article itself. I believe that some or all of these things could be added to the article, as long as it is done with a neutral point-of-view without sensationalism or blatant 'heart-tugging', and if the sources (preferably multiple ones that can be collaborated) are reliable. I'd like to find more articles that are about the subject that weren't written just a few days after the collision; often articles written in the immediate days after events such as this one can be full of misleading or simply wrong information. It takes time for the facts to come to light. For example, the number of students on board fluctuates from source to source. The wiki article states an exact number of 45, which could very well be correct, but some sources hedge their bets and only state a rough number. I'm assuming exact numbers (and much more detailed articles about the incident, in general) are probably available on Russian websites, a language I sadly can't read. I wonder how the English version here compares with the same article on the Russian or German wikipedia?

I just thought I'd propose adding some additional material such as what I've outlined above, and I'm curious what people think about the idea. If there's disagreement from others here, perhaps because the content I'm proposing may not be encyclopedic enough, that's fine. Any thoughts? - Itsfullofstars 01:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Those facts are too far away from the chain-of-causes for my taste (delays, mismanagement, gifted or not). If we would mention that, it would create a bad impression, I think. The age of the dead people is not so important, too (the published official report does not say anything about the age of the passengers). Furthermore the buildings are almost nothing in comparison to the fatalities (the german authorities call it "minor damage", IIRC). But I was quite disturbed by this trivia, too, when I heard it some years ago. It is important to see, that not a delay in Moscow or an unforeseen passenger caused that accident, but contradictious operation procedures and negligence (ATC officials) and panic (ATCO, flight deck crews). --Homer Landskirty 02:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand some of what you're saying, but I have to ask... Does the article have to consist solely of the chain-of-causes? Shouldn't the social impact of an incident have some weight as well in an encyclopedic article? I don't think the addition of other delays in the original schedule dilute the fact that the root causes were problems with Skyguide, etc. I know the official reports issued by government entities don't delve into social issues, and that's expected, but should wikipedia articles also follow that same sort of inflexible rule? I'll readily admit that some of the articles on wikipedia already are far beyond what you might see in other encyclopedias; I see too much pop culture 'fluff' for my tastes, but I don't think an entire region going into official mourning would be categorized as fluff, to mention just one of my proposed additions. I want it clear I'm not proposing the article be made into something sensationalistic like you'd see in a 'rag' tabloid. Well, in any case, I hope a few people reading this Talk section who only have a casual knowledge of the incident, like myself until recently, will be intrigued enough to delve further, and go beyond the dry 'nuts and bolts' of what happened. - Itsfullofstars 08:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Addendum to my response immediately above: I'd like to point out that WP:PERFECT lists this as one of the guidelines:

"A perfect Wikipedia article...

  • acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject; i.e., it covers every encyclopedic angle of the subject."

I'm suggesting that coverage of an airline accident shouldn't be restricted to just the immediate causes. Otherwise, one could argue why is the cold-blooded murder of the controller even discussed, since it happened long after the accident? I'm not advocating that the murder be dropped from the article, just pointing out what I see as an inconsistency. To eliminate the sole sentence mentioning that most of the passengers were school children (as suggested prior to my comments above) would be to remove a major part of what made the incident even more noteworthy, worldwide. - Itsfullofstars 09:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

OK - that sounds convincing... I wouldnt revert it anyway... Maybe an own section "social impact in russia" before or below the "murder" section? --Homer Landskirty 09:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Your idea of adding a separate section sounds like a good compromise. - Itsfullofstars 09:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
How is it a compromise? I mean: Which of ur wishes r not mentioned... Again: I will not revert changes of the nature u described above... --Homer Landskirty 10:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have simply said it was a 'good idea'. :-) Itsfullofstars 11:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like more information about this:

  • Why the bearing change by the russian crew (20 degrees sounds a lot and in appendix 1 to the official report I can see a strong deviation of a straight course)? Was it an early attempt to change something about the potential conflict?
  • Is there any international instance that checks national operation procedures for such contradictions? Or is it possible, that the russians or others send more pilots, who are trained to be a threat to safety?

If u find something about it, I would be interested (I would be glad, if u could add that to the article then, because my english is not so good possibly)... --Homer Landskirty 10:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll be happy to help in any way I can, but I suspect that the reasons for the course changes will never be known. By the way, your command of the English language is infinitely better than my German will ever hope to be! I lived in Germany in the early 1970's, but have forgotten what little German I learned. The only language I know is English, which hinders my ability to find information on events such as this one. I'm envious of those who know multiple languages. - Itsfullofstars 11:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
IC - I can try to translate the german texts... I have found a swiss official source, that says in the russian plane were 57 passengers and 12 crew members, although the german official report says 60+9... http://www.efd.admin.ch/dokumentation/zahlen/00579/00612/00666/index.html?lang=de --Homer Landskirty 14:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Cite Sources

Shouldn't we cite a source for the near-miss between the two Japan Air aircraft under "Mixed messages in prior incident" to improve this article? 86.140.153.252 02:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There is already... reference #5: [1] --Homer Landskirty 07:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you're quite right and I apologise. I have edited the paragraph though. Please feel free to check to see if I was incorrect in doing so. 86.140.153.252 12:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Oops... I thought the Japanese pilots understood the international TCS operation procedure... I corrected some typos... --Homer Landskirty 14:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I found the wrong source? Was there possibly another similar incident with Japanese planes? But this example is quite useful, too (it shows, that no appropriate action has been taken in order to clarify the meaning of TCAS)... --Homer Landskirty 14:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

story about missing/resent envelope

I just reverted this edit: [2]

  1. formatting and another issue
  2. relevance (who cares for an envelope, that can be "resent"; especially when there r human fatalities)
  3. correctness (why dont they fax such "documents", that can be "resent"?)

--Homer Landskirty 18:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Bashkirian Airlines page

Regarding this statement "And stop adding information from first newspaper reports, that doesnt match with the official report..."

Or perhaps the best way to deal with it is to use the sources to state that the early sources are incorrect, no?

How about X early source stated Y; Z does not mention Y.

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not relevant... Why should we mention irrelevant rumors? The article is already too long... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 07:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This was a press source that apparently made an error. We should have sections describing what errors were made in initial reportings of the disaster, which may help if people initially hear incorrect information from otherwise Wikipedia:Reliable sources and do not tune in to see other sources. See, I saw nothing in the original article that contradicted the "Stop to Munich" - I generally give the benefit of the doubt to a press source, so I add the information.

Now, with SQ006 (I worked on that one a bit), I mentioned one very early unconfirmed report (that was later confirmed false) that the SQ006 plane hit a China Airlines plane (in fact it hit construction equipment) WhisperToMe (talk) 10:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds ridiculous to me, since rumors have no encyclopedic relevance... We describe the facts of the case and not minor consequences of the accident (in this case that would be a silly mis-worded ill-founded newspaper report)... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there a consensus that this has "no encyclopedic relevance" ? People believe what they read (in the newspaper), and also there are cases where the press makes mistakes in coverage (and this press is read by hundreds of thousands of people). See, if it was Joe Blow making the error, it would not be encyclopedic. On the other hand, CNN is the party that made the mistake... WhisperToMe (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, by watching the Air Crash Investigation video and seeing some later sources, they still say that UNESCO was involved with many of the kids in terms of planning the trip. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Would that be relevant? UNESCO is related to people who give un-respectful and un-useful advice (like "more condom automatons in US prisons"), but that doesnt make it relevant... It more just a reason more not to mention them, even if it was true... dont feed the trolls... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Landskirty, this has nothing to do with internet trolls - You and I are the only people in the discussion, and I found official citations (UNESCO itself). WhisperToMe (talk) 12:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
hmm - i thought of trolls in a more generic sense... the question remains: would it be relevant? --Homer Landskirty (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The group organizing the actual trip was a committee affiliated with UNESCO, but the name seems to be so well tied into it that Koichiro Matsuura gave an address about the incident: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001265/126505e.pdf - The involvement of an affiliate of UNESCO is a well-documented fact and it is relevant since it was involved in the planning of the trip that ended in disaster. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

DHL

I notice a DHL plane was involved yet is not mentioned in the title. Why? Thanks. Djminisite - Talk | Sign 16:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont know, but there is a redirect: DHL Flight 611... It seems to be a common practice, to mention just one of the involved flights in the title: Category:Midair airliner crashes (I dont know which one... Maybe the one that was further away from common practice?)... --Homer Landskirty 06:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but all of the ones including only one flight's name is when that flight collided with a non-commercial airlines (private or military). All of the disasters involving two collided commercial airliners are named by location. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.173.53 (talk • contribs) 2007-12-09T05:01:40 (UTC)

see my reply to ur idea below... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 08:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Title proposal Überlingen Mid-air Collision

Who wants the title Überlingen Mid-air Collision ? WhisperToMe 21:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I forgot his name... But I think, the majority is for the current name... And stop adding information from first newspaper reports, that doesnt match with the official report... --Homer Landskirty 07:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I haven't seen a similar discussion that ended in favor of "Bashkirian Airlines Flight 2937" - Either way, this is a mid-air collision, and the article title should be balanced between the aircraft. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Somebody already moved it to "2002 Lake Constance Crash" or so... But it was moved back... I think, the naming policy is, that both flights get an article (like in airdisaster.com)... But then we combine both articles via a redirect... Since the russian plane was the one which behaved worst, and since the russian plane is more important, the article about the russian plane is not the redirect... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 07:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, the best step is to check the naming policy and see if this actually exists. There is a similar issue with 1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision - Anthony Appleyard moved to reflect one plane, but others raised issues with that name, so I temporairly moved it back. If there is a policy, it should be found. Perhaps the said policy can also be revisited. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
We dont really need a special policy here... The cause is more important than the victim or the location, so that the misbehaving flight gives the name for the article (this is especially important in the categories -- but luckily there r not so many articles in that mid-air coll cat...)... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
IMO, the blame is still being passed around, I think this one is best as "Überlingen Mid-air Collision" ... or something close to that. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not... Überlingen didnt cause that event and it didnt even happen there... Furthermore the 2937 flew too strange (they were below their assigned flight level... they trusted an ATCO, although it was proven that he made a mistake...)... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 07:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Landskirty, pieces of the wreckage fell over Überlingen and a neighboring town - I'm not saying the towns caused it, but those are the towns which got the wreckage. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
So u want to stress the location and not the cause? --Homer Landskirty (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
In [airdesaster.com] they use the plane number as identifier... they have an article for each crashed plane... no combo articles... I dont know who decided to use flight numbers, but i like to be conservative and consistent, if it is not wrong... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
They have two separate entries with one per plane, while here we have one entry for the mid-air collision. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, the crashes involving two commerical airliners have names which refer to the date and the location. The crashes involving one commercial airliner and a non-commercial airliner have the name of the commercial airliner as the title. As such, I am requesting that this article be retitled "2002 Uberlingen Mid-Air Collision"--Vreddy92 (talk) 05:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC) --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.173.53 (talk • contribs) 2007-12-09T05:01:40 (UTC)

This convention (if it really exists) would make no sense... 1. It almost never happens in that city or lake or other location mentioned in the article name... So the name would be always inaccurate... 2. Why not "Überlingen"? 3. Why not "Lake Constance" anymore? 4. Login before u use a signature of a logged in user... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 08:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
See how others articles named - Mid-air accidents. It's clear that flight number for article name is good. 1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision is an exception from pattern. --TAG (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
After looking at the category, Tag, I noticed that the accidents that mention one flight number tended to have been airliner and private plane, NOT two airliners. Charkhi Dadri, 1960 New York air disaster, 2005 Logan Airport runway incursion ???!?!?!? Please, please, PLEASE take a second look at the category. It seems like you did not read the entire category, nor did you read the entries in the category. It helps to become informed before posting a reply. Notice how the accidents that mention flight numbers tend to be airliner and private jet accidents? WhisperToMe (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Split?

Should we split the article into a new one for Peter Nielsen? I think that there is enough information to do so. --Vreddy92 (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Article Title Proposal

I have an idea which might settle the issue of how this article should be titled. We know that the two jets collided over Owingen and Überlingen, with some of the wreckage falling into the Überlingen city limits. Secondly, two airliners were involved, even though the DHL plane was built strictly as a freighter. Third, the collision occurred in the Bodensee district of southern Germany. Finally, Überlingen is located on the northwest shore of Lake Constance. As such, I propose the following article title suggestions:

2002 Überlingen mid-air collision (As first proposed by WhisperToMe)
2002 Bodensee District mid-air collision
2002 Southern Germany mid-air collision
2002 Überlingen air disaster
2002 Lake Constance mid-air collision

Last month, I moved this article to the last name on the list, unaware that a discussion about a title change was already taking place. I deeply regret any inconvenience this may have caused, but it seemed the thing to do, since this was done with incidents such as the Zagreb collision and the Saudia 763/Air Kazakhstan 1907 collision.

And003 (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Hmm, now that I think about it, I like "2002 Southern Germany mid-air collision" or "2002 Germany mid-air collision" as it is more general. Still, I am still thinking about which one to choose. Maybe we could try Überlingen since the wreckage seems to have been mostly in Überlingen (I think) WhisperToMe (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Why not "2002 TCAS induced collision"? Or "2002 Swiss collision"? Or "2002 Money/Fuel saving collision"? Argl! I say: We stick to the flight number of the most deviating flight... And: We should do that with 1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision, too... It just makes no sense to bind that event to a location... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You'd think it wouldn't make sense, anyway. In the case of a single plane disaster, or a mid-air collision involving a jetliner with a smaller plane like a Cessna or fighter jet, it wouldn't make sense. However, we are dealing with a mid-air collision involving two jetliners. Also, as far as location goes, some of the wreckage fell into the Überlingen city limits. I even have some footage of it. Whenever two jetliners are lost in a single accident in a certain location, an article is given a title to reflect that location, such as the Tenerife disaster, even though there would be a few exceptions, such as the Linate Airport disaster, which involved a ground collision between a jetliner and a smaller Cessna Citation, and the 2004 Russian airliner bombings, with each bombing taking place in a separate location. I have no plans to move this article at this time, however. I'll leave that up to others. --And003 (talk) 13:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The bottom line is, either we change this article (the only exception to the rule), or we change every article that has a location name...--Vreddy92 (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    • This current title is an exception to a rule, so I do not see a problem with changing this article name. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
      • And if we do, we will also have to add a redirect from "Bashkirian Airlines Flight 2937". Any administrators or whoever can change things agree with us? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.178.63 (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
        • We are willing to move the page if necessary. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Who is "we"? The Queen? If yes, which? --Homer Landskirty (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
            • By "We" I mean administrators (I am an admin) - See, the guest asked "Any administrators or whoever can change things agree with us?" - Anyhow, the people in favor of moving are me, Vreddy, and And003 - that is 75% - I won't move yet, but I will wait a little while. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm in agreement, but you certainly have been waiting a great "little while". -- VegitaU (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Well it's done now. -- VegitaU (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was withdrawn. JPG-GR (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Bashkirian Airlines Flight 2937 → ? — Please move this article. Somewhere; anywhere but here. This article is about the collision, not Flight 2937; having the article at this title makes no sense whatsoever. I am not involved in aviation articles and therefore don't know of what naming guidelines there are, but I don't care for whether the crash is named after the location, date, either or both of the flights involved, or whatsoever. Please just have "collision" in the article title. The rest of the argument can continue later. —Paul_012 (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I was unaware of the Aviation naming conventions which referred to accidents by the flight numbers of the aircraft involved, and I take back the above. I still feel, though, that this article would be better served with a neutral title such as the 2002 Southern Germany mid-air collision suggested before, since Bashkirian Airlines Flight 2937 is not the primary concern of this article. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • I reverted User:VegitaU's move mentioned in #Article Title Proposal above because I don't see 2002 Germany mid-air crash mentioned as a suitable title, and the move request wasn't properly closed. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Looking at the entries under "1" and "2" in Category:Mid-air collisions, something like "2002 Überlingen mid-air collision" might be appropriate, as references to Überlingen seem to recur in the reference links. I haven't looked at them closely, though. Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • c the above sections, please... a move is not really wanted... btw: 10km above überlingen is not "in überlingen"... thx... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you seem to be the only one that doesn't want a move. Whisper, myself, and Paul all think it should, but the argument is what title. 2002 Germany mid-air crash was something that was mentioned above. -- VegitaU (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
«2002 Germany mid-air crash» is ok (i. e.: i cant say anything against it), but i like the current name better, because the location doesnt matter so much... so we should stay conservative, because nothing forces us to rename... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 07:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
It's for clarity purposes. As is, at first glance, it just looks like it deals with one flight. A name change would make the fact of a mid-air crash obvious. -- VegitaU (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
i think the involvement of "BTC" is more prominent (it is more interesting where did the victims live than where they died...) than the fact that it happened over german territory... i think already at the first day the news talked about bashkirian school kids... this should be especially true for non-german news broadcasts... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Introduction

I retouched the introduction, but I think that it can still be improved. The causes of the accident are kind of complex, and it's a bit challenging to put the most important stuff in a 4-line introduction. I'd say that the introduction should state the result of the official investigation, while the main body of the article can deal with conflicting views.

I also removed the statements about the "inadequate performance", which is not really true anyway - but it's a bit touchy, depending on your POV.

What the official report says is that the Boeing crew did nothing to cause the accident. However, the flight controller and the Tupolew crew did do something that caused the accident (not seeing the danger/not following TCAS instructions). But the mistakes were not a result of people being too stupid and/or reckless (inadequate performance), but because they were in a situation where it was difficult or impossible to make the right call.

I think for the introduction we should stay with the summary results of the official report.

Averell (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

the official report clearly states that the vertical speed of the boeing was never as high as the situation demanded it (2500 to 3000 was ordered by TCAS)... since TCAS clearly shows the conflicting traffic with vert distance and position 3000 would be a expected (even if some parcels shift and even if the fuel wouldnt suffice for the rest of the remaining way...)... 2400 is even a failure to obey TCAS (and that is the vert rate of the boeing that the tupolev recorded...)... 4000 would have been legal, desirable and possible (test pilots can do even more possibly)... so i changed it back to the more generic version... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Umm... I checked the official report again. The table on page 50 gives the required descend rates as -1500 for 'descend' and -2500 for 'increase descend'. I'm not an commercial airline pilot, but I just assume that this is correct. The 'increase descend' for the Boeing was issued at 21:35:10. According to the table on page 55 the Boeing descended with a speed between -2700 and -2400 after receiving that, so that matches up quite nicely.
Furthermore, the conclusion on page 95 states about the Boeing crew: "It is the BFU's opinion that they have reacted correctly and followed the specified procedures as best as possible given the particular circumstances."
I would like to "revert" the introduction back to something that also mentions the Tupolev's crew's actions as a cause (and not the Boeing crew). Reason: I think that the introduction should give the official cause for the accident (you can deal with the details in the main body). And the official report gives two (immediate) causes: 1. The failure of the ATC to ensure separation. 2. The Tupolev crew's failure to follow the TCAS. The report does not mention the Boeing's crew's actions as a cause of the accident, so we can't say so.
What is it with the sink rate anyway? I don't recall that this was mentioned as a problem anywhere. Even the Russian comments on the report (which explicit try to hold the Boeing crew responsible) don't mention this with a word.
If you think that the Boeing crew didn't react correctly please state your sources (especially since this would be contrary to other sources in the article, and it shouldn't be difficult). Please also explain how that is relevant to the accident in that case. Averell (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
timing timing timing... that's important here... 2400 is less than 2500... 2400 is the final rate before the crash... 3000 was never reached although the situation became worse and worse... there is surely a sentence in the russian op manuals, that forbids to disobey the ATCO... and we all know what that means in russia... furthermore the TCAS misdesign is/was not just a russian problem since japan is not russia... these were paraphrases of the official report plus school mathematics plus some documentation shows on tv (i saw myself how they kicked helpless soldiers on the belly... one after another...) and need no extra source... i personally would like to know what changed due to the bearing change... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I know that it's fun to play this accident through, since almost any change would have avoided the accident. Heck, even if the wind had blown from a different direction it would probably not have happened - You can play a lot of what-if games with that. But not every thing that could have gone differently is a cause of the accident.
The interesting part is: What do we put in the article? Wikipedia is about what is said about an event (WP:V), not what I believe or what you believe. It is also not a place to make new theories (WP:OR).
The introduction of the article says something like "the official investigation found the accident was caused by...". The official report says the accident was caused by the controller's actions and by the actions of the Bashkirian crew. The official report also says (quite clearly) that the DHL crew reacted correctly. That's why I want to write this: Not because it's my opinion, but because it says so in the official report. If you think the official report says something different, please tell me where. If we can't agree about what the report says, we can also ask for other's opinions.
If you want to say that the accident was caused by an error of the DHL crew, or by the Russians being afraid of being kicked in the stomach, you'll have to find a source and tell us who says this - even if you think it is quite clear. Otherwise it would be original research. Averell (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
if the report stated "humidity condensed at dust" (russian crew), it would be ok to write into the article "it rained" (belly hurts)... it is not necessary to emphasise or document or repeat or lampoon the dumbness of german authorities (24..27 is clearly not contained in 25..30... especially when the little number behind the other plane stays zero or very small...)... dont analyze me (that situation feels like they threw all my real-life-nightmares together... so no real fun... just puzzled-ness and frustration...)... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 07:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
All right, for now I have modified the introduction to something that (I think) is quite neutral and still accurate. If that's ok I'll just let things cool down for a while... I'll also ask a third opinion so that it's not just us two discussing on this. Averell (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Hi, I saw this page posted on Third Opinion. Presently, I am reading the article and talk page and trying to learn some background info. I would note that I am impressed by the level of civility occuring in this debate, nice work and extremely professional. Thank you! Lazulilasher (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I gather the question is: whether it is appropriate to include unsourced information in the Lead. I reviewed this article and also read the Investigation Report itself. My opinion is that we are forced via Original Research to stick to what is written in the Crash Report, thus we cannot synthesize or provide independent analysis. In fact, I would make it quite clear in the Lead from where the information comes, along the lines of: "The Official Investigation Report indicates...." and cite the report. If a further reliable source is found which disputes the Investigation then it would be appropriate to mention this, however we are unable to mention an unpublished analysis.
I hope this helps and once again, I thank both of you for being extremely civil. Good collaborative work. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thank you for taking time to care for this problem... i'm ok with ur opinion... i just thought that i was paraphrasing the report, which would be no OR... but if u both say the official report says different, i won't object anymore... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind comment and no worries! To explain a bit, my concern was that in an issue as contentious as this, it is probably better to err on the side of caution. So, thanks again! Lazulilasher (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Also thanks from me for the discussion (to Homer) and the opinion (Lazulilasher). In any case, I suppose we can leave the intro as it is for now - I think we can agree that there were problems with the ATC and the TCAS. Have a good weekend everyone. Averell (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality assement/Verbosity

I've noticed that in the edit statement of the quality review it says that there are still paragraphs missing citations. I'd like to know which paragraphs that would be - I find the article quite well-sourced. Note that most of the "technicalities" come from the accident report; but I don't think it makes sense to cite this in every second sentence.

Speaking of quality (and some of the last edits), I see a danger that if we continue like this the article will drown in needless detail. I'm aware that each of the statements is true and verifiable. But I feel that this article should give an explanation of what happened and discuss the main points.

If we start to include every little detail from the accident report and other sources, we'll end up with an article that is highly confusing to the normal reader. I don't see how this or this (for example) adds any useful information. Frankly, if you're interested in that level of detail, you should go and read up the accident report and the other sources.

If I don't hear otherwise, I'll try to clean those things up a bit (not immediately, but in the future) Averell (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

go ahead... :-) the technical events that lead to the crash should be mentioned briefly, but other details of the crash should be mentioned in less detail... and we dont need to cite literally what others said... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested Rename

I am making another proposal to change the article name to one that incorporates the fact that TWO airlines collided, and not just one. I think that any of the folowing should be sufficient:

  • 2002 Southern Germany Mid-Air Collision
  • 2002 Germany Mid-Air Collision
  • 2002 Bashkirian Airlines/DHL Mid-Air Collision

If you look at the pages of other midair collisions, there are a lot of them (and I believe actually all of them) that have standard names for both planes in the form of a location and a date, with the exception of General Aviation planes crashing into civilian airliners.

This article's title implies that the focus is a single plane accident, while it was two planes, both of which were commercial airliners. --Vreddy92 (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

how does "2002 Germany Mid-Air Collision" show the number of involved planes? why not "2002 Mid-Air Collision"? wasnt it "DHL Aviation"? can we agree that the russian party was most prominent/important in this case? why not "2002 Skyguide Mid-Air Collision"? --Homer Landskirty (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I was just offering suggestions of POSSIBLE names. My point is that using one plane's name implies that there is only one plane. Saying both plane's names, a combination of their airlines, or just saying mid-air collision (which in itself means that two planes collided) will give importance to both planes. Why is the Russian party most prominent in this case?--Vreddy92 (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
ok - i c - i think the much bigger number of fatalities in the Russian plane makes it more prominent... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
All right then. I have posted in the naming convention section asking for a naming convention to be created. I guess we'll wait and see what their verdict is. I just thought that cuz they were two commercial airliners with IFR flight plans, that they would both be equally important. But let's wait and see. OK?--Vreddy92 (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
sure... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't follow this discussion so much, since I didn't care much. However, for your imformation, I found that the naming conventions for events contain a section specifically on plane crashes. It says that if more than one plane crashed the default "where and what" policy is to be used, meaning that the title should include the place and the nature of the event. A year should only be used for disambiguation. (Example given there Tenerife disaster. So "Überlingen Mid-Air Collision" would be a valid name under that scheme (of course you can still discuss which place to use ;-). Anyway I don't have strong feelings on this, just wanted to give you the additional information. Averell (talk) 10:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

i still say, that it didnt happen in "Überlingen/Bodensee/Owingen" (not even near)... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, really? So where did it happen? Outer space? And003 (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
"more than 10km away of every named place"... but that is too long somehow... it is difficult to bind that event to a named place... "german responsibility airspace"... "swiss controlled airspace"... i dont know... the "Tenerife disaster" happened on the ground... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
It is difficult to bind that event to a named place.
So you're going to tell us that the accident summary chart in this article has "Überlingen, Germany" listed as the site of the crash by mistake, eh? And003 (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
yup... the location of the crash was legally in federal (de iure?) and/or swiss (de facto!) responsibilily... and geometrically it happened near a place, that was between 10km above Überlingen and owingen... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
What about the NTSB? They have a report on this accident on their web site, listing Überlingen as the location. The same goes for PlaneCrashInfo.Com, airdisaster.com, and the Aviation Safety Network web site. Also, two witnesses, Bruno and Stella Wegmuller, had some of the wreckage fall around their school, which is located near Überlingen. Surely they aren't mistaken about where this happened? And003 (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
hm... maybe they dont care? just like they didnt care about tcas... where pieces came down isnt necessarily where the accident happened... dont waste my time, pls... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) It true that the accident didn't actually happen 'in Überlingen (or even exactly above it). However, it's also true that mid-air incidents are usually related to some point on the ground (as there are no place names in the air). Überlingen is the place most commonly associated with this incident and it was used in the reports, press articles etc. So I feel that this name would meet the WP:Common names guideline (to use the most common name for something), even if the location may not be completely correct. (Addendum: I still won't push for a rename, just me 2c on the topic...) Averell (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Dangerous Boredom

with dangerous i wanted to make clear that too few tasks can be a cause for accidents, too... that is taken from the official report... it seems to be the result of research about work environments like found in ATCs... how can we express that without injuring WP:NPOV? --Homer Landskirty (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The section that is taken from the official report could be quoted; but as I read that portion of the article, it seemed especially biased against Peter Nielsen. However, later legal investigations (see Consequences) seem to largely place the blame on SkyGuide as a whole, and not solely upon Nielsen. Regardless, there are many different causes of this accident, and I felt that the 'dangerous' clause unnecessarily placed a tone of negligence on one person instead of the entire system that was in place.
I'm in favor of quoting the official report, but making it more obvious that it is a quote. Mjf3719 (talk) 12:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
hm - "avoiding a danger" is nothing to be blamed for... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There's really no need to quote here. It's pretty obvious that boredom is dangerous for an ATC. I don't see any bias against Nielsen in that section. If anything, it's more biased against him now: Before it said that he didn't call the backup to avoid a dangerous situation. Now it says that he didn't call it just so he didn't get bored... Averell (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

the last edit to that sentence seems to be a little ambiguous: on which part does the "which" refer? "boredom" or "chose not to use"? both is correct somehow... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the current ambiguity. When I first read the sentence before I edited it, I was under the impression that Nielsen did not call for a second controller (who was resting in another room for the night) because he felt the second controller would simply be bored; not because Nielsen himself was bored. Mjf3719 (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
doesnt matter who of the ATCOs is bored... boredom always increases reaction times and decreases mental mobility... and: there was a 3rd ATCO resting (he sat there in case somebody is needed to substitute the dysfunctional STCA, IIRC...)... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The report cited states In this situation the controller was more at risk of losing situation awareness due to the low workload, as opposed to a high workload. Although this implies boredom, boredom and situational awareness are two completely seperate topics. In this case, the low situational awareness was caused by Nielsen focusing on the late arrival of the A320 at Friedrichschafen, not by inactivity. I think it should also be noted that the night's operations were lighter than normal for the ATCO, but However, as the situation deteriorated the controller's workload increased subtly and continuously, reducing his ability to maintain an awareness of the upper air situation and be proactive in his control. Thus, boredom should be changed to situationally unaware. I changed some things around in that section to emphasize the lack of situational control as well as not calling for assistance. Mjf3719 (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
"low workload" -> boredom -> "losing situation awareness"... now we dont say, why he possibly didnt chose to use at least the colleague, who was "sleeping"... now the reader might think, he just didnt care, although he might have had good reasons to do it alone... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I still think the original text was quite clear; but maybe that's just me. Just, please, be a bit careful in editing this. There is this tendency with this article of making things "clear" by explaining every little detail. This will make the article unreadable in the end. (Personally I think it could even use some trimming as it is now).

If something is unclear, I'm all for making it clearer. But I'd like to avoid going from a simple, understandable (albeit slightly ambiguous) phrase to convoluted half-sentences with "explanations". Averell (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC).

External link cleanup

I'd like to clean up the external links section. It's simply a huge link collection, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia (see WP:NOTLINK#LINK). Many of the links provide little value for the reader. So I'd like to remove:

  • Dead links
  • Foreign-language (non-english) links
  • Links to sites that are already linked as references
  • Links to newspaper articles which don't provide significant additional information about the accident for the reader

I think this will make the remaining links much more useful for the reader. If we want to keep the current link list for further reference, I suggest we move it to Talkpage-space somewhere. Averell (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

go ahead... :-) --Homer Landskirty (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
You could also comment the unwarranted links out with <!--{the links}--> so that they are retained in case of future developments. Mjf3719 (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I commented out the links for now, and just kept the few high-value ones in the main list. Feel free to check if I removed something actually important. Averell (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested Rename (continued)

Proposal for Article Rename:

Bashkirian Airlines Flight 2937 → 2002 Bashkirian Airlines/DHL Mid-Air Collision — For the sake of clarity and consistency, we have to make sure that this is recognizable as a mid-air collision. One plane name is only acceptable in collisions between a commercial airliner and a general aviation plane, as I have reiterated over and over again. I am requesting a rename for this article to "2002 Bashkirian Airlines/DHL Mid-Air Collision". There is nothing in this title that can be disputed. Right year, right airlines, right type of collision. And it summarizes everything very nicely. This is a compromise that answers all of the problems that Homer has pointed out with all other titles. If you'll look at the beginning of the first "Requested Rename", you'll see that I brought it up earlier. Well, here it is again. And I would like an admin's comments on whether or not it is feasable based on Homer's objections, and based on Wikipedia naming conventions. I would also like to make a redirect from the same redirects made for this page, as well as any related to Uberlingen, Owingen, Lake Constance, and other locations which the crash is known for because on that count, Homer is correct (in that finding the exact location of the crash is impossible, I still think that we should follow the location in the NTSB report), but at the same time we must look at the most common names as per Wikipedia guidelines. --Vreddy92 (talk) 03:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Discussion

  • the slash ("/") disturbs me... looks like a subpage... isnt that name less intuitive? but all the redirects and wikipedia's search-tool will help a lot, i guess... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The name is slightly better than the existing one, although equally uncommon. Normal people will still refer to "Lake Constance" or "Ueberlingen" when talking about this - but I see it's controversial. Personally I don't feel that the slight improvement is worth the effort. That said, if you want to go through the motions and if this ends that endless discussion then, by all means, have a go. Averell (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • See I figured that redirect pages would be used. but if you want it to be referred to as "2002 Uberlingen Midair Collision", and homer has no objection to that, by all means go ahead and let me know and ill make a request on this discussion board for that. --Vreddy92 (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Vreddy92, I also prefer the name "2002 Überlingen Mid-Air Collision" for this article, since the town is forever associated with this accident. They even featured the incident on a special program dealing with concerns about a mid-air collision over Britain. If Mr. Landskrity has no further objections, go for it. And003 (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

POV statements

I've tagged 2 statements in 'Consequences' section as non-NPOV. How could author(s) of this article know that Nielsen was "struck with grief and guilt"? Any articles, links, citations? Judging by Kaloev's description of accident, Nielsen didn't feel grief nor guilt, striking Kaloev's hand with children pics in it. I'm sure such a statements are indeed against the NPOV. Thanks. 213.33.157.245 13:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Human psychology is quite complicated and needs much concentration... It can be well true, that he was struck by grief and guilt since the event until his death, so that he couldnt work anymore due to a lack of concentration, _and_ that he shows aggression, when he was forced later to concentrate on that event, or when even accused of being responsible for the mis-designed TCAS and for misbehaving and/or unconcentrated pilots... I personally have heard in TV, that he even showed a nerval breakdown shortly after the event, but I dont find a source, although I concentrated some of my power on that search (maybe TV or me made it up)... The whole emotional part could be removed, if somebody asked me, so that we can concentrate on the technical aspects... --Homer Landskirty 06:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not really a "POV" problem, the question is whether he stated that as his reason for retiring, which is a question of fact. If he really did say that then it's completely NPOV. A POV problem is more like, "She was mean during the interview" or "Religion X is the best religion," where it's more a matter of pushing a point of view or opinion, rather than stating an objective fact. In either case the problem can be solved by pointing to a source that supports that statement. -- HiEv 18:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Just came on this again and I just fact-tagged those things. If no sources are provided, I will remove the "emotional" part at some pointAverell (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

stand-by controller

"Due to maintenance work Nielsen had a stand-by controller and system manager on call, but he chose not to use them in order to avoid dangerous boredom or he did not know of this possibility." -- I can't understand the reasoning why he didn't use them. Can someone explain? 83.29.249.53 14:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

We will never know possibly, since the mental state of Nielsen before his death did hardly allow tough questions, and since Nielsen will never be able to answer any questions. There are 2 possibilities mentioned in the official report: 1. Nielsen was not briefed thoroughly, so that he did not know the extent of the maintenance work and other related special details for that night; 2. Nielsen was afraid that 2 ATCOs would be so bored, that they are hindered to work, which could be dangerous. --Homer Landskirty 22:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
True, we can only guess at this point. As a controller myself, I know that it is easy for traffic which increases at a slow rate to "sneak up on you". He starts off with barely enough work for one person to do -- he is bored and starting to get distracted and maybe sleepy. Fifteen minutes later, he is too busy to even call for help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srilm (talk • contribs) 06:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Undid improper Move

  1. There is no good reason to move that article to any of the proposed names, since that accident neither happened in Lake Constance nor in Überlingen...
  2. respect the work of other authors: No single user can take over the work of 10s of users... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 14:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Uberlingen is where this accident happened. For proof of this, check the following links:
PlaneCrashInfo.com: Bashkirian/DHL Entry
National Transportation Safety Board - Bashkirian/DHL Report
Aviation Safety Network - Bashkirian 2937 Entry
Aviation Safety Network - DHL 611 Entry --And003 (talk) 11:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually Überlingen is not where this accident happened. It happened in about 34900 feet (about 11 kilo metres) orthogonally above a place on land that is "near" to Lake Constance or Überlingen or Owingen... That's what I try to make clear since several weeks, but nobody reacts on that... The question would be how far away from Überlingen is still Überlingen... And I say: 1m away is not Überlingen anymore... Furthermore upper air space is in federal administration and not administrated by every little city or forest/lake administration that is below... We should be conservative here... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Then why is the Chakri Dadri Midair Collision called such. Its FEDERAL administration, right? --66.32.178.63 (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
ur 1. q: I think, the name is bad/wrong/misleading... ur 2. q: Ah? Yes!? Federal... Not city (like a library, that might be administrated by a city...)... F.Rep.GERM's upper airspace is administrated by a federal authority, which delegated for some reason (somehow they believed it is better to trust a swiss company than having the area near Zürich airport controlled by 2 ATCs... somehow they didnt implement that wish correctly (they forgot to make a contract with the swiss federal government -- and even then it would be questionable)... but the "feds" r still responsible for that airspace...)... What is the background of that question? Did I misunderstand it? --Homer Landskirty (talk) 09:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
It was sarcasm. I was simply mentioning that the Chakri Dadri Collision was named for the location where the crash took place, even though technically it was in Indian Federal Airspace. Even if you want to argue airspace jurisdictions, why can't we have it be "2002 Southern Germany Mid-Air Collision"? --66.245.97.18 (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
"the location where the crash took place": isnt it more like the crash took place very high above the location, where it didnt took place? --Homer Landskirty (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
So are you suggesting that this crash did not take place anywhere? All we are trying to say is that the crash was not the crash of Bashkirian Airlines Flight 2937, it was the crash of Bashkirian Airlines Flight 2937 WITH DHL Flight 611. And that should be noted in the title of the article. Even the Japan Airlines article about the accident 1 year earlier isnt named after one of the two planes, and the situation was almost exactly the same. --65.12.173.53 (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem is, that the location where the crash took place, has no common name in the public... Especially it is not "Lake Constance" or "Überlingen" or "Owingen" or such... I dont know how the experts name it (maybe with GPS coordinates or old-fashioned beacon-related coordinates)... It is certainly true, that the BTC flight crashed, so that I have no problem with that article name... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 08:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
So you agree that the BTC plane crashed, but are you implying that the DHL never crashed? Because if it did, then the article title has to be changed to reflect that. If the plane did crash somewhere, the name can reflect that somewhere, that's why 2002 Soutehrn Germany Collision seems to be the best option to make everybody happy. It is a common name. If they can call the Japan near-miss the 2001 Japan Airlines mid-air incident , then we can surely find something to call this crash.--66.245.97.18 (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
BTW, the DHL did crash and both pilots died. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I dont c a reason to reflect anything in the name of the main article... u certainly may create a redirect article from "2002 Germany mid-air crash" or from "2002 BTX/DHL mid-air crash"... But as long as we do not have a binding regulation about naming of catastrophy articles, we shouldnt take this article-move-effort (IMO)... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Then we should at least rename the article as "Bashkirian Airlines Flight 2937 and DHL Flight 611" with redirects from each flight name. I think that that is a compromise that would best suit everybody. The DHL would be included, and we wouldnt have to change a lot. In the meanwhile, I think there should be a binding regulation about naming of catastrophy articles because Wikipedia is meant to be a common-use encyclopedia, so it SHOULD be consistent...--66.245.97.18 (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
We already have redirects from the other names - the point is that many other editors believe that the current name is inappropriate because two commercial flights collided. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Common-use criteria can be reached via redirect-articles... I dont c any reason for a move/rename... Can u explain, why u want to rename? For the category? BUT: If somebody finds it there he/she can just look at that article (there arent so many) and I doubt that the year and the other plane would help so much to identify that incident... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No, but it would definitely help in making sure that both planes involved in the accident are identified, as is the norm in Wikipedia as evidenced by the other mid-air collision articles. This isnt a crash between a general aviation plane and a commercial aviation plane, this is a crash between two commercial airliners, and both planes involved in the crash, both of which ACTUALLY CRASHED, should be included. Why do you not want the rename so badly? It makes more sense to cover all the bases than to lazily sit down and make Wikipedia become non-consistent. It is our job as Wikipedians to make Wikipedia the best it can be, especially in Consistency.--216.130.128.47 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Not true: There is no such norm... There r even articles, that do not mention any plane at all, but just a city name... Consistency is not endangered... I still see no reason to change the article name... I think we r spending undue much time on this matter... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 07:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
What you call the article isn't that important as long as people can find it. As a suggestion, naming it after the nearest notable town/city with a description of the type of accident, e.g., crash, mid-air collision, and the year it happened is probably fine, and the current name, 2002 Überlingen mid-air collision, seems OK as it is. The only other important thing is to have the date and airline(s) involved, along with the aircraft type(s), in the opening paragraph, which you have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.251.242 (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

References

WhisperToMe, why did you add the "references missing tag"? In general, the article seems to be well sourced, so maybe you could be a bit more specific on what you find missing... Averell (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested Rename (March 2009)

Has there been a final decision on the requested rename of this article? Speaking for myself, as I said in a previous post, I also prefer the name "2002 Überlingen Mid-Air Collision" for this article, since the town is forever associated with this accident. I would have renamed this article already, but I tried that once a few years back and ran into objections from Mr. Landskirty as a result. I don't wish to have that happen again. And003 (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it's been dealt with. On the NTSB website, the location of the accident is marked as Überlingen, so this is definitely an appropriate title. I'm glad that this has been successfully resolved. --Vreddy92 (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Privacy and accident causes

First off, I'd like to remove the names of the pilots and crew from the article for privacy reasons, even though the BLP rules don't technically apply to the deceased. (Nielsen and his murder have been in the media enough to leave there names in...)

Secondly, I went through the article again and found that it misses two points: First it isn't made quite clear that one of the root causes of the accident was that the controller allowed the planes to continue on a collision course in the first place (a mistake that happened well before the accident). Secondly, we can also note that at least one of the russian crew members had doubts about acting against the automated instructions, but failed to get himself heard due to the hierarchy/lack of crew resource management. Averell (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the second part, but privacy isn't really needed for the pilots. I'm sure their names are easy to find online. Griffinofwales (talk) Come and join theSimple English Wikipedia 00:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

rm section

I propose that we remove the notable persons section, as the artist really isn't notable. Griffinofwales (talk) Come and join theSimple English Wikipedia 00:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

B-Class?

I feel that the article is quite well-sourced by now. I wonder if we should ask for a reevaluation of the B-Class status from the projects? Averell (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

for some reason user:WhisperToMe tagged it C-class (russian) 3 days ago... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I tagged them as C because one was C and one was B. Why have inconsistent rankings on article quality from projects that likely have the same criteria? Let's err towards one class. If the article is good enough for B, why not make all of the project rankings B? WhisperToMe (talk) 06:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand this. The English article has more than enough citations. The quality of another language version should be irrelevant, shouldn't it? Is there a policy on this I can read so I can better understand this rating? --Itsfullofstars (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a little late, but the article only has "enough" citations when all of the non-common sense information is cited (Common sense would be like "Paris is the capital of France. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

CGI Image

Does anyone else other than I have a concern with the CGI image posted here? I don't think anyone should post their own images of this event as if that image is the official rendering of the events that occured because it isn't. Often, the flight investigation branches of a government (ie- the FAA in the US) will release their rendering of the events, which have an official bearing. That shouldn't mean that just because an official image may not exist that someone can just use their own.63.118.154.94 (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Well, the BFU may have their images, but they are copyrighted, so we cannot use them. However using those images to make a free CGI image is A-OK. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree, I think the CGI image is ok here. --John (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Old talk

194.78.170.201 (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Does anyone know what happened to the Russian man charged with the murder of the flight controller? I have been researching this since I learned of the incident and would like to know if the trial has gone ahead.

Apparently, not yet. --apoivre 16:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This entire article, consisting of a mere 57 sentences, and while using reasonable good English, contains a staggering number of commas, NINETY-SIX commas in fact, an average of nearly two commas per sentence, and could use a gentle rewrite, to remove a few, you know, commas. 68.195.27.48 21:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Airport Kloten Klo end Ten +/- 1 Minut end Ende. Cool a ? ch -Black Kat & Good Shou- Shou . Skype.com blokading this topic, why?

BFU

http://web.archive.org/web/20040806001951/http://www.skyguide.ch/scripts/ueberlingen_docs/happen/e/BFUStatus_Aug02_E.pdf BFU Status report

Says there were 12 crew and 57 pax, including 45 children and adolescents and 12 adults WhisperToMe (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

is a 16yo person still a "child"? isnt it an "adolescent"/"juvenile"? "child"/"kid" sounds too emotional for people of that age... for my taste... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

survivors?

Please complete article with the exact amount of money which was to the survivors, two U.S. pilots paid . Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ygujkm3 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

nobody in both planes survived the accident... there were no US pilots involved (UK and CA, IIRC)... so this question does not belong here, because it is about this accident... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 07:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hr. Kaloev , over...

Whether that is true that Mr. Kaloev / murderer of Flüglotze / are suffering from a persistent Mixinfektion? Something like Faraonen Mushroom Plush Dol something else. Freulichesweihnaechte2 (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Human factors

The following is a PDF I found today that might be of some interest, and a citable resource for possible future article expansion:

Identifying the factors that led to the Ueberlingen mid-air collision: implications for overall system safety.

Proceedings of the 48th Annual Chapter Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, September 20 - 24, 2004, New Orleans, LA, USA

http://www.humanfactors.uiuc.edu/Reports&PapersPDFs/humfac04/nuneslaur.pdf (322 KB)

Nunes, Ashley & Laursen, Tom (2004)

University of Illinois, Aviation Human Factors Division Savoy, IL, USA

- Itsfullofstars 01:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Whether that is true, the Satanist's also been at work at the time? Griffinowalles2 (talk) 11:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Parents of the children

"Most of the parents of the children were high-ranking officials in Bashkortostan, Russia" — I removed this line from the "Flights involved" section. It does quote properly an early CNN announcement[1], but the announcement itself is factually incorrect. Over the last 10 years more reliable sources appeared: rather than a news·break made immediately after the catastrophe.
All names of all killed and their birthdays are listed on a separate plate in the Überlingen memorial "Die zerrissene Perlenkette" ("The torn pearl necklace"). They can be viewed at Commons. Out of 52 children and adolescents there are 8 who could be called "of high-ranking officials" — taking "high-ranking officials" as wide as possible: from the Bashkortostan chief of stuff to a county executive. By taking all "high-ranking officials" and "considerably wealthy" atop of it, it comes to 10 (as one father is a university chancellor and other is a big factory director)[2][3]. 10 out of 52 in no way makes "most of".
Even more important that I fail to see what kind of important (on the topic of the article) message needs to be delivered by listing even factually correct statuses of all or some involved families? That more than 7 children "of high-ranking officials" unsafe to fly? That it was a UNESCO guided project — it is a relevant info as it explains the whole purpose of the flight and why it had so many children on board. Who were the parents and how much money they could have — is completely irrelevant IMHO.

To be fully honest, for the 10th anniversary of the catastrophe some newspapers launched a version, that the fact "of high-ranking officials" among parents played its role in organizing that extra charter flight. The group of children missed the scheduled flight because they came to a wrong airport of Moscow, and then "dads started to call to Moscow" and insisted on a charter rather than waiting for the morning flight. The idea that the touristic agency itself organized it to not hold 52 children overnight in a unknown city — it is not considered as much possible. The relevant sources are:

  • Сажнева, Е. (2012). "Боденский кошмар: десять лет спустя". Московский Комсомолец. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
  • Амирзянова, Г.; Соколов, Е.; Шахов, С. (2012). "Башкирия скорбит: 10 лет трагедии над Боденским озером — катастрофе, которой не должно было быть". Комсомольская правда. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

I need to say though that both Moskovskij Komsomolets and Komsomolskaya Pravda are rather yellow Russian tabloids (the first is more, the last is lesser). Would it be really appropriate by WP:BLP (meaning the parents) to add some conspiracy theory from these newspapers to this article? I would say "no", but what do others think? --NeoLexx (talk) 05:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yellow it or not its up to you to prove that it is wrong. Can you? 8-10 out of 52 children were kids of an officials, don't they? It's rather big percent don't you think? Also you are actually alleging CNN in being yellow. It is widely acceptable to point some notable facts about paxes, see 2011 Lokomotiv Yaroslavl air disaster, Aeroflot Flight 821, 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash, American Airlines Flight 11. Yes the kids aren't that famous but the fact that more than 15% of people on board were Russian officials offsprings are interesting! And after all you delete the statement without any discussion. Looks like you treat it way personally and trying to hide some interesting facts. 91.77.229.131 (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
No, I am not treating it personally as anyone can see by a delay in answering. I just don't see how 15% (even by taking your personal calculations) would constitute "Most of the parents" — in any language and at any country. If anyone needs a 3rd side proof that 15% is not "most of" then it indeed makes it hard to communicate productively. --NeoLexx (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I can't see how 8 or 10 out of 45 can be described as "most". And I don't see 15% as being very high considering they would be children of parents who could afford to send them on such a trip. 86.5.31.8 (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Children's holiday party on doomed plane". CNN.com. 2 July 2002.
  2. ^ "В катастрофе Ту-154 погибла дочь руководителя администрации президента Башкирии". NEWSru.com. 2 July 2002.
  3. ^ Сахипова Г. (2 July 2009). "Слезы Башкирии: детский рейс, упавший с неба". СвободнаяПресса.

Sources modified on Überlingen mid-air collision

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just attempted to maintain the sources on Überlingen mid-air collision. I managed to add archive links to 7 sources, out of the total 7 I modified, whiling tagging 0 as dead.

Please take a moment to review my changes to verify that the change is accurate and correct. If it isn't, please modify it accordingly and if necessary tag that source with {{cbignore}} to keep Cyberbot from modifying it any further. Alternatively, you can also add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page's sources altogether. Let other users know that you have reviewed my edit by leaving a comment on this post.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Überlingen mid-air collision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Überlingen mid-air collision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Überlingen mid-air collision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Überlingen mid-air collision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2002_Überlingen_mid-air_collision/Archive_1&oldid=1096063902"