Talk:Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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-alttitude 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)

Wrong. The plane was at about 10,000ft which is 2-3km — well within range of Pantsir S systems. Millarur (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, that was not mentioned at the time. Or officially even now, afaik? Only that it was flying at 9000m when it disappeared from radar.Smeagol 17 (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the survivor testimony of the flight attendants. At least the male flight attendant, 100%. Millarur (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Although not exact numbers but the mentioned was enough Millarur (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

What exactly was the male flight attendant reported as saying? And by whom? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

His name is Zulfuqar Asadov. And this is what he said (translated by me): “When we were descending, we saw that it was foggy, very foggy. But we flew here [in Grozny] already, so we needed to land. The captain started descending to land the plane and saw that there is no ground [to be seen (due to the fog)], so we went up again. He did a second go-around, to hopefully land the plane if there was a little less fog, but that didn’t work again either — there was fog. So, he had to do a third go-around, […], again, not to return all the way back to Baku. So, he saw that the third one didn’t do it either, which is why we started ascending to continue searching for a closer airport that he considered. And meanwhile, a sound of a strike came outside the plane.”

So yeah, no way that they were at like FL300, since they just attempted a go-around and got hit. Millarur (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, its been confirmed that it was shot down by the Russians 178.90.163.134 (talk) 14:23, 26 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)

Birstrike lol. It's looking 99.9% that it was a shoot-down by Russian Pantsir-S1 air defence system. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Remove shootdown of the plane as the official reason to the failure

This discussion is going nowhere. Wikipedia is not a forum.

The following discussion has been closed by Aviationwikiflight. Please do not modify it.

There are videos of the crash online. You can clearly see that it did not get shot down. A shootdown would have caused it to explode in mid air but instead just descended towards the ground. The official reason is likely birds got into both engines of the plane and caused it to crash. Not to mention, the government has not put out a formal statement condemning Russia and accusing them of causing the crash. This will mislead the general public. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

That's not how "shootdowns" necessarily work, and that's absolutely not how bird strikes work. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

But you can see the plane clearly in the video and I did not see any missile bullet or anything touch the plane. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not as if the missile hit the plane some time earlier and it limped across the Caspian Sea to crash oh wait. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

This isnt how anti-aircraft missiles/armanments work. SAM missiles explode before they impact the target, particularly S-300 long range missiles.

Based off the video it obviously was shot down by a 2S6 Tunguska Integrated Air defense System or a ZSU-23. These are anti aircraft systems that do not use missiles. SAM missles can be manuaall controlled, and usually are detonated less than ten meters above or near the target.

It was shot down and personally an insult to the victims to claim it is still under investigation. By who? Russia? Wikipeda doesn’t use one international source against numerous others. 70.105.35.39 (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4YmtAKeGSg Look at this, do you see anything that looks like a shootdown? SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Because the newest theory is, the aircraft was shot in Russian airspace, and the pilots struggled to fly over the Caspian Sea. And such theory has been reported by some news media. It's not someone's original research, also the birdstrike theory. Awdqmb (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

ah, but see its a theory and you are making it sound like: YEP RUSSIA SHOT DOWN ANOTHER PLANE SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 00:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I just say one word on such scenario: If you take a pre-set position to think, then you can say everything is not netural. Like I can also say the birdstrike theory, is trying to pretend no military power invloved, when it's obviously an conflict area. Awdqmb (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Should I point out: The birdstrike is also just a hypothese? And shoot on aircraft won't caused an airplane directly explode and disintegrated in mid-air, if they don't damage the exact right place? Or otherwise, during the air battle, all aircraft being hit will immedinately broken up? Awdqmb (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

How do shootdowns work? Cause from what I know, your sending a massive missile towards the plane. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Who said it should be a "massive missile"? Even nobody determined if it's an SAM or AAM. If it's an AAM, then it's very possible that the aircraft will only partially damaged, like the Korean Air Flight 007 case. Awdqmb (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Most anti aircraft missiles work by sending shrapnel into the aircraft, like a shotgun. Shrapnel holes have been seen in the tail surfaces, passengers and the cabin, therefore proving a shootdown. Plane'n Boom1 (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

So will russia be invaded by Azerbaijan now? SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: change 'occurrence' in infobox to 'crash,' 'shootdown' or other

Right now, we are using an infobox to call this an "occurence."

While it is factually correct, this terminology is a betrayal of common sense and therefore to readers of wikipedia.

I propose we change this to 'crash' to be consistent with what is otherwise used in the article and what is a factual representation of what happened. Please share your opinions. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that's the problem on template Infobox aircraft occurrence. I think it may better to move the discussion to the talk page of the template, so that we can have a overall consensus, instead of separated topics on different page. Awdqmb (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Please cast your vote using the following:

'''Support''' - [Your reason here].
'''Oppose''' - [Your reason here].
'''Comment''' - [Your comment here].

Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a limitation of the infobox. Discussion should take place on Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

There's no wikipedia policy beholding us to the parameters of that infbox, and I am trying to avoid introducing a change that will require hundreds of edits to other entries Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

But we have to do this. That infobox has been used on over 2,500 pages. And most of them using "accident" on "occurrence_type" values, as far as I know. We can't simply change one page, but left all other remaining, right? And we shouldn't say, it's too bold to do, so we rather not, right? Awdqmb (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

If you feel that way, you can do it. Though since almost a third of your contributions are on talk pages as opposed to mainspace edits, you might want to gain some editing experience first. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Because my most contributions are on zhwiki, it's just not on enwiki though. But just like they critisized me last time on Voepass case, less contribution don't mean they had no rights on bold things. Awdqmb (talk) 01:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

MOS:NUMNOTES

@RickyCourtney: Per your edit here, you said "It says values near one another should be all spelled out or all in figures. MOS:NUMERAL says generally, in article text integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words. It also says integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words." I agree with everything you said, however, MOS:NUMNOTES are "Notes and exceptions" so it doesn't really matter if MOS:NUMERAL says "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words" or if "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words." So, with the options we have, it is either "with sixty-two passengers and five crew on board" or "with 62 passengers and 5 crew on board" since MOS:NUMNOTES says "Comparable values near one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently". It would probably be better to write with 62 passengers and 5 crew on board for less complication. We can't bring the "two styles into compliance" since MOS:NUMNOTES are exceptions of MOS:NUMERAL. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

It would probably be better to write ‘with 62 passengers and 5 crew on board’ for less complication That is an entirely subjective opinion, and one I happen to disagree with. So many style guides, including those beyond Wikipedia’s, are steadfast on the rule that with few exceptions integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words. Period. Wikipedia is the one adding confusion with these bizarre NUMNOTES rules. For example, AP style would be: with 62 passengers and five crew on board. That’s what seems most proper and least complicated to me. RickyCourtney (talk) 03:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

References in lead section

I saw one editor removing references from the lead section, but per WP:Lead:

"Although the presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article, there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none."

With this in mind, this talk page seems as good a place as any to determine consensus for the number of references. I'm in favour of citing things attributed to common "mystery groups" along the lines of "experts said" or "witnesses said", as well as citing things attributed to specific sources like the NYT, but others may disagree. TROPtastic (talk) 09:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

False information in the article

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Can you please delete the information from the article about exactly "squawking 7700" 3 times in the article:

At the Top of the page telling "The plane reportedly squawked 7700 on its transponder signalling an emergency on board while flying over the Caspian Sea."
At "Crash" section telling "The crew issued a distress signal by squawking 7700..."
At "Timeline" section telling "09:35 Pilots squawk 7700"

as that clearly violates the WP:OR as source indicated does not contain such an information and no any other source confirms that.

Same with phrase about "09:49 Pilots requests emergency landing" that is noted at:

"Crash" section telling "At 09:49 AZT, the pilots requested an emergency landing at Aktau International Airport in Aktau, Kazakhstan, and attempted to manage the approach in direct mode"
"Timeline" section telling "09:49 Pilots requests emergency landing"

both linking to only source that does not contain nor the 09:49 AZT nor any information about "direct mode" use by pilots nor any "emergency landing request" from them, that way no way confirming statements in the article, therefore violating at least WP:OR and WP:V.

Also that just have no any logic that plane's transponder "worked" for sending the emergency signals not sending the (even GPS-spoofed) current plane's location ones before it appeared on Kazakhstan's radars at 06:07 UTC.

Please fix the misinformation in the article as that's affects' the whole "wiki-successors" set, who's just translating it with no checking is it true. 83.142.111.126 (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Not done -- the existing references (notably the Airways Mag, but several others) repeatedly state that the aircraft reportedly squawked 7700. Additionally whether the transponder squawked 7700 is completely unrelated to GPS-spoofing, as it is not reliant on GPS. If you want to change the ref for that claim from the Interfax one (which references the transponder as an emergency signal but does not explicitly state it squawked 7700) with one of the currently existing sources that does make that claim, make a properly formed edit request to that effect, but saying that "no any other source confirms that" is flat out untrue. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
The article at the magazine you suggested is not deny my request but clearly fullfill it as tells the next: "The Embraer jet reappeared at 10:08 am Baku time, two hours after it was due in Akhmat Kadyrov Grozny International Airport (GRV), squawking 7700" that way cofirming it was not possible for the transporder to send anythng until it appeared over the Caspian sea at 10:08 (in fact - 10:07 AZ time or 06:07 UTC) that can be clearly seen at flightradar link provided initially above. So still please DELETE misinformation from the article meant above that PRECEDES the time when it's transponder really started to succesfully send any plane's data - if not about squawking or any other activity itself but about doing it BEFORE it was identified at 06:07 UTC (as 09:35 and 09:49 [Azerbaijan time, that is UTC+0400, or 05:35 and 05:49 UTC] interfax source time meant at the ONLY russian state-dependant source - therefore no way qualitative for the current article as the Russia, as a state, is one of the alleged crash suspects - source [interfax] and nowhere else - even at Airsway Mag you pointed on). So please - delete any informaton in the article meant to have place between 04:40 UTC (when it dissappeared from anywhere for a long time) and 06:07 UTC (when it finally reappeared, as marked on flightradar), that is confirmed by only dependant source83.142.111.126 (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
IP 83, the Timeline says "09:35: Pilots squawk 7700. The source that supports it says: "The crew sent a distress signal at 8:35 and reported a control system failure." So the problem is that the time of "8.35" is given with no time zone? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Problem is:
that's only source that state that information.

That only source is dependant from one of the crash suspects.

Additionally - HOw crew could send distress signal without appearing online and therefore being visible for tracking, that started to be able at 06:07 UTC only (that is half hour later of the time allegebly send a distress signal via transponder source you provided mean)?

Isn't that clear from information provided above?

Also that would have much more logic if plane would start to send distress signal exactly when it was triple hit near Grozny and not hour later but half an hour before (and not at the same time as) starting to be tracked at the sea near Kazakhstan.83.142.111.126 (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Maybe we need to wait for analysis of the FDR and CVR? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Sure, but till then (in fact anyway) we HAVE NOT to misinform readers with unapproved information according to WP:V.

Following your thesis we have not to write an article in full until analysis will be finished, however I doubt that's a right way, so please not offtop, but comment exactly the request. Thanks. 83.142.111.126 (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Other editors may have a view on this. Or may be able to find alternative source(s)? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Even ones where such statement have place (i.e. that one) still base their article in full on that exact ONLY dependant source that have place at the article and provided by you above.

Taking in view nor you nor me nor anyone can't find the alternative source of that information that looks like a fake. WP:V tells we have to have more then one source to be able to verify the information provided at the source. Otherwise only way is to delete that information from the article to follow wikipedia policy.

So, there's no any POV have force if it's violate WP:V.

DId I answer your question? Can you please stop continue offtop? 83.142.111.126 (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, not sure what you mean by "can you please stop continue offtop". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I mean that's not a discussion about is it worth to do it but mostly the request to clearly delete the fake information fom the article that is noted by template. However I still thank you for your doubt and possibility to clarify it. 83.142.111.126 (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Regardless, as the template at the top of this section states, you need to format your edit request in the style of "Change X to Y". ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

So what? Don't you see the X and Y above?

WHat you mean is connected to only not to use "[unreasonably] delete something" instead of "change that thing to that thing", that is clearly stated above. If something is not clear there, please tell me what exactly. Thank you in advance. I don't see any request issue in what you are posting. At the current case when I tell "delete" I mean it exactly because of it have no WP:SOURCES confirmation and therefore have to be deleted according to WP:V, but if you mean it literally, you can read it as "change [all I wrote to delete] to empty[ness] field/sign/?" to clearly follow the template rules. 83.142.111.126 (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

It's quite literally mentioned in the big orange box at the top of every edit request that you must phrase the request in the format of "Change X to Y." Please do not attempt to tell me what I mean, and instead listen to the instructions that you're being given. Take the text that exists now. That's "X". Take the text you want to see instead. That's Y." Say "I want to change X to Y" and provide those examples of text. This is not difficult, you just need to follow the directions you're being given. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, if to find the compromise and leave the 7700 intact, what I mean to delete for sure is:

@"Crash" section the Phrase "The crew issued a distress signal by squawking 7700 at 09:35 AZT, reporting a failure of the control system. At 09:49 AZT, the pilots requested an emergency landing at Aktau International Airport in Aktau, Kazakhstan, and attempted to manage the approach in direct mode" have to be changed to "7700 distress signal reporting a failure of the control system was issued over the Caspian Sea."
@"Timeline" section lines "09:35 Pilots squawk 7700" and "09:49 Pilots requests emergency landing" have to be change to.. No line (deleted) as time indicated can't be confirmed and therefore be noted at timeline.

83.142.111.126 (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. That is a correct format for an edit request. We'll give it some time for editors to chime in whether there is consensus for this change. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with the revised two edit requests. We can't include information that only appears in one source with no other source reporting on it (the times of the distress calls being sent). Edit: Also, after initially submitting this reply, another user commented a source in the talk page that contradicts the times listed, adding further weight to making the requested edits. TROPtastic (talk) 09:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Zelenskyy's delayed condolences

The relations between Azerbaijan and Ukraine are very good, and Azerbaijan has always expressed its support for Ukraine. Therefore, the fact that the Ukrainian president did not offer condolences after the crash has been heavily criticized on social media for several days, and critical articles have been published in the Azerbaijani press about this. A few hours after these critical articles were published, today (two days after the crash), the Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs offered condolences to the country. I thought this was important information in the context of reactions to the crash, so I added it to the article, but one of the users removed this information from the article. What is your opinion on this matter? I should mention that the Ukrainian president also expressed condolences to the country hours after I added that fact to the article. Sura Shukurlu (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

With the exception of Armenia, most countries are presumed to be in good faith relations with Baku, and a delay of two days is plain WP:NOTNEWS not to mention the Pandora's box this would bring of having to WP:INDISCRIMINATEly laundry-list all 200+ recognized and unrecognized countries on Earth. Borgenland (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I can see the arguments on both sides here, tbh, though I lean more towards not including it unless the delay receives significant international media coverage. Still, there's probably room for a compromise version that includes a {{efn}} or similar footnote template that briefly covers this. If so, I'd try to condense it down from three sentences to two or ideally one. Something more along the lines of (ref's omitted for clarity, but would be included in the actual version) "Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy did not offer public condolences to Azerbaijan until two days after the plane crash, which was met with criticism by local media in Azerbaijan due to the delay." and add that as a footnote after the words "as well as leaders from countries outside the flight's path". This maintains the brevity of the article, while addressing the media coverage at an appropriate weight.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL but if a shootdown is confirmed, a further comment from Kyiv may be notable. Borgenland (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to note, there is a statement in the article by Ukraine on the shotdown allegations which is way more notable than the routine condolences. Borgenland (talk) 11:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

Alignment of chronology

The recovery of the aircraft signal on monitoring radars took place at 06:07 (UTC) over the Caspian Sea, 65 km from the coast of Kazakhstan. And at 06:02 (UTC), the plane entered Kazakhstan's airspace, which begins at the maritime border line of the states, that is, 22.224 km (12 nautical miles) away. How is this possible? Was the plane moving in the opposite direction from Kazakhstan? The airspace outside the territorial waters (that is, outside the 22.224 kilometer zone from the coast) is international and is not under the control of the individual country of Kazakhstan, that is, it is not "Kazakhstan's airspace". Fix the error 91.210.248.193 (talk) 12:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Where were the "monitoring radars" positioned exactly? Are you saying there is no evidence that the aircraft had entered Kazakhstan's airspace 5 minutes earlier? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2024

This edit request to Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

116.102.4.195 (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC) The full name of the captain is Igor Ivanovich Kshnyakin, the full name of the first officer is Alexander Georgiyevich Kalyaninov, the full name of the fatal flight attendant is Hokuma Calil qizi Aliyeva Source: https://caliber.az/post/evronyus-o-geroizme-azerbajdzhanskih-pilotov

Not done The content of the article matches the text in the first paragraph of that source. Middle names are not a requirement for Wikipedia articles. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Chronology

Hello, you should make a chronology or timeline in a different article, since knowing the truth and real information about what happened on December 25, 2024, will not come from Russia, and its vassal Kasakhstan, if possible, Azerbaijan could Taking a daring leap in search of the truth and the real reason for the downing of this Azerbaijan Airlines plane is my suggestion. The world wants to know the truth of this tragedy. Tgvarrt (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not usually a good idea to make two separate articles about the same event. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

write an article online and wikipedia will likely use it as WP:SOURCE to add your POV to the subject. Sure if it won't be too marginal. No need to create it separately here. 83.142.111.126 (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Reports on cover up attempts

There are reports in Azerbaijani media that Russia tried to cover up the incident by contacting Azerbaijan over diplomatic channels. Azerbaijan refused, and as Russia was reluctant to take responsibility for the downing of the plane, Azerbaijan officials shared with mass media the information about the plane being shot down by air defense systems. [3] This could probably be used in the article, with attribution, I think. Grandmaster 18:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

That's interesting (and I even believe that) theory, however all the article is based on the opinion (probably based on some other sources he still not reveal) of only person and therefore, until there will be more WP:SOURCES confirming that theory, that stll looks like for me as WP:NOTRS. 83.142.111.126 (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Squawk 7700 time is incorrect

Wiki article "The crew issued a distress signal by squawking 7700 at 09:35 AZT, reporting a failure of the control system"

According to the "Granular data CSV" on https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/azerbaijan-airlines-e190-crashes-near-aktau/ the squawk 7700 starts at 2024-12-25 05:25:12Z (09:25 AZT). This is also confirmed on X https://x.com/flightradar24/status/1872701528949309923 176.10.146.242 (talk) 09:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Link to the aticle you provided is interesting, but there's no word about 05:35 UTC time in the article itself and "Granular data CSV" meant there is just a some raw data we can not use as WP:SOURCE. Second link you provided contains some unknown timestamp only - so means nothing.

Also, there's already a request have place for deletion of that exact phrase @#False information in the article.

In addition, according to that source: "ADS-B is "automatic" in that it requires no pilot or external input to trigger its transmissions" therefore it no any of it's part could be "crew issued" by default, so statement you noted to change is false initially and most likely worth deleting and not changing. 83.142.111.126 (talk) 13:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes ADS-B is certainly automatic. Not sure it can even be disabled in an Embraer 190AR. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Basic avionics lesson:

ADS_B is a relatively recent invention, providing a live feed of the sort of data previously only available after a major incident and following interrogating of black-boxes. ADS-B is a record of what happens in the cockpit, and to the aircraft, in normal everyday operation.

It is the crew who enable and configure squawk transmissions, via a transponder, via a different radio channel. This has existed since WWII, although it has been refined somewhat.

The crew select 1234, or 7700, or whatever they are instructed to do by ATC.
The transponder broadcasts the transmission directly.
ADS-B simply records these actions, and broadcasts this record on a parrallel radio channel.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I am 99.8% certain you can choose to turn ADS-B off, in any aircraft. It is just a piece of avionics, with an on/off switch and a circuit-breaker.

Of course, if you are a commercial flight, in many countries you would violating some legal requirement or other; I cba to dig out the actual details.

But if you are a military flight, you might well desire slipping under-the-radar! In fact, it happens all the time. And Embraer make aircraft for military customers too. Having said that, military traffic that is sharing the same airspace as civilian traffic would be encouraged to keep their ADS-B on, or be prepared for flak when things go wrong. It may be that some countries <cough> care less than others about this aspect.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

"ADS-B is a record of what happens in the cockpit"? Not sure about that. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Is this pedantry, or do you have a real point? ADS-B does not record what the pilot had for breakfast, or when he takes a toilet break. It is not a CVR, and does not record conversations. It records specific parameters, too long to list. Must I continue, or does that satisfy you?

WendlingCrusader (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Pal, ease yourself, WP:be kind and polite. Expressing the doubt is not a crime. At least here - where's not some dictatorial terrain. Just confirm your statements with WP:SOURCES. 83.142.111.126 (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you confirm your "lesson" with any WP:SOURCE instead of sharing your own WP:OR with us? That will be really useful. 83.142.111.126 (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

There are already links to ADS-B above, and transponder is pretty easy to find. What more do you need explaining?

WP:TALK aka WP:This-is-a-talk-page, not-an-article.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Yep, and that link provided contradicts to what you are telling. That's why I asking you to confirm your words with WP:SOURCE for us to research what source is right and what is wrong (if any) or just find the WP:CONSENSUS about it. 83.142.111.126 (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

ADS-B contains a lot of data. Position, Altitude and Speed is automatic. Other data like the callsign and squawk is coming from pilot input. The squawk input panel is even visible on Wikipedia https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Transponder_(aeronautics) 176.10.146.242 (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

What you see there:

is common view of transponder itself and that exact thing showed doesn't have anything about ADS-B in description and is just some sort of equipment for Cessna and not for Embraer. So please provide some sort of WP:SOURCE to confirm your statements because what you tell clearly contradicts what showed at source that was provided above, where told position etc. is clearly DEPENDANT things for ADS-B, and not automatic as you state. 83.142.111.126 (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I doubt "the callsign ...is coming from pilot input" - do you understand what kind of security breach is it if that is true? 83.142.111.126 (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

No, I do not understand this alleged security breach. Please provide WP:SOURCE for your statement.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure, right after you will provide WP:SOURCE confirming your assumptions leaded above. 83.142.111.126 (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

can you describe the security breach. I used to have a PPL (private pilot license) and have flown on commercial aircraft in cockpit several times. The squawk is 100% controlled by pilot input. 176.10.146.242 (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

i.e. if it works as it described (but unconfirmed) above - the pilot may call his plane with the another callsign while broadcasting, that obviously a breach. However I see that exact discussion as offtop. topic is about changing the article text and not about pilots' experience exchange. 83.142.111.126 (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

https://www.pilotmall.com/blogs/news/a-nuts-and-bolts-guide-to-transponder-codes-bonus-squawk-code-pdf

"What are Squawk Codes?

A transponder code, or squawk code, is a four-digit numerical sequence a pilot enters into their radio transponder." 176.10.146.242 (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

What is it here about if pov meant above telling "pilot can change his callsign broadcasting on it's own" and fact (if it's true) it's a security breach? 83.142.111.126 (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:International and domestic reactions to Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Blogger detained for 10 days?

How could the blogger be detained for 10 days in an incident that happened 3 days ago? 2600:6C44:27F0:9200:CD2B:F1BD:B722:405E (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

In the same way that an editor could be banned for ten days for wasting everybody's time, even if they have only been editing on Wikipedia for one day. WendlingCrusader (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

They have been given a detention order for 10 days duration. Not a criminal sentence, I suppose, as there's been no trial. I'm not very familiar with the Kazakhstani legal system. I also thought that read a little oddly. Perhaps someone could suggest a reword. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

What is the the essence of the question? Please clarify. 83.142.111.126 (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I assume that the IP was asking "how could someone have been detained for 10 days, only 3 days ago?" Hopefully IP 2600 can clarify if they meant something else. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Taking in view his only edit I think he already forgot what he wrote here.

However, "and detained" is excessive at the "A blogger, Azamat Sarsenbayev, was arrested and detained for 10 days after taking photos and video of the crash site" phrase. Even Al-Jazeera tells the next:

"Kazakh authorities arrested blogger Azamat Sarsenbayev for 10 days after he took photos and videos at the crash site" so it would have much less doubt if it'd be like this:

"Civilian Azamat Sarsenbayev was arrested for 10 days for just taking photos and video of the crash site"

Have we create a semi-edit request for this or someone just will WP:Be bold enough? 83.142.111.126 (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

It isn't an [10 days ago; now] interval. It is [3days ago; 7 days]. Basically, 3 days ago, they have been detained for a time period of 10 days and will be released in 7 days (now that the incident is 3 days ago). Millarur (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct, as I understand it. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Just change two silimar words "arrested and detained" to only one "arrested" and misunderstanding problem initially noted will be solved. WP:Be bold. 83.142.111.126 (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

No, to have "arrested for 10 days" would not be appropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed revision of lede

I would like to propose revision of the lede as follows:

Delete: “On 25 December 2024, the Embraer 190AR that Azerbaijan Airlines was using to operate the flight crashed near Aktau International Airport, Kazakhstan, …”

Insert “On 25 December 2024, the Embraer 190AR that Azerbaijan Airlines was using to operate the flight was severely damaged by at least one anti-aircraft missile during the aircraft's approach to Grozny, eventually crashing near Aktau International Airport, Kazakhstan …”

(All retaining wiki-links et cetera)

This is not speculation, because are reliable sources for everything in this statement and there are no credible alternative explanations of what has happened.

Let me short circuit the BRD process and ask here first for the opinions of other editors.

Springnuts (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

No objections. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

'near Aktau airport' is a vague term; suggest ...crashed whilst attempting to land at...
Was it an anti-aircraft missile? Or an RPG? Or something like the 2k22 Tunguska, packing twin 30mm cannon? You need specific evidence that it was a missile.

Plus you will need to specify those reliable sources.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

It was likely to have been a Pantsir-S1. That's why we have a picture of it in the article. Not sure Mr Putin will confirm that for us. So we may be waiting a while for firm "evidence"? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I added the photo but not because I believe the aircraft was shot down by a Pantsir, only because the Pantsir is being discussed in that section. Wikipedia is not a court of law, we don't look for evidence, we rely on sources. See WP:OR and WP:V. GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. So let's just say that Pantsir-S1 is the only one mentioned in the article? If sources have mentioned others, we ought to mention them also. But I'm not aware that any have done. If you think there's a problem with introducing bias, the photo should be removed? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed to Martinevans123.

Why not to tell "believed to be a AAM explosion damage" and provide a WP:Sources discussing about that? We'll never see the "evidence" as we've never seen it at MH17 ("as it's a russia" (c) Vladimir Zhirinovsky), but most of sources claim it (missile attack shotdown) was true. So we need not the "evidence" we'll never have but numerous sources reasonably claiming it's true. And now it already have some critical mass of such ones. 83.142.111.126 (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

what is lede? 83.142.111.126 (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The first (i.e. top) section of the article. Also called "lead". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks ) Never heard that. But why such a weird spelling? 83.142.111.126 (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Lead sometimes called lede see WP:LEDE. The info is sourced in the article itself, we tend to leave the lead/lede free of refs.

I’ll try it.

Springnuts (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

identification of survivors

Hello, it would be ideal to find the names of the survivors, there are reports that Russia has persecuted and killed them as we can see in this sinister 2002 Überlingen mid-air collision where the Russian agent sought revenge and killed the controller. Tgvarrt (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think taking a revenge is the goal of Wikipedia. Also I don't think someone interested in sharing worldwide they stay alive. Usually it does not help to the victims any way and will lead for them to fell even more guilty. Read survivor syndrome for more. 83.142.111.126 (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Also it's generally accepted practice not to name passengers involved in accidents who aren't Wikinotable (i.e. do not have Wikipedia pages) per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

That was not an agent, but a simple man who lost his entire family in that incident. He did not act on behalf of the Russian government but only for himself. Where is your evidence that any of the survivors of this accident have been persecuted, let alone killed? T v x1 02:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The curious early report from Ulysmedia - needs correction or deletion?

An entire paragraph is based on an early-doors report by UlysMedia from Kazakhstan (timed at 23:48 [UTC+5 ?], 25 December). These details have since been overtaken by the release of new information, such that it is now a load of hogwash. Although it does contain some information not yet picked up elsewhere, so I'm conflicted.

At 08:16 AZT, the crew reported that the aircraft had suffered a bird strike. Experiencing control difficulties, the crew requested that the aircraft be diverted to Makhachkala. At 08:22 AZT, the crew reported a hydraulics failure. The aircraft then attempted to divert to Makhachkala's Uytash Airport in Dagestan, Russia. However, the weather in Makhachkala was also poor and the aircraft was unable to land. It was subsequently diverted to Aktau, Kazakhstan

The original source stated 08:16, but did NOT specify any time zone. The AZT has been added by someone here at Wikipedia. Unfortunately it is demonstrably WRONG.
UlysMedia add that the following dialogue occurred before 08:16 The radio exchange began on a regular basis: the crew confirmed their return to the alternative airport in Baku.
At 08:16 AZT[sic], if that is correct, the aircraft had barely reached cruise altitude out of Baku. Hence a return to Baku would have been first choice.
per UlysMedia; However, at 08:16, the pilots were unable to gain control and reported that a bird had been in the cabin. If this is true, then we have a cabin depressurisation, so why did they climb to 30,000 feet, and then stay there for the next half hour? It does not add up.
per UlysMedia; At 8:26 p.m.[sic], the pilots indicated that their altitude at that moment was 80, and they were about to move up to THE FL100. Now the RS is giving us "p.m.". Let's be generous and assume its a simple typo. At 8:26 a.m. AZT, the aircraft was in the cruise at 30,000 feet, not at 8,000 climbing to FL100!

Hence all of the above confirms it cannot be Azerbaijan Time.

But wait (I hear you exclaim), the aircraft was indeed on it's way towards Makhachkala, so that part fits. Well, sort of. But around an hour later it would have been heading back towards Makhachkala for a second time, after encountering the 'bird strike' somewhere near Grozny, and after being refused permission to land at Vladikavkaz. Hence I conclude the timings are 09:16 AZT etc.

But since this analysis is dangerously close to deduction, inference, and WP:OR, how do we proceed from here? For a start I would consider removing all reference to AZT from this paragraph, and asking for {{clarification}] regarding the timing - on two separate counts.

Comments please

FWIW - Per UlysMedia - the original text was 08:16-да and 08:22-де, which Google translates as 08:16 (yes) and 08:22 (day). I would expect these to relate to Kazakh time which is UTC+5, but that does not help at all.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

They "... reported that a bird had been in the cabin", right? That seems a little odd. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, it's been almost 24 hours since I posted this discussion, and in terms of this article that is plenty. I'm now going to edit out the dubious information from the dubious source. WendlingCrusader (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Could you first respond to my query? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it is odd. What of it? There is a humungous amount of "odd" in this entire episode. This often happens with shoot-downs.

I can expand on what I believe they meant by that statement, but is that relevant to improving the article, which is what we are here for? Do you want a private conversation about it, just to satisfy our curiosity?

WendlingCrusader (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Is it a translation error perhaps? I was guessing that you were going to propose a change to the text here, before going ahead, so that you had consensus. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123 I was inviting any discussion as to the way forward, without necessarily proposing any specific text. AFAIK the edit-request template was added after I opened the discussion, and doesn't necessarily apply here anyway.

In the absence of any substantive responses, I have made a couple of 'light-touch' edits, removing the unsubstantiated "AZT" time-stamps, and asking for clarification. In reality, I do not expect any response beyond suggestions to get rid of the whole paragraph, but I'm open to any ideas.

Is it a translation error? Probably more a case of clumsy Kazakh editing, on behalf of the puppet-master in the Kremlin e.g.

They ... reported a ~~missile~~ bird strike

They ... reported that ~~shrapnel~~ a bird had been in the cabin

But this is off-topic in terms of what we can actually include or exclude from the article, so enough already.

p.s. in case it isn't obvious to all, firstly I wouldn't trust the translation in terms of 'cabin' specifically meaning the passenger cabin; it could mean cockpit, or passenger cabin, or both. Secondly, an aircraft suffering such damage would not ascend beyond say 10,000 feet, meaning the journey across the Caspian Sea to Aktau would be at low level and consume more fuel, possibly leading to further issues.

From the wayward flight path and control issues, I personally suspect external damage to the pitot-static system, which would have been another major factor in itself.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Bird strikes generally affect the aircraft's engines, don't they? The birds don't generally penetrate the aircraft hull. Yes, clumsy editing looks quite a likely explanation. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

You are correct. As your link confirms,

Bird strikes happen most often during takeoff or landing, or during low altitude flight (but there are exceptions)
Most accidents occur when a bird (or group of birds) collides with the windscreen or is sucked into the engine of jet aircraft
The point of impact is usually any forward-facing edge of the vehicle such as a wing leading edge, nose cone, jet engine cowling or engine inlet. (i.e. not the passenger cabin)

The main requirement for the passenger cabin is that sections it can survive propeller or fan failures. See Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 for what happened to one unlucky window seat passenger when this happened.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I can assure you that if there's shooting happening (that obviously can take place while warfare and ongoing drones attack) birds being frighten and fly away from loud sounds (and both missiles and drones are quite loud not talking about any explosions)... They do not stay and do not fly to where something shooting or exploding usually.

Birds doesn't strike the plane to attack it. They "COLLIDE" it because of first does not feel the danger from that something big incoming (and, in fact, plane itself is not a danger for them, but it's engines, which sucks them in while close proximity) and, in fact, almost does not hear it when it's arriving as plane is loud mostly not at front but from behind...

That way bird collide there is low likely. 83.142.111.126 (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it obviously worth deletion - at least from the top of the article. Initial source of that unapproved information (where from it was shared worldwide) is russian telegram channel (that is a question is worth to be WP:SOURCE), who posted it more then 6 hours after the crash, Communication transcript provided is noted as pilots with "dispatchers from Grozny" therefore time provided there is a Moscow time (UTC+0300). Also there's clearly said "The pilot reported a strong impact. True, at first he thought the plane had collided with a flock of birds. Then the plane's controls and hydraulics began to fail." [Also pilot there tells the birds hit.. tha CABIN, that looks ridiculous and anyway can't be the reason of further hydraulics failure.], so it's (bird's strike above the Grozny airport) not a fact but rather just a initial [minutes later pilot obviously realized that couldn't be the reason] civilian pilot (who never felt the missile hit impact to the plane and it hardly believable to be described at the plane's manual) assumption and not worth of stating in an article as a fact. So I'd delete it from the top but probably write 1-2 words about it at the text.

Other sites (like as that.. sport site you can translate better then kazakh-languaged one) just repeated that telegram channel's post. 83.142.111.126 (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Ulys attributes this to "the link to the Vsevolod Broadcasts Telegram channel", and other sources are also qualifying this, for example the Irish Star calls it "a partial transcript of the alleged communication". So I don't think we should be reporting this as fact. At the very least it should be qualified with something like "Ulys reports that the Vsevolod Broadcasts Telegram channel said that ...". But this is such an unconfirmed rumor that I would be in favor of removing the whole thing. GA-RT-22 (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

russian biased version

According to Ria Novosti in Russia/Kazakhstan, a cylinder exploded on board the plane that crashed in Aktau. stated the Minister of Transport of Kazakhstan, Marat Karabaev, quoted by Sputnik Kazakhstan Real or not, this is how Russia's super investigation progresses. Tgvarrt (talk) 02:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah 3 days before the accident the aircraft overrun the runway in Türkey 178.90.163.134 (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

You have a source for that overrun? How is that connected to an exploding cylinder three days later? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Martinevans123 now Russia announces the following the Kremlin says that in addition, the Russian transportation official indicated that "the plane commander made two attempts to land in Grozny, but they were unsuccessful. The commander was offered other airports. "He decided to go to Aktau airport." In this context, the head of Rosaviatsia stressed That lie falls apart first because Flightradar24 did not show and does not show any overflight of the aircraft over Grozny from which they get that conjecture here and also in the beginning the Russian media relied on the real-time reports of Flightradar24 later they stopped using it with the real source tracking. Tgvarrt (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Because of the follow-up that I am giving, let's not expect real, transparent or consistent investigators from Russia about what really happened, they are already distorting the fact because that is how Russia works, which is uncomfortable for the Kremlin because it is eliminated and censored. Tgvarrt (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

That sounds about right. But I am surprised that they would create such flimsy fiction that can be so easily discounted by data in the public domain. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

According to KTK the aircraft had a incident at Trabzon Airport, it only landed on the 2nd try and it overrun the runway 178.90.163.134 (talk) 11:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Türkish Media and KTK 178.90.163.134 (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, but I'm actually asking you to paste the links to the sources here, so we can all see them. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

There is overwhelmingly obvious evidence that the aircraft was shot down by an anti-aircraft missile. The similarities with MH-17 are striking, although the shrapnel damage is not as extensive, suggesting a different type of missile with smaller warhead was involved.

As far as the Kremlin is concerned, the only thing you can rely on is for them to come up with bizarre, contrived 'explanations' for anything that makes them look bad. Which, ironically, makes them look even worse. 2A02:A456:1FDA:1:B975:DD15:A624:74A4 (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

This is false. Two survivor flight attendants said they were no oxygen cylinders on board. The procedures of the GYD airport and the customs are clear. I also have a source confirming there were no oxygen cylinders on board nor are allowed. Millarur (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Neither what you mean is false they said not there was no exygen therer (it really is near the pilots cabin at every such plane for them to stay concious even in case of emergency), but that no way was exploded because otherwise they'd be instantly dead in flight if it would. What they meant as not possible (allowed) onboard is any other non-standard baloon shipped by some passenger onto the plane because of strict passengers seurrity check at the flight source airport. 83.142.111.126 (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

ya fully agreed Millarur (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

It is a legal requirement for all flights to have oxygen on board. Oxygen for the pilots, passengers and crew, as well as therapeutic oxygen for first aid. The flight attendants are wrong. The main oxygen tank in in the nose, not the tail however. Liger404 (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

They first meant an oxygen tank brought inside the plane by a passenger. Then they specified that if the oxygen for pilots exploded, then the plane would have immediately crashed and pilots would have died. Millarur (talk) 09:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

How did all this talk of "oxygen tanks" all begin? Could someone copy the source here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

It began by people doubting both the crash versions of birds and oxygen tanks which were spread by some news agencies. Millarur (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

We don't test what happens to aircraft when the main oxygen tank, or any of the crew supplemental or therapeutic oxygen tanks explode. Pure unprofessional conjecture. There were oxygen tanks on the aircraft, we don't know what would happen if they exploded, they also don't seem to be a leading theory for the crash. I would question that if someone claims to be a flight attendant says there is no oxygen tanks on board, they are not a flight attendant. All flight attendants are trained in the use of their own personal oxygen equipment (For fire fighting and depressurisation events) and therapeutic oxygen as all flight attendants are also first aid responders. It is not possible that someone is a flight attendant and doesn't know about these oxygen tanks. Liger404 (talk) 08:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The New York Times

The lead section says: "On 27 December, The New York Times reported that Azerbaijani investigators believed a Russian Pantsir-S1 air-defence system was responsible for the accident." But the archived version of the source differs from the live source. Also, how is that claim supported by the quote: "One photograph appeared to show the tail of the plane largely intact, though it had been separated from the fuselage"? That source is reused later in the article. Perhaps separate sources would be better. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I think there was originally a source for that and it's now lost. Reuters and Euronews were told the same thing, and there are sources for that in the Investigation section. I tried for a while to keep the lead in sync with the body and maintain the sourcing but there was too much interference and I've given up on it for now. GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

If such sources present at the article then it's way to do nothing more, if not - why don't you just add it to resolve the topic issue? 83.142.111.126 (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Section about the diversion is in conflict.

There is a section where it is stated the aircraft divert to Aktau because it was refused permission to land in Russia. This doesn't with the flight profile that includes a diversion to another Russian airport initially. It also just doesn't seem very well sourced. I think we either need to solidify evidence for this or remove it. This section also includes an error about the crash site being near Grozny, that needs cleaning up.

" According to the same sources, despite the pilots' requests to perform an emergency landing, they were denied to do so at any Russian airport, instead being ordered to fly towards Aktau. Subsequent analysis indicated that the crash[clarification needed] occurred at an altitude of 2,400 metres (7,900 ft) over Naursky District, 18 kilometres north-northwest of Grozny airport." Liger404 (talk) 08:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know who changed the word into crash. When I added that detail, I wrote incident to pertain to where the firing incident occurred. Borgenland (talk) 08:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

By "firing incident" you mean "missile explosion"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Couldn't also wrap my head about the exact term while impact would have sounded redundant. Borgenland (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah ok that makes sense. A small edit but otherwise it makes that section a bit confusing having crash in there. Needs to be "missile impact" or sure "firing incident", something like that.

I still don't like this section about them being refused landing. Our article, plus flight radar and Avherald show an initial diversion to another Russian airport. Which also had bad weather. And the sourcing for the denied landing claim is quite weak and includes language that smells off to me. I am an airline pilot, and ATC never ORDERS anyone to divert somewhere. They can deny landing, but they won't order you to some particular airport in another country. Liger404 (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Have now changed to "missile explosion". Martinevans123 (talk) 09:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Nice, clears up that bit well and that's very relevant information. We still have the diversion to Makhachkala vs the "denied landing in Russia" issue to resolve. Kinda needs to be one or the other. I guess letting that simmer for a day or two might clear things up nicely. Liger404 (talk) 12:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

These two events are not contradictory. The crew requested a diversion. Their request was denied. What further clarity were you seeking? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)