Eisspeedway

Talk:Air France Flight 447: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Alex Hoe (talk | contribs)
Extended confirmed users
1,683 edits
MilborneOne (talk | contribs)
Autopatrolled, Administrators
122,964 edits
→Safe image: comment
Line 139: Line 139:
Is there any way we can get permission to use the image? This is gold finding pictures of the flight crew
Is there any way we can get permission to use the image? This is gold finding pictures of the flight crew
[[User:OrbitalEnd48401|OrbitalEnd48401]] ([[User talk:OrbitalEnd48401|talk]]) 16:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
[[User:OrbitalEnd48401|OrbitalEnd48401]] ([[User talk:OrbitalEnd48401|talk]]) 16:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

:Not sure why we would want a picture of the flight crew. [[User:MilborneOne|MilborneOne]] ([[User talk:MilborneOne|talk]]) 19:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


== Change Summary? ==
== Change Summary? ==

Revision as of 19:00, 19 November 2018

Shortcut

Aeroplane, airplane?

Could we just use "aircraft" throughout, as we do in the opening section? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft is preferred unless "airplane" is used in a direct quote. - Samf4u (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And if don't we should consistently use aeroplane as this article is written in British English. Arnoutf (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware "aircraft" is perfectly good British English and has the advantage of being officially preferred internationally in aviation contexts. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except in Air France Flight 447#Angle-of-attack indication, where it would be incorrect to refer more generally to aircraft. Burninthruthesky (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that? Because rotary aircraft are excluded? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the BEA recommendation was specifically for "aeroplanes", not other aircraft. Burninthruthesky (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problem with keeping that instance. It's almost a quote. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Arnoutf, the trend since 1-3 months after creation is American English, and it's been that way ever since, less quotations and the odd difference here and there. I don't think there's any MOS:TIES issue here, so MOS:RETAIN and MOS:ARTCON would seem to point to AE. That said, if the community sees a TIES issue to the U.K., I have no objection, but it should be a community decision, and not imposed by an IP with an agenda. Anytime we can avoid the issue (e.g., 'aircraft') we should do it. The solution to the AoA case, is simply to eliminate the unnecessary verbiage and reword: "...and the FAA should consider making it mandatory to have an angle-of-attack indicator on the instrument panel." Mathglot (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and fixed AoA sentence per above to remove airplane; feel free to revert/change/whatever. Mathglot (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be a perfectly fair reword. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
" .... has the advantage of being officially preferred internationally in aviation contexts" - actually 'aeroplane' is the official ICAO term for a fixed-wing aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.9 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide your source for that claim? Sources such as this suggest otherwise. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Aeroplane" and "Aircraft" are both ICAO terms - the latter being a larger category that also includes helicopters. Definitions are given in ICAO Annex 1. Burninthruthesky (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder do you have a link to that source? I think we can all agree were talking about a fixed-wing aircraft here. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Official source. Also, it's not difficult to find public documents using both terms. Burninthruthesky (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So where the meaning of fixed wing is required, or where we have a quote or near quote, it will be easier just to use "aeroplane"? I'm just keen that we don't use "plane" or "airplane". I think the most common UK use is "aircraft". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I support the use of ICAO terms, including "aircraft" or "aeroplane" as appropriate. See WP:COMMONALITY. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The same argument applies to our article currently entitled Airplane. I have filed a move request. Burninthruthesky (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. A good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fyi: Airplane move request was filed here; result was "Not done." Mathglot (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, the power of GoogleSearch. In my book "airplane", just like "plane", is American English pure and simple. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Air France Flight 447. 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) 21:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second and deadliest

I'm proposing a change to the last sentence of the lead, which seems awkward to me. Did you have to backtrack a couple of times, like I did, to make sure you got the sense of it:

It was also the Airbus A330's second and deadliest accident and its first in commercial passenger service.

I tripped up in various parts of this, including the "also" (also what?) the "second and deadliest" (okay, I get it, it's the second accident and deadliest accident; still had to read it twice). It wasn't till I backtracked right into the previous sentence[a], that I fully got it: this sentence is contrasting Airbus's accident record for this model, with Air France's accident record for all models.[b] Finally, from a grammar PoV, if it was the second accident, then shouldn't it be deadlier not deadliest? Unless there were 29 other A330 crashes since AF 447, then it's back to deadliest again, but the sentence sort of leaves us hanging on that point. And was it only deadliest for the A330? I'd hate to think there was an even more deadly accident for some other Airbus model.[c]

Is there a smoother way we can handle this? How about merging the two final sentences into one, thus:

The accident was the deadliest in the history of Air France;[5][6] while for the model A330, it was its first accident in commercial passenger service and second overall,[7] and Airbus's deadliest accident to date.{{cn}}

This seems clearer to me, complex comparison finessed, no backtracking needed. I've verified the "deadliest for Airbus" claim at the end of the sentence, but it required clicking a bunch of links and comparing counts model by model; would be nice to be able to establish that in one source. Mathglot (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ Previous sentence: "The accident was the deadliest in the history of Air France."
  2. ^ Which explains what that "also" is doing in there: it's the connective tissue setting up the comparison across sentences. Comparing things is easier when you hold all variables constant, and vary just one so you can see what's being compared. Here, we are varying 1) airline vs. manufacturer, and 2) all of AF's aircraft and models vs. one of AB's models. That's a complex comparison for our wee brains to handle on the fly, and needs careful language to be comprehensible.
  3. ^ Per Airsafe, there have been 44 Airbus crashes involving fatalities as of Dec. 2016.

Comparing flight 771 to AF447

I have moved the following discussion from my talkpage so that other editors can chime in. This discussion involves this revert. Dr. K. 20:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Start of user talk discussion
Air France Flight 447

I was going to verify that citation, but I'm not the best at source editing. Tigerdude9 (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tricky analogy with flight 447. Because for flight 447 there was no verdict of pilot error in the official investigation, as in the flight you try to compare it to. So, even if you have a source that says what you wrote, we go by the official investigation report of AF447, not by the opinion of the source, when it comes to calling it pilot error, or faulty crew cooperation etc.. Dr. K. 02:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that it's tricky, yet the investigators of Afrqiyah Airways flight 771 stated that the crew failed to monitor their flight path and made different with the side-sticks too quickly, similar to flight 447 and it even brings up fatigue, as flight 771 pilot's all had less than 244 of rest before the flight (I might have failed to notice how much the crew of flight 447 slept, and no, I'm not editing the fatigue section of flight 447). If I can revert your edit (which I will only do if I have your permission) I should state that "just like 447, the crew of flight 771 failed to monitor their flight path properly and made opposite inputs to the side stick at the same time." To be honest I think I need to read the investigations of these crashes some more as I sometimes read (and sometimes type) too fast. Tigerdude9 (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has to go to the talkpage of AF447 along with your proposal, including quotes from the investigation of 771 comparing 447 to 771. Your quote from the investigation report of 771 must show that the statement "just like 447, the crew of flight 771 failed to monitor their flight path properly and made opposite inputs to the side stick at the same time." is included in the investigation report of 771 and it should not be your own conclusion. If the quote is your conclusion, it is WP:OR and it will not be added to the AF447 article. But I don't think the investigators of flight 771 can make conclusions about AF447 in any case, because they did not investigate AF447. I will copy this discussion to the AF447 talkpage so that other editors can give their opinion. Dr. K. 20:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
End of user talk discussion
  • Comment As I suspected, the final report of Afriqiyah Flight 771 does not have a single mention of AF447. Therefore, the conclusion proposed: "just like 447, the crew of flight 771 failed to monitor their flight path properly and made opposite inputs to the side stick at the same time.", is the conclusion of the proposing editor, and as such it is WP:OR. Dr. K. 20:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I cant really see that it is relevant to this accident. MilborneOne (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more. Thank you MilborneOne. Dr. K. 22:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. A strong secondary source would be needed. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That strong secondary source can be the LYCAA's final report on flight 771, and/or the sources in the "accident desciption" section of the article on flight 771. Tigerdude9 (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are we missing something, I cant see any mention of Air France in the LYCAA report. MilborneOne (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I don't think Tigerdude9 has read my comment above, stating that the LYCAA report makes no mention of AF447, and that his proposed addition is WP:OR. Also the Afriqiya 771 article makes no mention that 447 is comparable to flight 771. I think this editor is not getting the idea of what constitutes original research. Dr. K. 21:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn’t seem to link explicitly to that section. Would a link belong in the section Air_France_Flight_447#Other_incidents? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. I don't know what the practice is for other A330 accidents. Dr. K. 23:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, talking about this hypothetical unfound source ... The similarities go to the cockpit, the pilots and the controls, maybe visibility at the time of the event. These things are not particularly connected to the route. If cross A330 incident comparisons get coverage, I’m pretty sure that they belong at the A330 article, not the individual flight articles. I’m pretty sure there is no justification synthesising comparison here. I support the revert. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, a bit of unthreaded thought on my part. On cross linking I agree with you in being unsure. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal has been rejected. Hasn't it. Or I can just say flight 771 "crashed for reasons similar to flight 447 (despite flight 771's report not brining up flight 447)." Other than that, I'm about to give up. Also Dr., I saw your comment stating that I haven't read it about original research. Tigerdude9 (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as you say "crashed for reasons similar to flight 447 (despite flight 771's report not brining up flight 447).", that's already WP:OR. That "despite" means you are about to break WP:RS, and WP:OR. So, no. Not allowed. Dr. K. 23:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Them I assume I should say "crashed for reasons similar to flight 447 (although flight 771's report does not bring up flight 447)." I guess? Tigerdude9 (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. Anything along these lines is WP:OR. Won't work under any circumstances. Let's forget about it. Dr. K. 02:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we will. I do admit that this was an interesting and discussion though! Tigerdude9 (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Safe image

I found this on deviant art: https://www.deviantart.com/maggie-x-awesomeness/art/The-Pilots-of-AF-447-3-496480477 Should I use it? Tigerdude9 (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, and it has now been deleted as a copyright violation. MilborneOne (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way we can get permission to use the image? This is gold finding pictures of the flight crew OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why we would want a picture of the flight crew. MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change Summary?

I was wondering if we could change the summary to 'Entered Aerodynamic stall and impact ocean due to muutiple crew errors' it mentions that the crew were the cause as they made multiple errors as listed by the Final Report, and the plane did enter an aerodynamic stall leading it to crash into the ocean. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@OrbitalEnd48401:, please see RfC - What "Summary" should the Accident have? and A summary that describes the cause Tks.--PauloMSimoes (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, I have already read but, when I was going to edit this page there was a note beside the summary in the Edit Source. I wanted to ask if there was a dispute about what the summary should be. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@OrbitalEnd48401: Perhaps you would indicate where in the Final Report is the word "error" used in the sense you intend. I was unable to find it. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the report it does state failures made by the crew such as not ide identifying the stall. So I’d note crew error. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 11:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that? In Wikipedia as elsewhere sources must be cited to be useful. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The report states a variety of crew errors. Link Here ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#CITEREFBEA_final2012 I think multiple crew errors should be added to the summary as there was poor crew resourse management i.e. captain pulling up on the cntrl column whereas the FO pushed down on the colum OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F869615282
cs Czechda Danishnl Dutchen Englishfr Frenchde Germanit Italianlv Latvianno Norwegianpl Polishru Russiansl Sloveniansv Swedishuk Ukrainian
de German
✕
Bahnsport-Info

Kostenfrei
Ansehen