Talk:Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243

Accident vs Crash

The word 'accident' does not appear once in any of the WP:RS referenced in this article. We follow reliable sources and strongly prefer secondary sources. We follow RS over MOS (which calls for the use of the word accident based on primary, not secondary RS), and we should not be using the word accident if most RS are explicitly preferring the word crash. Policy demands that this article be changed to reflect what RS are calling this incident. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 09:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you launch an RfC about this major policy change (Which it will completely change all events related), instead of trying to repeat the same comments everytime when we have a similar page, and then resulted in a meaningless arguments with others? Just a goodwill advice: Wikipedia is not an Anarchy, trying to do anything by oneself's will won't help anything. Awdqmb (talk) 10:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly they cannot do that. It's always the same exact argument in every single accident article. Feels like they just want to troll around in every article by igniting the same flames with (possibly) different people. Regardless of what others say in each talk, nothing will change and a new article will simply have a new talk. If news articles mention a word "accident" it's automatically not a reliable source. There's just no discussion here to be had with such a mindset. 88.118.3.131 (talk) 11:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

But strangely, everytime I asked about the naming of the page, and they won't answer me, and ignore the truth that, we don't name the page just completely follow the news reports, which are simply IATA flight code. Like this time, we should use "J2-8243" to name the page, instead of "Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243". Awdqmb (talk) 11:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I do not need an RfC to discuss if we need to be following policy. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 13:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Then do you think WP:CON, WP:5P4 and WP:5P5 are policies of Wikipedia? Awdqmb (talk) 13:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

You're grasping at straws here and this is what has gotten you accused of WP:SEALIONING preivously. If you can't or won't understand what reliable sources are or why we follow them you do not have to engage. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 13:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I obviously understand that we should follow the RS for most contents. Then I have another question: Most news reports will only use IATA flight code to refer an aviation occurrence. So then, should we also change the page name to align? Just like you said, "RS over MOS". Infact I have asked a same question on Voepass case previously, and then Swiftair case, but no one give me a direct answer yet, or launch an RM for such change. Awdqmb (talk) 13:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, familiarize yourself with WP:RS. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 13:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aviationwikiflight Please kindly cite the reason for this diff. Please explain why you are not following reliable, secondary sources which nearly exclusively call this a crash. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 13:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Because, for the umpteenth time, reliable independent secondary sources use accident. I would note that it is quite hypocritical of you to accuse others of sealioning when for the past year, you've been doing exactly that. If you actually want something to change, try discussing it in a place like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation because discussing the topic on talk pages regarding individual aviation accidents will achieve nothing. If you want sources that use the term accident in their own words, here are some examples:

• From the BBC – Both Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan have launched investigations into the accident. Embraer told the BBC it was "ready to assist all relevant authorities".
• From Bluewin – The cause of the accident is believed to be a bird strike. – Immediately after the accident, there were also reports of 105 people on board. – As the plane crashed near Aktau airport on the Caspian Sea, numerous videos of the accident were circulated on social networks. – Bird strike as a possible cause of the accident.
• From EFE – A fire broke out at the scene of the accident and was put out by firefighters, sources from the Kazakh emergency services said. – According to the crisis cabinet operating at the scene of the accident, the crew sent a distress signal at 8:35 am reporting a failure in the control system. – Azerbaijan Airlines said that according to preliminary data the accident could have been caused by the collision of the aircraft with a flock of birds.
• From The Times of Central Asia – The accident occurred during an emergency landing attempt after the plane experienced difficulties mid-flight. – The accident has placed renewed attention on air safety protocols in the region, underscoring the critical need for stringent maintenance and monitoring.
• From FlightGlobal – It says the accident occurred about 3km from Aktau airport. – Kazakhstan’s government says a commission has been established to investigate the cause of the accident.
• From The Astana Times – The accident involved an Embraer 190 aircraft, flight number J2-8243, traveling from Baku to Grozny.

Just reminding you that accident, as stated by the ICAO, [is defined by Annex 13] as an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft: in which a person is fatally or seriously injured; in which an aircraft sustains damage or structural failure requiring repairs; after which the aircraft in question is classified as being missing. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, speaking of this: All the resources here you provided don't call the occurrence as "Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243", but just the IATA Code "J2-8243". So according to "RS over MOS" policy, we should move the page to change the title. Oh, it will also match the WP:COMMONNAME policy. Awdqmb (talk) 15:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Accident is an official FAA and EASA term for an aircraft incident that involves severe damage, injuries or fatalities. You can find that all here. Yes I understand media may not make use of this term perfectly, but surely it is acceptable to be a little more accurate and professional ourselves? https://www.faa.gov/faq/what-constitutes-post-accident-test-what-definition-accident#:~:text=The%20FAA%20and%20the%20National,any%20person%20suffers%20death%20or Liger404 (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Timing

I assumed, when reading the source, that it was local time. However, this is not possible as it took off at 08:00 Azerbaijan Time (which is 04:00 UTC). And the article says that it sent a distress at 08:35. However, if this is 08:35 Kazakh time, it would be 03:35 UTC (ie 25 minutes before take off). I suspect that the source (which is Russian) is working off Moscow time (which would make it 10 10:35 Kazakh time; 1 hour 35 after take off) but can anyone find a source that specifies time for the crash (with the relevant time zone). I've tried, but with no success so far. SSSB (talk) 09:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Got one SSSB (talk) 09:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Fatality count on infobox

There seems to be no report yet on actual number of casualites, only the number of survivors. In my view, no matter how unlikely any more survivors are at this point, the fatalities line on the infobox should remain empty until the headlines change from "dozens feared dead" to "dozens confirmed dead". Yo.dazo (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The death count and the survivor count always affect each other. If there are "reports" about the number of survivors, then the number of deaths should be the number remaining. I see no good reason why the fatalities line on the infobox should remain empty. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 09:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ivebeenhacked Well not empty, because Sky News has reported four bodies being recovered. My point, however, is that the number of survivors and confirmed dead are accounted for in the news reports we use as sources, leaving the rest as unaccounted for. The decision to count those unaccounted for as dead should be for our sources, not for us. Yo.dazo (talk) 10:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I am noting that there appear to be 13 confirmed dead at this rate based on recent edits. I propose those in limbo be listed as missing. Borgenland (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Update 38 dead, and given that it appears incompatible with the number of survivors I have inserted the maximum possible range per conflicting reports. Borgenland (talk) 15:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

According to Kazakh authorities, there are 39 deaths and 28 injuries. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 16:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

These are from Azerbaijani government sources: https://azertag.az/en/xeber/number_of_casualties_in_plane_crash_near_aktau_confirmed-3349823 https://en.apa.az/incident/number-of-azerbaijani-citizens-died-in-plane-crash-in-aktau-revealed-456563 Writer655 (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The BBC currently say:

Officials from the countries involved have stated different numbers for those who were on board and for those who survived.

Perhaps the article should reflect this, rather than stating definite figures? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Shootdown incident

[1] [2] Images from BBC, along with video on the ground, clearly show shrapnel damage to the horizontal and vertical stabilizers. This needs to be classified as a shootdown incident. Bugalaman (talk) 13:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Also some say that this is caused a by a bird strike 178.90.163.134 (talk) 13:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

A bird strike does not cause holes on the side of the vertical stabilizer. The holes might still very well be from gravel impacts from the crash (I'll await proper reports), but from birds they are not. 2001:16B8:E1BE:6100:7363:A8AA:87C7:F0C9 (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

If that is the case, as it now may seems like, it would be the third time russian air defense shoots down a civilian aircraft… 2A01:799:3A6:7D01:9037:FE4E:23C8:8316 (talk) 15:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

If we are playing detective, the aircraft was at 9000 meters. Such light damage from a high-attitude SAM is quite improbable. In any case, we will see. Smeagol 17 (talk) 17:50, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

We should probably at least add a "Speculations" section, as there is evidence to this claim and it is not entirely unfounded. As the plane does seem to have trouble staying in the air, and bird strikes don't usually bring down a plane and make it have as much trouble as shown. Not to mention Russia is in heavy conflict, so it isn't as far fetched IMO. Kyllstru (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

If it will be covered by RSs, then why not. Smeagol 17 (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

While we don't know the truth, this possibility is mentionned by media so I added it as a possibility. Sifalot (talk) 19:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Speculation mate. Sure does look that way, but we have to wait for a professional source. Right now it's in the theories section where it belongs. Liger404 (talk) 00:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Original research is not allowed. We can report on what reliable sources have stated are possibilities -- it is not our place to speculate whether it was a shutdown or not. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The article speculates that it was bird strike. Is that OK then?

The Times News Paper has run an accusatory headline “Holes in fuselage suggest Russians shot down Azerbaijan jet”(https://archive.ph/e6iK5) and has said that there was military action in the area that the time.

That should be added to balance the suggestion that it was a bird strike. 101.98.123.124 (talk) 01:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Impact NOT at "steep angle"

The article currently states "The plane crashed into the ground at a steep angle...".

Looking at the available videos, this is obviously wrong. The impact was on the contrary quite flat, almost horizontal. The descent angle was constantly decreasing over the last seconds of the flight, like it was pulling up. 2001:16B8:E1BE:6100:7363:A8AA:87C7:F0C9 (talk) 14:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The "steep angle" was introduced in https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijan_Airlines_Flight_8243&oldid=1265142476 , without sourcing it. 2001:16B8:E1BE:6100:7363:A8AA:87C7:F0C9 (talk) 14:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

"steep angle" removed in https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijan_Airlines_Flight_8243&oldid=1265190722 - thanks! 2001:16B8:E1BE:6100:7363:A8AA:87C7:F0C9 (talk) 18:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Fog?

can anyone confirm if weather was actually foggy in grozny at those times? The weather services I checked didn't report fog. 2001:2012:832:1900:2C1E:5B06:8C7A:CB21 (talk) 17:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/airports/grv/weather

According to flightradar24, the visibility didn't get under 2600 meters during the day of the incident.

There was no fog. 2001:2012:832:1900:2C1E:5B06:8C7A:CB21 (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

read the russian wiki article, there are some speculations about the fog. 159.253.108.88 (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Read This article (translate it). Aminabzz (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The official METAR is BR (Mist), it would not change to FG (fog) until visibility was below 1000m. However landing in mist is still quite a challenge and depending on the approach type, may not have been possible. Here is the Grozny metar at the time of the diversion. "URMG 250528Z 00000MPS 3500 BR OVC012 03/02 Q1025 R26/290250 NOSIG RMK QFE754/1005".

https://avherald.com/h?article=521fd4fb&opt=0 Liger404 (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Rm 'bird strike'

There is no evidence of this. ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Could maybe add that in the "Theories" section under "Investigation" Millarur (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

We do not speculate on theories here. We only report on notable theories that are being discussed by reliable sources, when we can do so in a way that satisfied balance and undue weight concerns. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Add pictures from inside the aircraft

I have pictures and videos supporting the claims under Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 217#Theories; however, I cannot upload them due to an error saying that the system is unsure whether or not the said pictures can be uploaded to Wikimedia. If anyone could, that would be appreciated.

I have one more important picture showing shrapnel bulge going inside the aircraft, which, in my opinion, is very important to the said theory. Millarur (talk) 19:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Tried to add two pictures: Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports#Millarur Millarur (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

If someone could, please add the following:

- File:4K-AZ65 crash featuring shrapnel on the fuselage.jpg: 4K-AZ65 crash featuring shrapnel on the fuselage

- File:Shrapnel bulge inside the 4K-AZ65.jpg: A moment from the video taken by one of the survivors, showing a shrapnel exit bulge inside the aircraft, marked with a red circle. Millarur (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done You have claimed without evidence that these images are released (in one case by an author you cannot name) into the public domain. They are copyright violations. Also, see WP:OR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Aqtau vs. Aktau

Both are written in the article. Although the city's article seems to be called "Aktau", the airport's article is "Aqtau International Airport." Millarur (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

That's because the airport's name is in fact called "Aqtau International Airport". Hacked (Talk|Contribs) Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 20:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Wow! We replied to this entry nearly at the same time! Aminabzz (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

That's amazing! Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 21:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The Cyrillic spelling is Ақтау. қ represents q sound (ق in Arabic and Persian). Aminabzz (talk) 20:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The Nationalities table is incorrect

Hi. I just observed there is an issue in the nationalities table. The passengers column has the numbers 32, 1, 7, 3, and 15 in it (which sum up to 58). But the total number is 62. Since 62 is correct as the reliable sources mentioned it, clearly 58 is incorrect. There is a 4 difference here. Also, in the total column there is this 4 difference again. Yet the survived column need to be split to passengers and crew. The column has 26 passengers in it, but in the total of it +3 crew is added without it being in the column. Aminabzz (talk) 21:09, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I've also noticed that problem. I've added a new slot called "Undetermined". It could be reverted but we'll see. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 23:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we can consider two of the survivors to be from the four undetermined people!

They are "undetermined" after all. How can we say with certainty that half of them survived?

Oh, BTW, is it confirmed that the only German passenger has survived?

Before your edition, the total number of survivors was "26 + 3 crew". (It wasn't confirmed that the German passenger has survived then, but may be it was comfirmed that some of crews are among the survivors). If the German passenger has really survived then 2 Azerbaijani crew members have survived (if crew survival is true) and there will be 12 Azerbaijani passengers and 2 crew members in the Azerbaijani survivors. But if the German passenger hasn't survived, then 3 Azerbaijani crew members have survived (again if crew survival is true) and there will be 11 Azerbaijani passengers and 3 crew members in the Azerbaijani survivors. Aminabzz (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Those 14 Azerbaijani survivors are a combination of 11 Azerbaijani passengers and 3 Azerbaijani crew members. That leaves 2 undetermined survivors. It wouldn't make a difference if the lone German passenger survived but if he died, then something else has to change to match the 29 survivors. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 00:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

If the lone German passenger died, I think it would be better to change to 3 unknown passengers that survived since other nationality passengers already have citations (Idk if the number of each nationality of passengers is confirmed). Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 00:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

How can someone be unknown and survived? If someone is survived they have their names revealed. Only if a person is died and disfigured due to burning they can be considered unknown. Even if a person is disfigured but alive they can say their names and they won't be considered unknown. Aminabzz (talk) 01:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Since this event is still pretty recent, it'll take time for information to surface. If we take the chart and add all the surviving occupants excluding the undetermined digits, it'll add up to 27. Twenty-nine people survived the accident and two passenger's nationality is yet to be determined. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 01:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course, I think it's a bad practice to underline words while they aren't links. Bolding or italicizing is better in this case. Aminabzz (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I just checked the Russian article. The table in there doesn't have a German passenger at all. But 37 Azerbaijani, 16 Russian, 6 Kazakh, and 3 Kyrgyz passengers (it correctly sums up to 62 total passengers). They also have a reference for it (look at the 7th reference there) which looks the same with the 28th and 31st references from this article in the aspect of names list. The only misadvantage of all these sources is that they haven't labeled the names with nationality. We should find a source labeling them with their nationalities. Aminabzz (talk) 02:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Seems like you're right. Also says it in this source. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 02:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

While now the sum number of passengers is 62, the number of Kazakh and Russians are still 7 and 15 respectively, but that source says 6 Kazakhs and 16 Russians.

Also, now the number of survivors again is wrong! 14 Azerbaijanis, 3 Kyrgyzes, and 9 Russians sum to 26. So, we need 3 more. Aminabzz (talk) 02:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I have found this source. It says from 37 Azerbaijani passengers 23 have died. So the 14 Azerbaijani survivors all are passengers. Also, it says from the 16 Russians 7 have died; so the number 9 is correct for the Russian survivors. And there are also 3 Kyrgyz survivors. All 6 Kazakhs died. So the remaining 3 survivors all are Azerbaijani crew members. Aminabzz (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

So its 17 Azerbaijani survivors? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. It's true. 14 passengers and 3 crew members. Aminabzz (talk) 03:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I've changed the number from 14 to 17. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Adding more details about aircraft history and operators

Im trying to include a section about the aircraft history and how it was under Buta Airways and was stored for some time until 2 months before the crash. however every time I do it it gets removed because my sources (airfleets) which are cited are apparently 'unreliable'. so can someone find a credible source to back up this information because it might have importance regarding the crash

Here is what I was trying to add, under the Aircraft section:

It was delivered to the airline on 24 July 2013. The aircraft then became part of Buta Airways' fleet, which was a low-cost virtual airline subsidiary of the former, being delivered on 1 November 2017. The aircraft was delivered back to Azerbaijan Airlines on 9 October 2023, and was stored at Baku International Airport from January 2024 until its return to service in October 2024, just 2 months prior to its crash. ItzChickenYall (talk) 22:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, Airfleets.net is deemed 'unreliable' because its reliability was discussed a few times at WP:RSN. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 22:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I have found a source. See this. Haven't found any reports at WP:RSN or at WP:BADAIRSOURCE. Still not sure if its reliable or not. Any thoughts on this source? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 22:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hmm ok i will check it out ItzChickenYall (talk) 22:42, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the source in my opinion. In addition to Airways Magazine, these two sources (which are in portuguese and kazakh respectively) could be useful: [3] [4]. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 22:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

You can consider using the [5], which this is more reliable in most cases. Awdqmb (talk) 07:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I did that but both people said planespotters and airfleets are not 'reliable' ItzChickenYall (talk) 07:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Weather definitions.

This comes up a bit on wiki and so I might need some rules help here. Basically news reporters have said fog, but I am a pilot and the weather conditions were actually mist. We also don't divert specifically because of fog, but because the "visibility" is below the minimum allowed for the approach type being used. So I changed the language to "poor weather" as that's a bit of a catch all. I can provide the FAA and EASA weather definitions and the official METARs at the 3 airports and the time of the approaches if that helps. Not really original work if I do that is it? The Metars are all here in this article. https://avherald.com/h?article=521fd4fb&opt=0 Liger404 (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Flight Data Recorder

Are there any reports of the flight data recorder/blackbox yet? Aperture LENS (talk) 00:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

See this. Gonna add in the article in a minute. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 00:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

So the information should be available in the next couple of days. Thank you! Aperture LENS (talk) 01:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. New information will surface within a few days. You're welcome. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 01:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Do not expect any precise and real data from Russia or its satellite neighbors (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan). Tgvarrt (talk) 01:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Strip misinformation about FL300 over the Caspian Sea

This article cites a russian source claiming this aircraft was at FL300 over the Caspian sea. This is wrong. An ATC transcript has been leaked: In retrospect, it appears that the shrapnel must have hit the tail and passenger cabin in the Grozny area about 8:16 local time (UTC+3) at a moment when the aircraft wasn‘t higher than their cabin altitude. When re-routed, the crew first announced over radio what they believed to be a „bird strike“. They were supposed to climb to FL150 but where unable to do so since the cabin altitude rose to unsave levels, indicating depressurization. The oxygen masks dropped. They tried to stay below FL100 as they could no longer pressurize the perforated cabin anymore. It is impossible to fly at FL300 with a perforated pressure vessel containing passengers and crew. With their hydraulic systems compromised by shrapnel, they also could not stabilize their height nor their heading, which fluctuated both. The barometric altitude transponder data obtained from flight tracking sites also show that they have not crosses the sea at FL300. By the way, this barometric data is not compromised by GPS spoofing or jamming. Zardo (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any sources backing all of this up? If not, then I'm afraid this is WP:OR. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 02:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Flightradar and other tracker data is available. Zardo (talk) 02:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source explaining the logic in this? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 02:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

[6]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GfoXOzZXYAAbPO3?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

As far as I know, Flightradar took the original track offline, apparently in order to clean up the spoofed parts. But by making the spoofed parts unavailable, the barometric altitude was also erased since it was part of the time stamps. However the link above shows the altitude information, but there are some time stamps missing. Also, the part over the Caspian Sea is again visible on Flightradar. Zardo (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Hasn't flightradar24 labeled the flight as landed? Aminabzz (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

No, it says "Status: Unknown". See this. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 02:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Issues in mentions of children

In the article we have this sentence: "The 29 survivors, including 2 children, were hospitalised following the accident."

But we also have this sentence: "Among the survivors are four children... ."

Also, the rest of the previous sentence (after four children) suggests a 19-years-old person is a child, which is false. Aminabzz (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

While the sentence "Among the survivors are four children..." is now removed we still have contradictory information here:

A sentence says "Four minors were on board", and another one says "The 29 survivors, including two children,...". Aminabzz (talk) 07:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

What's the Captain's last name?

The Captain's last name is stated to be Kshnyakin, which is of course a Russian last name and not an Azerbaijani one. But even if that's true shouldn't it be Keshnyakin? I mean a vowel is needed when two consonants want to attach to each other. Aminabzz (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The (Turkish) source cited has "İgor Kşnyakin":

https://oxu.az/tr/gundem/kazaya-ugrayan-ucak-son-kontrolden-ne-zaman-gecti-resmi-aciklama

Typing that in Google gives Azerbaijani results for "İqor Kşnyakin":

https://azpresstimes.info/news9453

https://azertag.az/xeber/baki_qrozni_reysini_yerine_yetiren_teyyarenin_ekipaj_uzvlerinin_siyahisi_achiqlanib-3348831

Additionally, the initial source is also available in Azerbaijani, again with "İqor":

https://oxu.az/cemiyyet/teyyare-son-yoxlamadan-ne-vaxt-kecmisdi-resmi-aciqlama Wiljahelmaz (talk) 07:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

So strange that an Azerbaijani person has a Russian first and last name. Aminabzz (talk) 07:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

30th reference

I couldn't open the 30th reference. But the link text says it is about a crash in Nepal in 2023. It seems to have nothing to do with this crash. Aminabzz (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I've removed that citation. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Aminabzz (talk) 03:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Protecting article

Article has had significant news coverage as well as many theories emerge. Ordsju (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

That's not a reason to protect the page, and in any event you'd make such a request at WP:RFPP. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Improper use of the word “explode”

In the article is the phrase “It then tumbled, exploded, and broke into two major pieces.”  That is an improper use of the word “exploded.”

As a fairly general rule, aircraft don’t explode during or after a crash, unless something that is explosive in nature is loaded on the plane.  There is nothing in the construction of a plane that would explode on impact, and jet fuel, which is essentially highly-refined kerosene, is not capable of detonation unless properly mixed in a closed container with a strong oxidizing agent.  At worst, there will be a deflagration of remaining fuel at impact, usually leading to a fireball that gives the appearance of an explosion, but without the violent, supersonic shock wave of an actual detonation.

216.152.18.132 (talk) 03:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done "Explode" is a perfectly acceptable common description for what happened, and it's simply not true that jet fuel cannot explode -- a jet fuel explosion was responsible for the TWA 800 disaster, for instance. See CalTech research on this matter, which explicitly states "An explosion is a vague term used to describe an event associated with rapid energy release (see the glossary)" and notes that a deflagration is a type of explosion. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Here's another article by the NFPA outlining that explosions define both deflagration and detonations. I agree that jet fuel exploding is deflagration not detonation, but they're both explosions. Aperture LENS (talk) 05:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Co-pilot

Why has the information about the co-pilot been removed from the article? Was it factually wrong? Aminabzz (talk) 07:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)