Talk:Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Crew fatalities

There seems to be a disagreement of facts in the article about the crew fatalities. In some areas we say two died (the pilots), in others we say three (the pilots and a flight attendant). Can this be clarified by reliable sources? RickyCourtney (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Might be a mistyping error. Regardless, just edit it yourself. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

One of the flight attendants survived the accident/crash 178.90.163.134 (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

According to that brief transcription of two flight attendants' interview where told:

"We put on oxygen masks and constantly talk to flight attendant Hyokuma Aliyeva, talk to her until the very end. Two minutes before landing, the connection is lost, the plane descends." and fact she was not interviewed it looks like crew fatalities is 3 - two male pilots and one female flight attendant Hyokuma Aliyeva. I don't think someone will share exact information about who died there (neither crew or passengers), but it is reasonable to assume. 83.142.111.126 (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

However still agreed some WP:RS needed telling 39 dead and only 28 survivors, as according to initial reports] where 29 survivors number noted had place there was 3 crew survivors reported right after the crash and all survivors moved to the hospitals with one woman stay unknown and uncautious..

and later it become known one of onboard flight attendant is dead.

It looks like one of the flight attendants meant alive initially (from numerous sources available right after the crash) died in the hospital, but no source confirms that and it's unknown have it be counted as a crash victim or not?

Case is there's disagreement between "Nationalities" table at the Passengers and crew, where provided later factual information about 28 (26 passengers + 2 crew) only survived (and therefore - 39 dead) and lede infobox, where told about 38 Fatalities and 29 Survivors.

One of I'd say doubtful source tells about exactly 28 survivors with no details at "2 days after the crash" news, but is it enough WP:SOURCE to change the lede to right values?

So please change the values at lede infobox from:

"| fatalities = 38

| injuries = 29

| survivors = 29"

to

"| fatalities = 39

| injuries = 28

| survivors = 28"

and add the source provided above if needed to solve the article survivors' number data disagreement. 83.142.111.126 (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Phugoid cycle

Just to note, Flight with disabled controls says the aircraft entered a Phugoid cycle (where the aircraft repeatedly climbs and then dives and which requires careful use of the throttle), although this is currently unsourced at that article. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Photos of Crash when possible

I would like it if there were photos of the aftermath of the plane crash on the page. I think it would be useful. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I doubt there are freely-licensed photographs of the aftermath available. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@The Bushranger I found some images used by the Times that were sourced from a Koreans news agency, however importantly without credit. Would this be enough to upload a pic onto WikiMedia? I can link it for you SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

No, they are not. Images must be freely licensed. There is limited non-free content allowed, but "I found it on the Internet" is very rarely a good source - especially for such a recent event. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

We probably won't be uploading any drone footage either... Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

A reminder...

...that this article falls under both WP:RUSUKR and WP:GS/AA general sanctions. Both of these require a user to be extended confirmed to edit the article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

If so, why isn't the article isn't under Extended confirmed protection and only under Semi-protection? It seems unnecessarily confusing. Took me a minue to understand the 3 notices when I tried to edit after noticing the grey silver lock. Squeezdakat (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Squeezdakat: Please see my answer to this question on the help desk. Thank you, Redtree21 (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

TL;DR for the benefit of any subsequent readers, the reason we sometimes do not put ECP on an article that is subject to a 30/500 limitation is that 1) it's not a requirement, particular when lesser administrative measures are working sufficiently, and 2) some articles are only partially covered by the restrictions (for instance, as is noted on the help desk, technical content specific to the Embraer jet would likely fall outside both sets of restrictions here) so it's often better to enforce the restrictions as needed rather than preemptively.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Timeline table

A huge thankyou to @Martinevans123 for a number of recent edits, including some welcome additions to the Timeline Table. I have just now added some tweaks, mainly ensuring that everything is referenced to Azerbaijan Time (AZT) UTC+4, as per the table heading.

There could be an argument for adjusting the whole table to Grozny local time (UTC+3) because that is where the incident took place. But as the whole event spanned three different time zones, what is the protocol here anyway? Any comments?

I also tweaked a few entries for accuracy, based on FR24 ADS-B raw data. The so-called RS newspapers are not always spot-on with their reporting, but if you wish, we can add a whole load of text explaining their errors. Personally I feel it will not add value to the timeline to report that source X had originally reported 09:35 when it was actually 09:25. It is either sloppy reporting or their typo - do we need to say it out loud as part of the article, considering all the other errors that still exist? WendlingCrusader (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

No worries. Not sure what the protocol is for three different time zones. But I guess many aviation accident articles must have this? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123

I racked my brains, and did a search too, and this event is close to unique in terms of a fatal crash event straddling three different time-zones. In most cases a damaged aircraft either returns to the point of take-off (i.e. same time zone), diverts to another airport, usually within the same time zone, or crashes within minutes, possibly in the ocean.

If the event is referenced to the crash itself, and of course the fatalities, we would end up with Central Kazakh time which is standardised at UTC+5, even though Aktau itself lies in the UTC+3 time zone. I don't believe there is much traction for that option.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

This hurts brain. Good catch! Keeping the political units straight is difficult enough (and AQTT is nothing if not obscure). Best to stick with one default local time, namely the origin of the situation, and its UTC offset. kencf0618 (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Still the table lacks the exact time of missile hit. Aminabzz (talk) 15:25, 29 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 Cyrillic spelling in Kazakh... There is no 'q' letter in the Russian Cyrillic alphabet. SedimentaryRock (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Like many names in post-Soviet area, it depends on if you are transliterating the Soviet-era Russian spelling or the more recent spelling in the national language of the post-Soviet nation-state. SedimentaryRock (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

In Kazakh language Aktau is pronounced as "Ақтау" but some people type "Aqtau" since "Қ" sounds like "q" 178.90.163.134 (talk) 11:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

We should probably go with Aktay then since its the local language and we dont want to offend anyone. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course, q is misleading. Arabic ق is more precise. Aminabzz (talk) 10:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Expand the reactions page

Aviationwikiflights, I want to understand why you want to go against the norms of wikipedia pages? All I want is an expanded reactions page that doesnt affect you or anyone else but you have to be a pain to deal with. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Why is it relevant to the article to mention what numerous governments have said? What value would it add to know what the Pakistani Prime Minister or the Serbian government said when all of those condolences could simply be summarized in a few sentences? In addition, your most recent revision is plainly unreferenced. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it's predictable dross. "The Poobar of Foobar sent his condolences" etc. Begone! WWGB (talk) 01:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I’d dare them to fill this up with 196 entries and see if they don’t find this ludicrous. Borgenland (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

They can always start Reactions to the Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 crash. {Yuk). WWGB (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Most editors despise these list-formatted, unencyclopedic "Reactions" sections. Abductive (reasoning) 03:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Well if most editors despise it then why do all of these wikipedia pages have the exact same format as I do?

Wikipedia:Reactions to... articles SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

You linked an essay which talks about <Reactions to... [Article name]> articles while we are discussing the contents of a section. The essay states: This page in a nutshell: Not all "Reactions to" articles are going to be treated the same, use your best judgement before creating such an article... Aviationwikiflight (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Haven't Iranian President also said his condolences yet?  Aminabzz (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

We obviously have a consensus here to not include the laundry list of reactions from all over. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also agree that we do not need a comprehensive list of every single reaction to this incident. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

You guys have it all wrong,. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

We decide here by means of consensus, not by means of "right" versus "wrong". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Country of Origin should be adjectives

Right now it says, for example "Azerbaijan" or "Russia", it should be changed to Azerbaijani and Russian. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean the "Country" row of "Nationalities" table at the Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243#Passengers and crew?

Country can't be adjective any way.

Russians as one as Azerbaijanis you mean is an ethnic groups and we talk about nationality there (that does not follow any way with any exceptional ethnic group as usually countries population is polyethnic and only fascism/nazism ideology was trying to exceptionalize some ethic group within some exceptonal countries - that's the clear way you follow now - please don't). So no any changed needed. 83.142.111.126 (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Why are you comparing me to nazi ideology? SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Or is it Franco? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Because I see a clear similarity as you tell the same:

You: "it [Country of Origin] should be changed to Azerbaijani and Russian" (that way ostensibly be monoethnic by default).

Nazis: @Nazism#Racial theories and antisemitism: their desire to create Lebensraum for Germans and other Germanic people in eastern Europe, where millions of Germans and other Germanic settlers would be moved into once those territories were conquered, while the original Slavic inhabitants were to be annihilated, removed or enslaved.

@Nur für Deutsche

etc.

However you can still read in detail my initial post above (you obviously didn't) to understand my pov. 83.142.111.102 (talk) 17:36, 30 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)

Maybe add under "Shameful Russian face-saving attempts"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

But, now that the radio traffic has been made public, the timeline shows that this it what the aircrew first reported. So it's not entirely clear how much Russia knew and when. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I tried searching where it was made public, but I guess my search skills aren’t as good. Could you please share the link or the source? Thanks in advance. Millarur (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

We should at least remove this from the lead. The pilots reported a bird strike, so of course both the airline and Russia are going to speculate that might have been the cause. We now know that it wasn't so it would be undue to mention it in the lead. GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed - at least remove from lead. Springnuts (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

In the initial aftermath of the crash, the airline and Russia's Federal Air Transport Agency suggested that the cause might have been a bird strike, though both Russian and Azerbaijani authorities said it was too early to speculate.

Question for those more knowledgeable of the local media sources… did the airline suggest that the cause might have been a bird strike… or just the pilots? The lede says the airline suggested that, so I just want to be sure that’s factual. But frankly the entire sentence feels like a throwaway at this point.

I think the only thing that gives me the least bit of pause is that it might be worth mentioning that the the crew thought they may have had a bird strike… while passengers in the back heard an explosion and shrapnel hitting the plane (which for the record, would be consistent with what would passengers would experience after a bird strike leading to an uncontained engine failure). RickyCourtney (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

"Bird strike" is still there, just not in the lead. I think this is good for now. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks like both I and @Springnuts took a stab at it -- and I accidentally overwrote their changes. I thing both ways of rewriting this are valid and I'll let the Wiki hivemind decide which they like better. RickyCourtney (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy that it will sort itself out. Springnuts (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Um, the airline would have had no idea. It's understandable if the pilots called a birdstrike to ATC, as they probably weren't expecting an anti-aircraft missile. Getting bits of shrapnel in your leg is not very consistent with "a bird strike leading to an uncontained engine failure." Maybe the aircrew informed the flight deck, but the pilot has to make a call rapidly. It looks like the hydraulics failure was not immediate. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Russian Telegram channel VChK-OGPU

Who is "Russian Telegram channel VChK-OGPU" and are they reliable? We don't normally use random social media sources unless it's the official channel of some otherwise-reliable organization. GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I just WP:BOLD removed it. The last thing we need is Felix Dzerzhinsky claiming to run this account. Borgenland (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Only problem here is that's only initial source half of the article (connected to near Grozny flyby - ATC-plane radio transcription with timeline) is based on (meant here at the end). No alternatives provided in the article. 83.142.111.102 (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Borgenland May I request you reconsider that removal? It isn't exactly a "random social media" account; both Newsweek and Radio Free Europe use this source regularly, as does the Meduzanews website in Latvia.

Yes they are all clearly politically biased, but so are TASS and Pravda. We can only strive for balance, and in this case, just factual information, much of which isn't necessarily political.

1. Telegram has become a platform widely used in Russia and Ukraine by independent media outlets to broadcast news as news websites and social media have been subjected to massive blocking since the {Ukraine} war began. CPJ - Committee to Protect Journalists; https://cpj.org/2022/08/russian-authorities-detain-journalists-media-workers-on-extortion-fraud-charges/
2. The VChK-OGPU outlet, which purports to have inside information from Russian security forces, said that... Example from Newsweek; https://www.newsweek.com/russia-officers-kherson-vchk-ogpu-1828371
3. The Telegram channel VChK-OGPU, which is widely read and is believed to have ties to security agencies, was added to the list {Russia's Justice Ministry: "foreign agents" register} for "dissemination of false information aimed at creating a negative image of the Russian army. Example at Radio Free Europe; https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-bogdanova-vchk-ogpu-foeign-agent/33034773.html

Other examples may be found at Google, although this source may be a little too left-field for the BBC and the New York Times to quote themselves. And of course Newsweek isn't necessarily 100% squeaky-clean either, but who is?

Please don't let the {Russian} trolls win!

WendlingCrusader (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry but I cannot make judgements on arguments laced with WP:FORUM issues and possible aspersions. I suggest you gain consensus from other editors if you want a revert. Borgenland (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

In that case, I apologise. I didn't recognise that my comments were WP:FORUM - in fact I still cannot see it that way, but whatever. I was under the impression I was demonstrating the source was potentially WP:RS, and not just a "random social source" - where did I go wrong? Perhaps it was my final comment? I can see that it might have swung the pendulum against me. If you strike that from the text, can you explain why if other media outlets use this source, we treat it differently? I stress that is a polite request from me, not a challenge. I'm not that confrontational, or at least I try not to be.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm plainly a stickler for WP:PRIMARY. As such I would not have minded if it were embedded inside a secondary source. And while I sometimes make exceptions I cannot for a CTOPS. Also please read WP:ACTIVIST if you don't want to turn off others who want to interact with you constructively. Borgenland (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The thought of me as an WP:ACTIVIST nearly made me choke on my cornflakes. It may come as a surprise to you but up until 90 minutes ago I didn't have a clue about any of these media outlets, apart from an R.E.M. track called 'Radio Free Europe'. All I posted came from a quick Google search, which was quite illuminating. I'm here because of aviation and because the quotes from this source e.g. NDB - non-directional beacons, are bread-and-butter for me, and sound entirely credible. It would be a tragedy to lose such technical detail.

But I clearly overstepped the mark with the troll comment; mea culpa - I'll try and tone it down. Thanks for the feedback! Getting slapped around the chops with a wet haddock is probably what I deserved.

Peace, comrade!

WendlingCrusader (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a random social media account until someone can confirm that it belongs to RS. See WP:RSSELF. I don't care if Newsweek quotes it, because Newsweek is not RS. If some RS quotes from this channel, I would be fine with including that, with whatever attribution the RS used when publishing.

Please do not suggest that any of us are collaborating with Russian trolls. That borders on a personal attack. I don't care about trolls, but I do care about sourcing. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@GA-RT-22

And I humbly apologise to you too, sir.

It was supposed to be a general comment, not aimed at you personally, but regarding the wholesale shenanigans that have being going on in this article all along. I regret any discomfort it may have caused you.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Just for the sake of clarity, this is the claim that is now without a source:

"08:36: Pilots start a normal landing procedure in Grozny but due to GPS signal loss Grozny air control offers non-directional beacon approach"

Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Section ordering

Is there a reason Accident is before Background? I'd WP:BOLD it but for a change that dramatic I'd want someone else to sanity check me first. guninvalid (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It's because of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Accidents). But that guide violates the general principal of putting articles in chronological order, and other aircraft accident articles don't seem to follow it. I won't object if you change it. GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Likely?

What is that violationg WP:NOTCRYSTAL at the lede: ", likely due to military jamming."? Remove it! 83.142.111.43 (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

This assertion is well supported by sources cited in the article. Most sources are not characterizing the jamming as causal, as other aircraft landed safely at Grozny despite it. Carguychris (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Case is not in military or not.

I mean it would be much more appropriate a "believed to be" and not "likely" to use if sources support the doubts. 83.142.111.43 (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

“Believed to be” is pretty much the definition of “likely”. RickyCourtney (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The cited sources say nothing about military jamming. And FlightRadar said the flight did face jamming, not that it likely faced jamming. So I think we should change "likely due to military jamming" to "due to jamming". GA-RT-22 (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Are there any non-military actors that would be causing the jamming? RickyCourtney (talk) 05:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see what that has to do with anything. GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed - such term nowhere used except that exact article and it clearly WP:OR.

According to GPS jamming#Occurrences there's not "military jamming" exists, but only the GPS jamming itself both while military exercises and Russian invasion of Ukraine, therefore always it's just a "GPS-jamming" and nothing more as there's no difference between harmful inteference ANY GPS JAMMING do. So - please, stop fairy tales in the article - remove that "military jamming" word and replace it with exactly "GPS jamming" (as no other jamming interference was ever confirmed). 83.142.111.43 (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)