Jump to content

Talk:Air India Express Flight 812

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleAir India Express Flight 812 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 25, 2011Good article nomineeListed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on May 22, 2010.
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 22, 2014, May 22, 2020, and May 22, 2023.

No. of survivors

[edit]

My understanding is that one of the initial survivors of the crash has now died. I am changing this accordingly - let me know if this not the standard pratice for other aviation accidents and I can revert the changes. User:kmisra (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2010 (IST)
Confirmed now by Air India spokesman that 8 have survived and no one has died overnight - revoking the changes. [1]

References

  1. ^ 159 feared dead in Air India plane crash

Rescue Efforts

[edit]

I have added a section about the rescue efforts. Thing is that I am newbie so please tell me when you believe I made a mistake in doing so. Tucking fypo (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

[edit]

I first started this article, and now all of sudden its been replaced with a new text and it's not even showing me in the contribution history. Huh? Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack2012 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jack2010, he was using information from a BNO News article, they had information about the crash before the others currently listed on this article. --173.31.143.33 (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the various redirects. This article was started in at least two places, one of which was by me. Various people were merging, some of them improperly. An admin should conjoin the edit histories. --Mareklug talk 05:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Give this a few days to settle down first. No point trying to do a merge with the current level of activity. I expect that Jack 2012 is worried about an ITN credit), which I will sort once I've checked his edit history. Mjroots (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having checked, the article was created by Superm (talk · contribs) amost half an hour before Jack2102 created his version. Mjroots (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced material removed

[edit]

This edit, by Jack2012, has removed much sourced info. Bridgeplayer (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- It was deleted because most of it didn't make sense. Such as: "Upon overshooting the runway the plane caught fire and smoke was seen coming from the airport."

As it appears, it MAY have been on the ground briefly but then aborted landing. Since most of the plane was destroyed, it must have crashed rather than simply overshot and catch fire.

Also, the quote saying latest information is awaited is not really informative. We should stay with facts.

Further, the section occupants denotes 173 passengers. So far, the sourced link and CNN-IBN and NDTV all report 169 were on board rather than 173. Plus, NDTV reported that 19 children is unconfirmed and is merely a report.

It also revised 169 in the fatality box which cited Al Jazeera. This was initially reported by Reuters - the source which Al Jazeera is using - but was never confirmed on the record. In fact, Reuters has now changed that number to 160 dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack2012 (talk

Flight number

[edit]

Some sources are reporting the flight number as 892. This seems to be a typo. Flight Status reports the flight number is 812. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Figleaf (talk • contribs) 04:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PTI is the most reliable reference for Flight no. Times Now and Cnn-IBN are also using the flight no as 892. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the Air India Express timetable and IX 812 is the Dubai to Mangalore flight. There doesn't seem to be a IX 892.--Canley (talk) 04:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.flightstats.com/go/FlightStatus/flightStatusByFlight.do?id=192492544&airlineCode=IX&flightNumber=812 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.154.172.34 (talk) 05:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sometimes, flight numbers change at the last moment. The site may not be updated. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Air India have released a press release confirming the flight number as IX-812 [1]. --Canley (talk) 05:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial claims of no survivors

[edit]

I am adding this here because I am not sure if it should be incoporated into the article, or not

reported in the Sydney morning Herald here http://www.smh.com.au/world/plane-overshoots-runway-in-india-bursts-into-flames-reports-20100522-w2ji.html

"Mangalore deputy police commissioner R. Ramesh said the plane, a Boeing 737 believed to be carrying 160 passengers and six crew, was arriving from Dubai when it crashed about 6.30am (10am AEST) after overshooting the runway."

"All are dead. There is no doubt about it," Ramesh told AFP by telephone from the crash site.

Speaking to the NDTV news channel the chief minister of Karnataka state, B.S. Yediyurappa, said: "They're all not alive".

It seems to me, rather strange that the deputy police commissioner would say that there were no survivors, "no doubt about it", when several survivors had already been named. Eregli bob (talk) 06:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NDTV has shown an interview from one of the survivors. Figleaf (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification There were no survivors of those on board the aircraft when it crashed. The 8 who did survive were thrown out of the aircraft when it collided with the localiser antenna at the airport - Aviation Herald Mjroots (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

I see someone has just replaced the image with what they claim to be the accident aircraft. However, the registration on the new photo is VT-AXU, the same as the previous photo. The article states that the registartion number was VT-AXV. If the aircraft was VT-AXV, should we not switch back to the older picture as it is higher resoloution, as there are no pictures of VT-AXV on the commons? WackyWace talk 12:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shit, that is my mistake. Why VT-AXU came up in my google search, when I still see VT-AXV in the search box is beyond me. I didn't even notice that mistake. I'll see if I can find VT-AXV for placement on Commons. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 13:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VT-AXV had the following tail design. Check out the Tail design in reference[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.224.32 (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VT-AXV original images with unique tail art .VT-AXV Images. Air India Express tail art list[art desctiption] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.224.32 (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another image of VT-AXV http://www.planespotters.net/Aviation_Photos/photo.show?id=132699 Can we have the image on the main page replaced by one of these? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.131.247.231 (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-India_Express#Tail_Art

¿Belly ripped open by localizer antenna?

[edit]

This is speculation. Maybe the tail section became loose after crashing against the antenna shack, maybe it was a major tail-strike against the runway, the survivors might not have come all from the same section of the aircraft, etc., etc. Aldo L (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should be careful with speculations in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCRYSTAL. --Kslotte (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not speculation, it is reported by a WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, the reliable source is speculating. The same with "Most occupants died instantly". Is there a coroner's report to support that claim? Aircraft crash investigations are fantastically complicated tasks, so during this first phase of this developing story we should cling to effects, not causes. Aldo L (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor account does not match belly-ripped-open theory: http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Mangalore,-survivor-tells-of-air-disaster-18488.html Aldo L (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the wing is supposed to have clipped the localiser antenna. Something did clip it since I have seen images of the damaged antenna in the local papers. But as far as the airport goes we'll have to patiently wait for the accident report, which seems to be taking a while. Survivors I feel didn't have much of a clue, none of them where aviation buffs or experts. I did read another report which said the clipped wing fell over near the antenna while the rest of the aircraft went down the hill. Also that the fire engines first came and doused the wing, and later realised the rest of the plane was missing. But all this is again based on speculative news. I have yet to read an interview of the air port director, or the fire chief.--PremKudvaTalk 06:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

¿Go-around?

[edit]

There is a statement by a politician that the crew attempted a go-around. With no radio communications nor FDR or CVR data, and no other more-direct witnesses, it is too early to say the crew were attempting a go-around instead of trying to bring the plane to a complete stop. Aldo L (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Victims" Section number discrepancy

[edit]

There is a discrepancy here, this section, LINK, says: br>

"There were 173 persons on board, including 163 passengers (19 children), four infants (with no separate seats) and 6 crew members" (c/w references)

Looks like the injured have been added to the total on board 166 + 7 =173. Then the last sentence says:

"A total of 166 passengers and crew were on board"

Let's be consistent. Let's be correct. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Or rather better data has made my comments irrelevant!--220.101.28.25 (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Until AI revises how it links its content, AFAIK this is the best way to organize the external links:

  • Central press releases page
  • Survivor list
  • Passenger list
  • Crew list

The three lists are not linked from the central press releases page WhisperToMe (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:EL multiple links to the same site are discouraged, and when possible to merge links into the article space it is better to do so. These links certainly can be put in the sections (victims/airline crew). With a requisite cite.(Lihaas (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So far the crew list link has been cited, so for now I could remove that link. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AI has reorganized the crash page structure, so I am now linking to a new central page. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, great. I've included the other link already. Feel free to remove them from the article if you wish to.Lihaas (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, the "See also" link (Indian Airlines Flight 557, an aircraft that overshot the runway at the same airport in 1981) actually leads to the general article about the airline itself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Airlines_Flight_557#Accidents_and_incidents). Somebody oughta fix that...Cowcharge (talk) 07:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction lists

[edit]

As per other articles about attacks/accidents is maintained on wikipedia: 2010 Kygzstani uprising, 2010 Moscow Metro blast and 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash#Reaction Furthermore, it is WP:Crystal ball to say "expected" condolence reports.Lihaas (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By "expected" it meant that anything non-expected is allowed. Your reasoning is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. A list of messages with the same content is non-encyclopedic. For example the International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash was up for deletion because it violates many policies and it is still does. --Kslotte (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think somebody misread the rule which states

"Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Note that this policy does not apply outside of the main article space. While using user space to create a memorial is generally not acceptable, limited exemption applies to the user space of established Wikipedians who have died. At a minimum it is expected that they were regular contributors, and that more than one tenured Wikipedian will have used the deceased user's page (or an appropriate sub-page) to add comments in the event, and after verification of, their death..

As far as I know international reaction to major incidents are mentioned in the response section. --yousaf465' 16:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issues can be read here: Talk:International_response_to_the_2010_Polish_Air_Force_Tu-154_crash#List_of_condolenses --Kslotte (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[2] [3]
"By "expected" it meant that anything non-expected is allowed." expected is not allowed? expected updates and news articles are then barred? That's what the update indicates. This debate has happened before in int'l reactions and the conclusion has been that it may be of interest to other leaders, if one person didnt want to see the flag collection they could skip it. Additionally, even the other debate consensus to the polish crisis was not a removal. To say "because it violates and still does" is one man's opinion. the debate on the issue did not yield that reading you just listed. No need to scare of editors before they were WP:Bold.
At any rate, there isn't a consensus here for the tag. Yousef seems to agree (and the precedent if you must) Lihaas (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The word used was "predictable", not "expected". I may not put forward the best suitable policy. Anyway, responses that are predictable is not encyclopedic. --Kslotte (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in a sense i agree with you, but in another sense (as was discussed on one of the past such lists (Kyrgz riots i think) as to who says what could be of interest the lay reader in the sense that they may see who said something, if someone said something. and by inference who didn't. For example, it would be for the poli. sci. fresher to study such comments are a feature of IR when India/Pak give such messages of condolence as a pure CBM.Lihaas (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC is the strongest policy against a list. --Kslotte (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I think this list is just going to grow, I mean every goveremnt is, as a matter of protocol (I assume), likely to send a message of some sort to India. I have aleady reverted an unsourced edit about Kuwait expressing condolences (which came from a French IP). This may snowball and exceed the crash text itself! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it isn't, that is the point. Many countries won't, some will. (or many will and some won't, but either way). of course if unsources it is in your right to exclude it.
per kslotte, "What we want to know are your reasons why you think something shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Simply explain what policies it breaks and how it breaks them, or why you believe it is unworthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia." it may come out as WP:ILIKEIT (or dislike it). WP:ATALihaas (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Some governments regard it as protocol to send messages of condolence, but that shouldn't mean that they should be excluded. I think they should still be included because it is a historical event and measure in terms of bilateral ties as to when condolences are expressed. If it does exceed the crash text, then it can be placed into a new article, i.e., what was done to the Haiti Earthquake, Chile Earthquake and other tragic events that evoked condolences. There's no consensus for the tag or for its removal. The fact that condolences are reported by major news agencies shows that it is newsworthy and a vital part of the action and sympathy expressed by the international community.Powerofrussia2 (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)(talk • contribs) 23:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Powerofrussia2 wrote "major news agencies shows that it is newsworthy". This is an encyclopedia, not a news site, WP:NOTNEWS. --Kslotte (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The earthquake responses are of nature a bit different, because it usually involves aid of some type. And the aid offered is different for each country. In this air crash case the message is "sorrow and condolences" with some variety of how it is expressed. Having 10+ countries with this same type of message isn't encyclopedic. I fully agree to include such responses that differ from the mass in someway (offering something more the only condolences). The big picture and question is if Wikipedia should be a book of condolences. This issue really divides people into different opinions both having good reasons. I hope we are able to come to consensus in this matter to avoid edit warring at every major accident. --Kslotte (talk) 10:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will tag the section as "unencyclopedic" since there is still no consensus about the matter. --Kslotte (talk) 10:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, the list of "reactions" is the stupidest things that has been added to Wikipedia articles simply becuase an electronic uncylcopedia is not subject to the same constraints as a paper encyclopedia. Really, what purpose does it serve? every time there is a disaster, countries, whether friends or foes will issue condolences. No one is going to say "We are really happy that you are mourning! Hope more planes fall out of your sky!" IMO, international reactions are only really necessary in articles such as war and international conflict (such as the ROKS Cheonan sinking where such reactions show where opposing countries stand. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 12:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this issue should be taken on a case-by-case basis. Re the Polish AF crash mentioned above, this was notable on an international scale, as the country's leader and many top officials died. In this case, not as notable (although no less tragic for those involved and their families) as no notable people appear to have been involved. The list should be removed. Mjroots (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These lists are useless in any article and unencyclopediac.221.120.250.78 (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The responses here that talk generically about these lists in general are not of concern to this article, but should be discussed on wikipedia policy somewhere.
For those that discussed this article in particular my 2p was that (As per Powerofrussia2) that it may be useless to some but it may be of value to others for future reference. Pakistan sent a message, it is a confidence building measure; EU sent a message, it is a show of how they value ties with india; Serbia sent a message, it is (perhaps) a show of old ties (NAM). it is not a "book of condolences" it is a reference log for students of IR. (until consensus, of course, the tag is a fair addition to bring editors to this talk facility)Lihaas (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily; just becuase Pakistan sent a message of condolence doesnt mean that they are necessarily concerned about people dying in India. What about the "bleeding India throug a thousand cuts" thing, has it stopped, simply becasue they sent a condolence. Rather there was firing at the border recently. And just becuase some country didn't send in a message of condolence doesn't mean that they didn't care. What if they were too busy with some internal trouble, such as Thailand. if we are putting a list of condolences so that we can simply show who called (and by corolary, who didn't) so that people can infer what their relations with India are; I just think it is a bad idea. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly feel that the reaction list should be deleted. It has served its purpose. Other flight crash pages on the Wikipedia do not have reaction list see Air France Flight 447 or Afriqiyah Airways Flight 771 eg. Similarly the Indian space craft Chandrayaan 1 article had a long reaction list which was deleted since it makes the article look like a news item.--PremKudvaTalk 05:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its not for inference, as wikipedia states "Wikipedia articles should be used for background information, as a reference for correct terminology and search terms, and as a starting point for further research." Which gives to other readers (regardless of the individual editor who more than likely already knows more), the option to decide how useful what info it and to pursue their studies from there.Lihaas (talk) 07:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Going by uniformity in such articles, reactions list doesn't deserve to be there. It is best suited in Wikipedia News instead. There is definitely no "starting point for further research." involved here.--PremKudvaTalk 10:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis? personal opinion is not a basis.Lihaas (talk) 10:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the messages have the same meaning, but expresses in different ways. It's not encyclopedic to know the exact quotes. Wikipedia is not lists of quotations (policy WP:NOTDIR). Other plane crashes does not have reaction lists (last 5 years verified), expect the Polish that had notible people on board. Why does this article need a list? Removal of list based on consistence between plane crash articles. --Kslotte (talk) 11:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the messages here you mean? well they all don't agree on the samething. wikipedia'srules could go both ways too. You can't use that logic when it agrees with you, and not when it doesn't. per comments above, some do think they're appropriate, some don't, and per rule mentioned in this response no consensus really.Lihaas (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list will not be included, because there is "no consensus" and the norm is to don't have a reaction list for plane crashes. --Kslotte (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Norm?? on what basis? where there are reactions they are cited.(Lihaas (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
Norm: other flight incidents during past doesn't have reaction lists. --Kslotte (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Norms have been established in the past, such that an article is worthy of an encyclopaedic entry. Such being the case reaction lists are not included in air crash articles, space craft articles and so on. If you check none of the other aircrash articles have reaction lists. I had not deleted out of a whim, there was a norm, and additionally a reaction list was looking completely stupid in the article.--PremKudvaTalk 04:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Poland does, other crases don't have reactions (considering its a faily recent norm in IRLihaas (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tail number

[edit]

How can it be that the plane had two tail numbers? This article operates with two tail numbers, "VU-AXU" as mentioned below the image, and "VU-AXV" in the link that leads to aviation-safety.net. The site also use VU-AXV in its description of the accident. The image clearly shows that the aircraft involved in the accident was registered with the tail number VU-AXU. This leads to confusion and should be corrected soon. – Sandip90 (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's VT-AXV. The image of VT-AXU is used as we don't have one of VT-AXV. As both aircraft are B737-8HGs, the photo is good enough. Mjroots (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the clarification. – Sandip90 (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British/Serbian

[edit]

Bit of back and forth over this issue. (Not by me!) Including that the Captain was English of Serbian origin may stop good faith editng to the victim table and stop a Serbian appearing on it separately? Though there was a Serbian and English flag at one stage!--220.101.28.25 (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read on numerous websites that the pilot was a Serbian national (as well as British), meaning that the pilot holds Serbian citizenship. So, it would be appropriate to add Serbian to the nationalities table... http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/AI-crash--Focus-back-on-expat-pilots/622325/ --★BignBad★ 23:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Fixed that as has been done in Swissair crash list.221.120.250.78 (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Localizer/navigation aid

[edit]

The section in the page says "localizer" and then in brackets adds "navigation aid" although the 1. localizer described what it is (as the point of intra-wiki links), 2. the navigation aid refers to general aids not for aircraft as per the context of this article it is a decepting link. (probably nav. aid can go in the localizer's page's see also if its not already there)Lihaas (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what if a reader prints the page out? I see this as making it unambiguous as this is the only mention of nav aid on the entire page. I and presumably you know what a localiser is, many don't! Take your point about navigation aid, maybe "instrument landing system antenna" is better? Certainly unambiguous as a localizer is definately part of the instrument landing system. "--220.101.28.25 (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went with "hit the instrument landing system (localizer) antenna". "Instrument landing system" is very descriptive, if the reader wants more detail, then they can click on either of the links. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt know what it was at the time. But anyhoo, good agreement. kudos.Lihaas (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--220.101.28.25 (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An ILS (Instrument Landing System) approach relies on a localizer for right-left guidance and a glide slope for up-down. The glide slope antenna is off to the side; the localizer antenna and light structures are generally on the runway centerline. I revised the text to show the aircraft reportedly struck the localizer antenna while overshooting the runway. A quick look at Google Earth showed no antenna, apparently during construction. It's not clear to me which runway they were using, I'd guess RWY 24 to the southwest, not 6 heading northeast because that intersects with the other runway. //Don K. (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The construction of the airport was challenged in court as its not as per the norms(http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?265541). Why its not included in this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.196.168.102 (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page is about the crash. If you have a wp:reliable source for anything that has a bearing on the accident, you can put it in yourself, be wp:BOLD. Just keep in mind Wikipedia policies on SOAPBOXING, Original Research, Verifiablity etc. (and please sign your posts thus ~~~~ (four "tildes") or use the "signature" ícon.) Regards, --220.101.28.25 (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't mean the Air India Express Flight 812 article, I meant the website 'article' 82.196.168.102 referred to above! Sorry for being vague!. :-( Er, did I understand your meaniing here correctly WhisperToMe? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how these guidelines work, should a thing appear in some website like BBC or western media to be reliable? A similar article in Rediff(http://news.rediff.com/special/2010/may/22/mangalores-new-runway-was-legally-challenged.htm) also says the same thing.

Wikipedia sucks, its dominated by western media interests. I am never using it ever again. Good bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.196.168.102 (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's unfortunate. If you don't edit here how can any bias be corrected? But you didn't give me a chance to reply to your initial question re: "appear in some website like BBC or western media"! I think you will find this article uses all types/nationality of sources ie. The Hindu,Press_Trust_of_India, Hindustan_Times. Sources like personal blogs or self-published books or websites are NOT considered reliable for example. Please stay and give your point of view, we need it! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we do use Indian sources and many from other countries (Al Jazeera from Qatar, Yomiuri from Japan, etc) - So 82.196.168.102's reason for leaving has no validity. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WhisperToMe, I assume you meant to say 'leaving' not living, otherwise I would have to chastise you for being very uncivil! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whups, I meant to say "leaving" - Sorry about that! WhisperToMe (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, a Freudian slip perhaps? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support that one-two sentences could written about this at section "Mangalore International Airport". A bit more text could be written on the airport wiki page. Rediff seems to be a WP:RS. --Kslotte (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalities

[edit]

Are we 100% sure that all bar one on board were Indian nationals? The list of names released by Air India Express has some distinctly non-Indian names on it. I appreciate that a name is not proof of nationality, but it may be an indicator of ethnic origin and thus of which nationalities are more likely to be correct. Mjroots2 (talk) 06:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Press statements issued by Air India (TV) seem to indicate that all on-board (except the Captain) were Indian nationals.Simplyj (talk) 08:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC) I have replaced a leading space so the sentence wraps around. Ok?--220.101.28.25 (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was apparently one with dual nationality.
If you mean the Captain, we need a RS to state that. As far as I'm aware, he was of Serbian origin, but a British National, which is not the same as having dual British and Serbian nationality. If this can be shown, we can cover it in the table in the same way as the recent Libyan accident. Mjroots (talk) 07:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But in terms of "non-indian" names they were either [Indian] Muslims or christians (kerala most likely, but possibly goa too)Lihaas (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lone female survivor was a Bangladeshi national, I have amended the table to reflect that, along with required ref.--PremKudvaTalk 06:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Double-citizens could be marked by some type of footnote. --Kslotte (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Implelemented by Mjroots. (@ 11:41, 25 May)--220.101.28.25 (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Display in table

[edit]

Inspector123 (talk · contribs) has changed the format of the table, stating the using the (IMHO more encyclopedic) Flag and nationality is against Wikirules and that we should use the flag and country display link instead.

This is the first I've heard that there is a rule against this. It works well on the Afriqiyah Airways Flight 711 article and I think it works well here too.

So, should we display nationalities as  United Kingdom or United Kingdom British. What is the general consensus? Mjroots (talk) 11:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All crash related nationality lists show flag and country, see Air France, Swissair, TWA, Pan Am amongst others, try changing format and they will be reverted.221.120.250.78 (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
221.120, please be more civil and Assume Good Faith. I am unsure who you are replying to here, if it is Mjroots you are being rather uncivil. Regards, --220.101.28.25 (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Raised at WT:MOSICON in order to get wider discussion. Mjroots (talk) 11:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to throw a spanner in the works here but Are we emphasize_nationality_without_good_reason? Gnevin (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survivors

[edit]

Can we please not rewrite history. 8 initial survivors - 1 who died from injuries sustained = 7 survivors. Mjroots (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An IP has again changed the table to 8 survivors. Per the quoted source, The names of the seven survivors are: (my bold). Mjroots (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mjroots, I was just writing the IP a Welcome and added a friendly little (I hope) personal message about this situation. Hope that are willing to talk! Regards, --220.101.28.25 (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We should for now keep the survivors count to "8" and then use whatever survivor count the Indian DGCA uses. Some agencies define survivor differently. The NTSB used to define a survivor as someone who lived for 7 days after the crash. In later reports the NTSB changed it to 30 days. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I just looked at this section of the talk page after changing the survivor count to 8 on the infobox & lead. I've reverted my changes, but from reading most of the major news articles and even looking at the "list of survivors" from Air India the survivor count is always listed as 8. I concur that it should be listed as 8 as well. --Vishnu2011 (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, thank you for reverting, Vishnu2011. The person who initially survived but later died did so because of injuries sustained in the accident, therefore (s)he is just as much a victim as all the others. Mjroots (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed twice with the reference but someone is putting wrong information saying survivors are 7. Please stop this. If you say 7 put up the proof. Checkout the below link before changing to 7. Photos matches the Air India's official list of survivors on the Press Release No.6 and final press release. All 8 are out of danger and are getting discharged from the hospital. Checkout the linksMangalore : The Lucky 8 who Survived.... Please don't update without proof and official references. 122.172.224.32 (talk · contribs)

Well, it could be that the reports of a survivor dying from injuries were mistaken. OK, go with 8 for now as that is what the majority of sources are quoting. Mjroots (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the survivors, MS Sabrina Nasrinhuq is a Bangladeshi nationals, an intern doctor at Kasturba Medical College.Drshefa (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have a reliable source for this? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yes I have. Please see the link "The Telegraph"[4]Drshefa (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that source says "Bangladesh-born" and that doesn't necessarily equate to current nationality. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All Bangladeshi born persons get Bangladesh citizenship.The news been Published in Bangladeshi newspaper[5](talk) 20:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time zone in lede

[edit]

It's not the typical practice to include the time zone where the accident occurred in the article's lede; I'm not sure why it continues to be put back in. Stating how far in advance of UMT the location of the accident is does not provide any meaningful information that cannot be obtained from the name and location of the accident airport. The local time, however, is important, because it allows the reader to take note of the fact that the amount of daylight available at the time of the accident may have impacted certain events. Rodface (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"explaining aviation jargon"

[edit]

its not explaining aviation jargon (okay, in a sense it may be read that way), but an explanation of the initial reaction/response as to why it was said as so. Maybe it is better under a media reactions section?Lihaas (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Official Name of Mangalore Airport ?

[edit]

Wikipedia keeps calling the airport Mangalore International Airport. I cannot find any official source to confirm this. Aviation databases report it as Mangalore Bajpe Airport.

I also came across this link that suggests that the airport does not have "International" status.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mangalore/International-airport-status-may-be-delayed/articleshow/5962493.cms —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.131.247.216 (talk) 08:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An International Airport is by accepted definition an Airport that is equipped with Customs and Immigration facilities to handle flights from other countries. The Mangalore International Airport handles as many as 52 flights a week (most from the Persian gulf)as opposed to the 26-odd domestic flights it handles. It's the only airport in the state to have 2 runways. Officially it has been declared a Customs Airport and is pending 'International' Status Simplyj (talk) 10:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is more suited to the article on the airport, rather than here. Mjroots (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A brochure released by the airport on the inaugural of the new terminal simply says Mangalore Airport.--PremKudvaTalk 05:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disamb

[edit]

per this edit [6] it's a good idea to have disamb on all the 812 pages becasue the number is the main reason for the disambigatuation, its not that "logical relations between 812 flights (other then the number)," disambiguation's purpose is not for exact same words alone, but said confusion.Lihaas (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having disambiguation per flight number could be compared to surname for biographies. For example on page Hans Backman a disambiguation link is made to Backman. It is not a good idea at all. --Kslotte (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
but there is precedence for it.(Lihaas (talk) 09:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ravine statement

[edit]

As per the conflict about the ravine the editor/s who added have done so with their comment that [7] + [8] the editors opinion states it as such with any cite whatsoever. wikipedia's WP:RS doesnt give individual opinion the credence of source. of coruse, then an editor changes [9] that "media reports have changed stop citing rubbish," again this comes w/o any source whatsoever. If it is the case then this needs to be sourced.Lihaas (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cite provided today. Instead of reverting everything you too could have searched for a suitable cite. If you were unable to search yourself then you could have used the the {{fact}} tag, which would have added a "citation needed," mark alerting editors to search for a suitable reference. If no one added a cite in a reasonable amount of time only then could you delete or revert it. Earlier edits were not based on my imagination or observation. In fact I haven't even visited the crash site. Everything was based on what was reported in the media. I was definitely not being a roving reporter here, if such a feeling has arisen it is completely mistaken.--PremKudvaTalk 04:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crore

[edit]

I notice this article is using crore as a number. As this is the English wikipedia, shouldn't we be using numbers such as 10,000,000 etc instead of crores? Many people outside India wouldn't understand the system used there for high numbers. Mjroots (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure, you can change it.--PremKudvaTalk 04:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Court of Inquiry

[edit]

The Court of Inquiry section is expanding at the inquiry progresses. I have been adding the required information with cites here, so far it is only in chronological order. Someone can edit it such it looks encyclopaedic.--PremKudvaTalk 05:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC) Court of inquiry report will be published after 2 months.[reply]

Check this link from bangalore. http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=86601&n_tit=Mangalore+Air+Crash+%3A+Final+Report+After+Two+Months s.deepaknair —Preceding unsigned comment added by S.deepaknair (talk • contribs) 08:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flight History

[edit]

All non Indian pilots for Air India/Air India Express are based outside of India. The Captain was based at Frankfurt, not Mangalore, and had deadheaded in the day before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.194.62.25 (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No can do

[edit]

The External Links includes "Ministry of Civil Aviation Court of Enquiry" at http://civilaviation.nic.in/mangloreCrashCOI.html Ministry of Civil Aviation Court of Enquiry but that can't be accessed. Our Ministry of Civil Aviation (India) article also lists "Ministry of Civil Aviation" as being at ''http://civilaviation.nic.in/'' but that can't be accessed either. Anyone know where the Court Of Enquiry site is? Moriori (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No answer. Anyone? Moriori (talk) 03:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

.....and

[edit]

I see this has been nominated for GA. It will need some serious tidying up to achieve that status. For instance, here's an extract -- "an Air India spokesman who confirmed that all initial survivors were alive.""

I am prepared to turn this into an encyclopedia article, but not if someone immediately reverts with "but, we've always done it this way" which is the absolute bane of Wiki these days. Comments? Moriori (talk) 03:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

[edit]

I know a fellow, Neil Pinto who was in one of the rescue parties at the crash site. I have sent him a friend request at facebook. If he consents, then i shall add some of the photos (non graphic) in his possession, and obtain OTRS permission for them. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 05:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just received a series of photos of the crash site. Is is all right if i upload some photos, including the charred remains on Commons? Joyson Noel Holla at me! 05:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I requested him to create an account and release the images under a free license, which he has promptly done. The image gallery can be accessed on the following link:

Joyson Noel Holla at me! 07:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Air India Express Flight 812/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 12george1 (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "which at around 06:30 local time on 22 May 2010," - You should note which time zone it is referring to when it says "local time", or better yet, just put the time in UTC.
 Done -- DQ (t) (e) 11:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some references are in the wrong places, because it looks like some statements are unsourced. This is the situation in the following statements:
    • "Initial reports from survivors suggested a tyre burst[6] as the aircraft attempted a go-around." - Move reference #6 to the end of the sentence.
 Done -- DQ (t) (e) 11:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "800 feet (240 m),[54] well before the aircraft made a touch down." - Move reference #54 to the end of the sentence.
 Done -- DQ (t) (e) 11:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and also of the alleged hostile attitude of the airline's counsel.[80] Members of the Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI) along with Kasargod MP P Karunkaran staged a protest on 8 September 2010 at the airline's office in Mangalore where they submitted a memorandum to officials demanding that families of the victims receive early and equitable settlements of compensation due. They also demanded the settlement process be made more transparent by opening it to the media rather than holding sessions in camera." - Either the reference (#80) is in the wrong place, or this statement really is unsourced.
 Done -- DQ (t) (e) 11:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The units of measure are inconsistent as to whether it is American first or metric first (e.g. 2,000 feet (610 m) and 90 metres (300 ft); they should be American first and metric last or vice versa, but not both).
 Done -- DQ (t) (e) 11:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the references contain errors:
    • [10] Reference #12 is missing the date, which was May 8, 2011 (the bottom of the page says it was last updated on that day).
    • Reference #14 is a bare url and is missing all information. BTW, why is it linked to a plane crash in 1981?
    • [11] Reference #16 is missing the date (27 April 2011).
    • [12] There is a typo in the title on reference #20, it should say "158 die, 8 survive in Air India Express plane crash in Mangalore", not "159 die, 7 survive".
    • [13] Reference #24 is missing the publisher (The Hindu) and the date (16 December 2006).
    • [14] Reference #28 is missing the date (24 May 2010).
    • [15] Reference #29 is missing the author (Chand, Naseeb).
    • [16] On reference #31, add the author either as "CNN Wire Staff" or "Singh, Harmeet; Neisloss, Liz; Razek, Raja; Deaton, Jennifer". BTW, you have the wrong title, it should be "Air India's flight data recorder sought".
    • [17] Reference #33 is missing the author (Mines, Javier).
    • Note: Checked link, worked for me. The url for reference #42 redirects to the video homepage, and not what it was intended to link to.
    • [18] Reference #43 is missing the date (27 May 2010).
    • [19] Reference #50 is missing the date (3 August 2010).
    • [20] Reference #51 is missing the author (Proulx, Jim) and the date (21 May 2010).
    • [21] The url for reference #57 has a similar problem to reference #42.
    • [22] Reference #58 is missing the author (Nandy, Chandan)
    • [23] Reference #61 is missing the date (26 April 2011).
    • [24] Reference #64 is missing the author (Raghuram, M.).
    • [25] Reference #69 is missing the author (Fernandes, Ronald).
    • [26] Reference #73 is missing the author (Hradecky, Simon) and the date (26 April 2011).
    • Reference #76 is a bare url and is missing all information.
Not sure. This doesn't look right... do you know what I am doing wrong? -- DQ (t) (e) 11:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You put the url in quotation marks, I fixed it for you.--12george1 (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • [27] Reference #77 is missing the date (23 May 2010).
 Done Reference checks except where noted. -- DQ (t) (e) 11:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More

[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Number of people involved

[edit]

The article currently says 160 passengers + 6 crew = 166 people = 158 fatalities + 8 survivors. However reference 2 says there were 169 PASSENGERS. One must be wrong. -- SGBailey (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Air India Express Flight 812. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 13:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 59 external links on Air India Express Flight 812. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Air India Express Flight 812. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Air_India_Express_Flight_812&oldid=1213064562"