Talk:South African Airways Flight 295

December 2007

the helderberg-crash was investigated by the TRC! http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/trc_frameset.htm --Severino (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Margo Commission

Why was this section deleted? This was the name of the official investigation conducted at the time. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to post information, it is your responsibility to cite things. If you want to add it back, you need to find the citation first. As per WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.[2]" WhisperToMe (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• I noticed that you got a citation, so that is good. Just remember that in many cases uncited information is always in danger of being removed and that the remover is usually not obligated to get sources himself. It would be a bonus if he does, but that cannot always be expected. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with using the {{Fact}} tag before deleting it? I didn't add the original information on the Margo Commission, however even the most cursory reading into the event shows that this was the name of the primary (and controversial) investigation into the accident. I'm not the only one who could have found a citation for it. Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not that anything is necessarily wrong with using the fact tag - It's often a judgment call. I wondered where the Margo thing came from; since I did not encounter it in the video I watched, I simply removed it. The WP:V statement reads: "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}. Alternatively, you may leave a note on the talk page requesting a source, or you may move the material to the talk page." - In other words it is a judgment call. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"I wondered where the Margo thing came from; since I did not encounter it in the video I watched" - the lesson here seems to be that videos are not reliable sources for deleting info on Wikipedia by virtue of the programme choosing not to mention it. :-) I understand you did this in good faith, however that fact that you've not heard of something does not mean it's not true or veriafiable - hence the reason that tagging is a better way to challenge information like this. Socrates2008 (Talk) 02:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"however that fact that you've not heard of something does not mean it's not true or veriafiable - hence the reason that tagging is a better way to challenge information like this." - If I have never heard of something, how do I know it's true? WP:V states that verifiability, not truth, is the criterion of inclusion? Anyhow, this isn't a big deal. It was easy to restore and source the information - Unlike a speedy delete of an article, one does not need to be as cautious with removing unsourced material from articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Aritcle is heavily biased and innacurate: Suggestion for major correction.

It seems apparent that the authors and revisers of this article who have - taken on its history of amendments - taken it under their "wing" have placed an undue reliance on the sources from known conspiracy theorists and that much of those allegations contained in biographies and accounts pro the "misconduct of the old government" theory are at clear odds with documents on the published record in various countries which are available after a cursory search.

As one who was tasked to follow the full story of the official investigation for my journal at the time - from being on the island after the accident in the early days of the search to sitting through the actual Margo process for each of its hearing days and then re-reading and studying the full transcripts and reading every document submitted to the court of enquiry as well as interviewing some of the most notable proponents of the alternative theories, I find this laisse-faire approach to documented evidence disturbing and diminishing of the ideal of Wikipedia.

After an ettempt to try and assist, it is obvious that even though the publicly released transcript of the TRC hearings was referenced, as well as a contemorary independent analysis of the many claims of Dr. Klatzow before the TRC hearings by two another journalists who also read extensively on the subject, these will not be referenced or entertained if they are at odds with the bias of the overall entry but deleted wholly... (so if they were not correctly cited or linked those of you are experienced wikipedians could have fixed these issues?).

This conduct and over-reliance on cleary erroneuos and/or disputed or discredited evidence places the entire SA 295 entry as it now stands under a cloud of sensationalism and the continued fostering of speculation which this perpetuates is not very compassionate to the crew or vicitms of the flight and their families who have found it hard enough to find closure due to the repeated "new evidence" reports that surface just as the hurt and pain becomes liveable. It certainly diminishes the fact that the people aboard and the investigators involved sacrificed hugely to lay foundations in air accident investigation that were pioneering in their scope.

When dealing with these matters one is dealing with emotions and people's lives and stepping beyond the boundaries of factual and objective reporting as contained on the public record to further personally held beliefs is callous.

This entire entry needs, in my view, a serious re-edit to report the factual information accepted by the manufacturers, the state of registry and the international authorities that accepted the final findings of the board of enquiry. Mention of the fact that many put forward alternative theories and that these were tested by the new SA Government's TRC process and found to be unsubstantiated would be apposite enough as regards all the rest of the speculation.

Either it is a factual entry on the accident, the investigation and the contribution to air safety or it is not. Perhaps it needs to be split into two articles - one factual and another that is titled "SA 295 accident investigation - Disputes and follow ups" ?. Alternatively, take the to-and-for of revisionist history off Wikipedia to other fora (of which there are many) more suited to this type of battle of the wills. Photojourno (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. You should take a look at the introduction before you make another edit or comment, as as your tone could be interpreted as accusatory. For example, your description of other editors' work as "laisse-faire" and "callous" is perhaps missing the whole point of Wikipedia. This is not a press organisation or corporation - the contributions are made by volunteers in their spare time. If there's any responsibility for the quality of an article, it's a collective one on the part of the Wiki community, which now happens to include you.

If you're seeing a "battle of wills", you're missing a point. Firstly, although you may not appreciate it, you have probably come here with a similar goal to others that have edited the article before you. Secondly, Wikipedia works on consensus - so by all means be bold and update the article, but if you make a bad or controversial edit, then someone else is probably going to revert it until the way forward is worked out. Your first edit to the article introduced a number of factual errors by attributing statements to Klatzow that did not originate from him. So someone else with concern about the quality of the article reverted you, because parts of your edit failed verifiability or were original research. Hopefully you will stay around long enough to learn the ropes (everyone has got to start somewhere).

My own interest in this article and others like KAL 007, Pan Am 103 and the Samora Machel accident stems principally from my concern about their open bias towards conspiracy theories. You should look at some of the older versions of these articles to get an appreciation of how things have already improved. This particular article is most certainly in need of further improvement.

To the best of my knowledge, the primary factual reference for this article (the Margo report) is not available online. Much of the publically available information is laced with conspiracy theories and inaccuracies, making the separation of wheat and chaff particularly difficult. So, if you have access to reliable sources that can be used to improve this article, then please go ahead and do so, adding references as you do.

Lastly, the issue with articles like this is not so much the mentioning of conspiracy theories, but way in which some people have sometimes presented them as fact. This is generally easily resolved when identified, but it's not always easy to spot, especially if there's an active editor pushing a POV. Unfortunately, the SA 295 conspiracies have enjoyed an emense amount of air time and support in the real world, so we have to mirror that weighting here (but attributing as necessary and clearly labelling the relevant "conspiracies" section as such). Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the response and lucid explanation of the approach.

I had no intention of putting feathers awry. If anyone feels offended, my apologies. It is merely that, having read so much on the subject and having been around at the time, the chaff amongst the wheat is glaring. This is in addition to the fact that having also read the various fora upon which many of the same theories have been flighted (almost, in some paragraphs verbatim to the entry here a few days or weeks prior to their inclusion here) I feel that the article has been steered along a revisionist path.

On your point of original research, all the updates I made are published by others (mainly the TRC in its transcript in which Dr. Klatzow himself states his own experience as a passenger to support some of his hypotheses) as well as the exhaustive analysis of this accident and the long series of theories contained in the book referenced in which all the SAA accidents are chronicled (A Firm Resolve). The author of that work researched all the publicly avaialable evidence and the notes of the actual accident investigators to deal with each theory in a measured manner as against the uncontested evidence on hand - versus the mostly hearsay evidence offered by people quoting others (or in many cases deceased people) as their sources contained in affidavits upon which many seek to rely to re-open the case with the authorities.

A contemporary and very recent case in point is the entry in this article detailing the alleged new "evidence" from July 2011 coming to light. The entry in this article does not clearly state that the affidavit obtained by Dr. Klatzow is by a person who quotes a colleague (now also deceased) that informed him who was given the tapes. If one were to read the TRC transcript, it seems clear that the tape's whereabouts and content was dealt with there and that it did not mysteriously go missing. The lead investigator of the accident stated that he had listened to it and found it not to contain anything of relevance to the accident under investigation. Despite this information being on the public record many seek to ignore it and to continue to claim that something shady is going on with the tape. This is just one of the issues...

Nevertheless, as a final gesture to assist, I have a copy of the original report of the official board of enquiry obtained at the time when it was widely distributed by the government printer (and the Aviation safety database has a concise and accurate summary of the findings) and I am willing to follow up with the relevant copyright holder to obtain permission to place the origianl report of the board of enquiry on-line in the wiki-commons repository as a scanned PDF. I will then learn how to do the referencing to (hopefully) the required standard and do an edit which clearly labels the revisionist entries. Perhaps then the community can consider that they be transferred to another article similar in scope to that of the TWA Flight 800 alternative theories entry. That event seems to have aroused similar fervour on all sides with some refusing to believe anything the official findings disclosed. Perhaps then, a seperation between the official findings and the other theories could perhaps be a way forward.

This will, however, take time so I will check back in once I have managed to get it all sorted.Photojourno (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - sounds good, so looking forward to the next installment. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

External links

WP:ELNO #1 says "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." Even were this a featured article, the reports of the enquiries would still provide significant information beyond what is contained in the article, given that the article is not going to go into all the detail of the investigation report. WP:ELYES #3 says "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail [...], or other reasons."

I looked at articles for prominent air crashes to see what the general attitude seems to be. So:

• Pan Am Flight 103#External links leads with the AAIB report.
• Tenerife airport disaster#External links leads with the Spanish reports.
• Air France Flight 447#External links leads with the interim BEA reports.
• Swissair Flight 111#External links leads with the Canadian TSB report.

etc., etc. Linking the investigation report from the external links section seems to be absolutely standard for articles on air disasters. - htonl (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

None of those examples are FA's. If you're looking for the "general attitude, you should consider what the FA reviewers have to say (this is something that I've seen crop up repeatedly in articles under review). Also, if the reports contain something significant that is not in the article, then that points to the article being deficient, and we should fix it, citing the reports. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

If we're talking about FAs, what about Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907#External links, American Airlines Flight 11#External links and United Airlines Flight 175#External links? Could you link to an example of these FA review comments? I want to see what their argument is.

My point is that the WP article is always going to be a summary, compared to an investigation report. A WP article is not going to cover all the details. Why make the reader who wants further details search through the large references section to find it?

I've linked to this discussion at WT:AIRCRASH to get other opinions. Incidentally, do you think the other links in the EL section are appropriate? - htonl (talk) 12:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to an FA for an aircraft crash article specifically - it will take me some time to dig out an example as I've not done any article reviews recently. I might pose the question at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria.

The WP article should cover all important points, otherwise it would fail FA.

Thanks. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Need a better cite than WorldNetDaily

In the the "Conspiracy theories" section, there is the paragraph

“ Reports from the Wouter Basson investigation suggested there was a weigh receipt showing that 300 grams of a highly volatile, carbon-based chemical substance had been placed onboard the ill-fated Helderberg. WorldNetDaily of 5 July 2000 postulated that such a substance may well have caused the fire, which then led to the crash. ”

which is cited to a WorldNetDaily article. Now, the WND article is of course a reliable source for what WND itself postulated. But consensus appears to be that WND is not a reliable source for factual material, so we need another source for the information about the receipt. We should also consider whether WND's "postulations" are notable enough to be included in the article. - htonl (talk) 01:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

These comments are all spot on. The only problem is that there was a conspiracy theory, albeit a dodgy one, about Basson's links with the flight, so there are other sources that concur with the current one.(e.g. Sunday Independent, Scorpions, iol) Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think we should remove the information; just that we should source it better. I've reworded that point to remove the

reference to WND. - htonl (talk) 12:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Source or conspiracy

[1][2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandarine (talk • contribs) 06:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING GIVEN ON FLIGHT 295 HELDERBERG TO TOP RSA POLITICAL LEADERS BY TOP INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES THAT ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM OFFICIAL VERSION

1.The National Security Agency of the United States of America has a complete record of the conversations on the Helderberg and these were never given to the Margo Commission of inquiry. 2. The wife of Captain Uys was paid an uttermost fortune in compensation to keep for years her mouth shut. 3. At least one cabinet member of the then South African Apartheid Regime (version 1 Pik Botha version 2 Magnus Malan version 3 both) was at Jan Smuts Airport at Air Trafic Control during the disaster 4. If the former members of the Apartheid Regime will be summoned before an Independant United Nations Tribunaral they will all be collectively fouund guilty of murder in the first degree. This is because 2 fighter jets took off from Hoedspruit Air Force Base and being refuelled in mid air by a fuel tanker from waterkloof air force base to refuel them in mid air to extend their range with direct orders to shoot the Helderberg down to prevent an international outcry about the international smuggling of weapons grade plutonium international code name red mercury on board. 5. The first question by an Independent United Nations Enquiry shall be addressed to Roedolf Frederick ("Pik") Botha : Diego Garcia as a landing site was available by making one phone call to the American Ambassador to South Africa and this option logical was not followed. Why not ? 6. Al thought the subsequent inquiry by Mr. Otzen came close to the truth , this essential facts was never revealed to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.120.193.65 (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Red mercury doesn't exist and in 1986 there were no interceptors capable of aerial refuelling stationed at AFB Hoedspruit, only ground-attack F1AZs and Mirage IIIs without refuelling probes. This paragraph doesn't add anything to the discussion. Darren Olivier (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

New evidence: Kapton insulation failure led to the fire

I've just read an article by Mark D Young suggesting the fire was caused by the failure of the Kapton insulation used in the aircraft's wiring looms. Apparently it fails after a few years use, leading to electrical fires caused by short-circuits; this was not known at the time of the crash but has happened on other aircraft since then. In this case, it is likely that the thermal insulation used in this aircraft was then set on fire, producing a large volume of toxic smoke. Neither material is used in aircraft now, but at the time they were thought to be safe. The article looks credible tome, but as I don't really know anything about the subject I'll leave it to others to decide whether to edit the article accordingly. URL: http://www.politicsweb.co.za/news-and-analysis/the-helderberg-disaster-was-this-the-cause-of-the- 146.200.172.133 (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC) dww

All evidence seems to point to an electrical fire being the primary cause... I wonder how much influence Boeing exerted to get the investgation shifted to blaiming the cargo instead ? Rcbutcher (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

American passenger

several newspaper sources from the time indicate 1 American passenger, (William G. Murless) sources: http://www.nytimes.com/1987/11/30/world/five-bodies-found-after-jet-crash.html http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1987/Four-More-Bodies-Found-At-Indian-Ocean-Crash-Site/id-68e07643f91b2db0b8e224961cfa9c77 http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=117519913 Jacob805 00:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC) jacob805

In that case, we would have to remove one person from the passenger list (after we find out more info) and add said American passenger, because the official death toll is 159, not 160. I'm not a racist or anything, just saying. Tigerdude9 (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on South African Airways Flight 295. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gov.za/reports/2000/helderberg.htm

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: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on South African Airways Flight 295. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140328112021/http://www.l-3ar.com/html/history.html to http://www.l-3ar.com/html/history.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/nie/note/chu/14/kiji08.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.caa.co.za/resource%20center/accidents%20%26%20incid/reports/OldReports/Final%20Report%20ZS-SAS.pdf

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) 14:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on South African Airways Flight 295. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120913205243/http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/transport/Cert_Update/Edition01-10/media/Edition08.pdf to http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/transport/Cert_Update/Edition01-10/media/Edition08.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130225223803/http://accidents-ll.faa.gov/ll_main.cfm?TabID=3&CategoryID=18&LLID=33 to http://accidents-ll.faa.gov/ll_main.cfm?TabID=3&CategoryID=18&LLID=33
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110809181117/http://www.transport.gov.za/library/docs/helderberg/report0521.html to http://www.transport.gov.za/library/docs/helderberg/report0521.html

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) 20:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Margo Commission and procedure checklist

I was thinking of adding this bullet list to the "Margo Commission" section to clarify it more:

Overall the Margo Commission confirmed the following:

• An in-flight fire occurred
• The crew was incapacitated by smoke
• The aircraft broke-up in mid flight

Also, I read the communications with ATC, there actually is evidence that this checklist was followed and/or the doors were opened.

What do you think? Anything I should add/remove from my list? Should I add the list at all? Please give me your thoughts! Thank you!Tigerdude9 (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the only thing confirmed beyond doubt by the Margo Commission was your first point, i.e. "An in-flight fire occurred". It appears that the crew being incapacitated by smoke was just one of the "possible scenarios", and it's probably not safe to include "aircraft broke-up in mid flight" because the manufacturer is quoted in the report as having "contested" this scenario. So really the only thing that's certain is the first point about the in-flight fire. It looks to me as if the report was rather inconclusive apart from that and maybe the text is better left as it is now as there's not enough concrete information to include in a list. BTW I've done a bit of copyediting whilst reading through the section. Hope you don't mind. Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind at all! However I read the MC's report. The aircraft DID break apart in mid-air. While contested, the commission still listed the two theories, which were the crew becoming incapacitated and the in-flight break up. You can tell if an aircraft broke up in mid air by looking at its wreckage pattern. Wreckage spread out = the aircraft broke-up in mid air. Wreckage not spread out = the aircraft stayed intact until impact. The wreckage pattern of SAA Flight 295 matched the first one, so yeah, the aircraft DID break apart in mid-air (basically). Not trying to prove you wrong or anything, just saying. I recommend you read the Margo Commission's report as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerdude9 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed new summary

I though of a new summary for the info box after reading the Margo commission. It is “In-flight fire in cargo hold leading to in-flight breakup; cause of fire undetermined and disputed” The aircraft broke up in mid flight because the wreckage was scattered widely. What do you think of the new summary? Note I’m not going to add this new summary until I get responses and most people are okay with it. Tigerdude9 (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I would prefer "In-flight fire in cargo hold leading to loss of control and in-flight breakup; cause of fire undetermined and disputed"

The loss of control is important because the in-flight breakup might have been avoided if the pilots had been able to keep control. Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Rennie von Zyl and Cecil Margo

The connection between these two people aren't made clear in this article. I understand the use of the name Rennie von Zyl because that's what he was called in the Mayday episode, but are these two really different people? My understanding is that they are the same, as they were both 'leaders' of the investigation. 37KZ (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

"the missing Jan Smuts air traffic control tapes"

The above is introduced without explanation. What's the background please? Zin92 (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Correction of ADMARK to ADMAK

The accident section describes a navigational/reporting waypoint of ADMARK. This is a typo, possibly copied faithfully from other sources. The correct spelling of the point is ADMAK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.166.36 (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Circuit Breakers

The article states 80 circuit breakers failed, I don't think they failed, I think the correct word is popped or tripped or did they in fact fail to trip? Avi8tor (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Truth and Reconciliation commission is not conspiracy theorists. Afrikaner propaganda must not be promoted here

The Truth and Reconciliation commission is an official government body. To treat their report as less valid than the Afrikkaner Apartheid report is pure revisionism and apartheid apologetics. The very definition of a conspiracy theory is a theory that is rejected by all government bodies, but the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is a GOVERRNMENT BODY and hence their statements denoting that ammonium perchlorate was the cause of the fire cannot be considered a conspiracy theory. Agree with it or disagree with it, what the commission says is what the commission said, and when the commission says that a theory is plausible and that they are unwilling to rule it out, then it's no longer a conspiracy theory. There are other aviation fires of unclear or disputed cause where the official government reports note that they are not certain of the specific cause but propose several possible causes, and those said causes listed in said government reports are not designated as "conspiracy theories", as seen in how the article about Air Canada 797 does not call and of the National Transportation Safety Board official hypothesises "conspiracy theories" just because they admit that they will never be 100% sure about the exact cause due to the fire burning away key evidence. The TaRC report on SAA is no more or less conspiracy theoristing than the NTSB report on Air Canada 797. Furthermore the way that the article about Margo himself is full of blatant puffery or WP:PROMO content, showing a clear bias to the white SA worldview that permeates this subject's coverage in Wikipedia. I highly suggest that everyone read the Truth and Reconciliation Commission coverage on the crash before making any edits to the article.

https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/finalreport/volume2/volume2.pdf " Nothing in the cargo inventory could have resulted in a "self- promoted" fire. However, the original cargo manifests were not part of the record of the Margo Commission, and it is uncertain whether those in the possession of the Commission are authentic. There is therefore no reliable list of what cargo was being transported by the Helderberg when it crashed."

As official government reports these documents cannot be written off as conspiracy theories.--SAAhistory (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Martial law in Taiwan ended before the crash

Martial law in Taiwan ended on July 15th 1987, 4 months before the crash, has anyone looked into Tinus Jacobs’s statement about only one telephone at the Taipei airport at the time of the crash due to martial law? was Jacobs incorrect? Or is his statement just explained poorly? Underneaththesun (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Photo

Should we replace current photo by new photo? A more recent picture of ZS-SAS has surfaced showing its a black part on aircraft nose gone in 1987. See: https://mail.aviation-safety.net/photos/315/Boeing-747-244B-ZS-SAS Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tô Ngọc Khang. Remove that watermark then I might think about it. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 13:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I will remove it when my Commons account is no longer blocked. Or can we use this photo ?

Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 05:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tô Ngọc Khang. I actually prefer this image rather than the watermarked image. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 02:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I removed watermark. Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, nobody gives that much detail whether ZS-SAS had the black part on its nose or not. If you want, you can change the image. Keep in mind, other editors might revert your edit. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 06:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)