Jump to content

Talk:Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Coordinating Agency from Facebook Statement

The statement on Facebook by AirAsia seems to be unclear on who exactly is coordinating the search. It mentions the CAA, possibly meaning the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore, but it also mentions Indonesia by name. Additionally, official updates seem to be originating from the emergency center in Juanda airport[1] or press conferences in Jakarta. Is there a source that clarifies this?

Given statements by the CAAS, it's possible the Facebook post means that they're coordinating with officials at Changi regarding the crisis, not necessarily as part of the search operation itself. Things look unclear so far. --Steax (talk) 07:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/12/28/families-airasia-passengers-seek-information.html

Logo colours and Release of information

A while back a statement existed that the Airline changed their logo colours to greyscale, as well as the news being released on Facebook and Twitter. It has been removed/readded several times. What are your opinions on this? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I see no problem with them confirming it on social media, but I don't see a need for us to mention that they blacked out the colors out of respect, as that is something almost any organization would do if they deemed the event necessary. Point being, I really don't see it being worthy of mention in this article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we might need to mention it due to the 'reaction' by several reliable sources. Though, a single sentence should be all that is need if that is the case. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Inclusion of this information is asinine and trivial, wiki has a NOT EVERYTHING policy which prevents such useless trivia added in articles, more worthy of mention was live cargo of animals on MH17 and Malaysian PM's step-grandmother on that flight but was removed due to the said wiki policy, so why is this useless thing being included? 139.190.230.234 (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Distance?

Something that is conspicuously missing from the article is the length of the air route, and the approximate distance from the point of departure to where contact with the aircraft was last made. Has anyone seen this information in any of the sources?- MrX 01:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

07:17 SST

For the timeline of disappearance, the CNN source currently has no mention of anything happening at 07:17 SST. It only has information about 07:24 SST. Seems like the archived version of the page had the information, but an updated version removed it. Should we still keep the 07:17 information? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Name

The article says Indonesia AirAsia, AirAsia and Indonesia AirAsia and AirAsia across multiple sections. I guess they should be rationalised to one, unless there is a reason for different ones to exist. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Confusing but some of the information is being released by the related "AirAsia" rather than the Indonesia affiliate. MilborneOne (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Pope

Perhaps it is time to tidy up the response section to remove the standard comments from unconnected world leaders, suggest that only comments from Singapore and Indonesian leaders are really relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree, although I would mention something general, to the point that heads of state and heads of governments from across the world have expressed their condolences. kashmiri TALK 10:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I have edited four major articles of major incidents, Syndey, Peshawar, Assam and now this. In all of them, it was pretty understood that relevant reactions should be heads of states, local authorities/officials, UN officials. Nothing from any two-bit politician or charity, and I don't think the Pope's response is required here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Flight Engineer

Why is there an flight engineer on an Airbus A320? I thought that times are gone 30 years ago. --Thirunavukkarasye-Raveendran (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe he was "an Engineer" or aircraft technician not a Flight Engineer. MilborneOne (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
There's definitely not a flight engineer on an A320! Almost certainly they mean that this person is an aircraft mechanic/technician (or "engineer" in British English). AHeneen (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I'm not quite sure why they added this person on the crew, unless they were there to do something in flight. I threw it into the wiki page since it (to me) seemed unusual, and was included in the press release. My guess is that it was a non-rev passenger that was not crewing the flight, but would need more details from the airline to be sure.. Suntzu3500 (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I would guess the same, a non-rev passenger. I won't give links for obvious reasons, but there's a Facebook belonging to someone who is probably the unfortunate soul concerned which lists his job as an "aircraft maintenance engineer". Nil Einne (talk) 12:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Clarification of "Lost from Indonesian air traffic control radars"

If at all possible, it should be clarified - from where did the plane disapear?

Are we talking about primary radar that detects flying metal objects, or secondary surveillance radar that receives data from transponder? (important, because: could it have been intentionally switched off or not - one does not simply get rid of large metal objects)

How good is ATC radar coverage - should the plane be visible? or did the ATC rise alarm only when plane did not reappear? Flightradar24 data for example shows, that all the plains leave coverage for some time at about the same place ( http://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/qz8501/#525d6ba ) (ack that flightradar24 is not radar at all but ads-b - that only adds to the need to clarify from where did the plain disapear). If it is usual for plains to lose contact for some time, it should be mentioned? Nahijaindend (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the answer is clear. Look at the sub-section "Timeline from Indonesian Transport Ministry" a few sections above. The 7th & 8th tweets from the Indonesian Transport Ministry both mention something about losing contact. Both have been machine translated (Google Translate) from Indonesian, so it's not clear what the difference is. The 7th tweet (at 6:17) mentions something about ADS-B. The 8th tweet (at 6:18) says the plane disappeared from radar and only the track & flight plan were showing which suggests this was from secondary (ATC) radar. These tweets were made shortly after the plane's disappearance and it's not clear where the 06:24/07:24 time comes from...maybe the plane continued to be tracked by military radar until 06:24?
Flightradar24 collects ADS-B signals and coverage is only as good as the locations where volunteers have devices that detect the ADS-B signals (they also have information from the US FAA, including location info of flights far out in the ocean, so possibly some ADS-C info over the North Atlantic, North Pacific, & North America).
After seeing some of the news in the last 24 hours, it seems like the last location detected by Flightradar24 may be far from the last known location. BBC News has shown a map that places the last known location further north than the map in this article (based on Flightradar24 data). If you draw a line between the southeast corner of Belitung Island and the southwest corner of Borneo, the BBC places the last location of Flight 8501 a little left of center along that line. AHeneen (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand Indonesian but do understand Malay (although no longer at as good a level as I once did) and I also don't know that much about aviation related stuff. If I'm understanding the tweets correctly, tweet 7 says the plane was only seen on ADS-B, at this time/second it suddenly lost contact with the ATC. Tweet 8 says the target was lost from radar, only the flight plan track was visible. (I presume this means the plane itself wasn't visible on radar, only its predicted course based on the flight plan. Note there's no & in that part. It says flight plan track not flight plan & track.) Note that tweet 6 also says it was still visible on radar overlay at this time.

I'm still abit confused about the tweets myself, in particular, why it was necessary to mention it was still visible on radar on tweet 6, when if I'm understanding correctly, they are also saying it was visible (via the ADS-B signal) on tweet 7. I'm also not sure why they think contact loss with the ATC was sudden. I can only guess maybe they mean that they tried routine contact but received no reply (alternatively someone was saying something and suddenly stopped or they had been replying normally very recently but these seem unlikely since I would have though we would have heard more). I'm also a bit confused why they switch between mentioning ADS-B and radar. One possibility is these are referring to different things, ADS-B may be referring to the ATC radar, whereas radar may be referring to military radar. (OTOH military radar should AFAIK understand ADS-B info but may not have a flight plan.) It's possible tweet 7 means to say the ADS-B signal was lost at this time, but I don't think so.

It's possible a big part of the confusion, beyond my limited understanding of Indonesian, is that twitters 160 characters + getting information out quickly to avoid being accused of being slow etc as happened with MH370 is showing here.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Apart from List of aerial disappearances, the following links have been regularly added and removed from the See also section:

I personally don't think these flights are related according to the current (lack of) information yet. Can others also give their opinion on this matter? — Peterwhy 17:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I think they should be removed until more information is known about what has happened and then appropriate comparisons can be made. That said, the Adam Air flight does seem somewhat relevant. AHeneen (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree.- MrX 19:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I think Adam Air definitely seems appropriate given the departure city. Malaysia Airlines also seems appropriate given that it went missing in the same region in the same year, and multiple news outlets bring up that comparison. I think it's too early to compare to Air France, since the connecting factor is not region or time of crash but rather the cause of the crash, and it's too early to really speculate about that. -KaJunl (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I would have to agree with Peterwhy that they are not included, so far this appears to be an accident and not a missing aircraft in the sense of the see also links, suggest they are not included until we have more info on what has happened. MilborneOne (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I've changed the section to flights lost at sea over the Pacific or in waters that are considered part Asia. Deliberately I left out MH 370 per WP:See also which says not to link to articles that are otherwise linked in the article or a navbox. I also put something in the box telling editors not to add MH 370 for that reason....William 23:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Air France Should be included now as it was also an Airbus aircraft that went down in a thunderstorm over water in the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ). The rest of the details could vary widely, but those two points make them "related". I've added it to the list. 02:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8r455 (talk • contribs)
I added MH 370 to the list plus sorted it by date. I did not understand the WP:See Also reasoning as MH 370 was not mentioned in the article at all. While MH 370 may be in a navbox those are closed/invisible by default.
I deleted Air France 447 as this list was Asia and Pacific Ocean incidents. Air 447 was in the Atlantic ocean. As it is, I believe the list is getting too long. One solution is to restrict it to incidents in the southwest Pacific ocean and eastern Indian Ocean regions. This would remove incidents that were in the north Pacific ocean such as 1951 Canadian Pacific Air Lines Douglas DC-4 disappearance and Northwest Orient Airlines Flight 293. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
For airline crashes, the type of aircraft, weather, circumstances (no mayday), be more relevant than the physical location that the aircraft went down? CNN and other news outlets have mentioned both MH370 and AF447 when talking about this incident as well. Therefore, Air France 447 should be included in this list. I'll let others decide instead of starting an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8r455 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
8r455, in thinking about what you wrote I agree with your reasoning. One solution would be a section for Other aircraft incidents in the Pacific ocean and eastern Indian Ocean regions that's not a "See Also" and to put AF 447 in See Also. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps a change of location to be the ITCZ, rather than Asian area? Maybe add a list of aircraft losses in the Intertropical Convergence Zone Article, but then it is getting complicated. :) 8r455 (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:COATRACK and WP:RECENTISM, the flights that were listed in this section are not needed, just the generic list of all missing flights. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Maps

There are two maps that have been included. One is a generic map with the locations of Changi and Junada with the crash site marked en route, the other is the flight map. Can the two be merged? I'm changing crash site to site where last seen. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The image File:Qz8501.png will likely not survive the speedy deletion due to copyright violation anyway. — Peterwhy 05:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
In that case, the generic map seems good enough. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll try to make a map from the available data within the next hour or two. AHeneen (talk) 06:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Done. AHeneen (talk) 07:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Thankyou! --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Heya, @AHeneen: I just noticed that the image says AirAsia and not Indonesia AirAsia. Please do note that both are separate airline companies, though IAA is an affiliate of AA. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @AHeneen: but the last contact time might have to be changed too -- see another discussion about this below — Peterwhy 10:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
The map has been updated with the correct title. Not convinced about the time though and leaving it unchanged for now (can easily be changed later). AHeneen (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Have also posted the second map with the satellite image superimposed. However, it was marked as citation needed. Amended the File page, by the way, FYI the map is dated 12-28-2014 00:32Z. By the way, the satellite image is from NOAA. Chitetskoy (talk) 13:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the weather map!! I spent a couple hours searching the web to find color IR satellite imagery for the area (to do what you did), before finally giving up and going to sleep. AHeneen (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The 'false color' infrared satellite picture appears to have been taken approx 80 minutes after Flight 8501 requested a course deviation due to "clouds" after which radio (and then radar) contact was lost. While useful (and maybe the best presently available), perhaps the caption should more clearly convey that "07:32 WIB" is approx 80 minutes after the request for course deviation after which contact was lost. Otherwise, it wrongly implies this was the very weather the flight encountered, esp with the flight path overlay. Weather can change quite rapidly in that region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.13.92.28 (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Time line

Have not got a reliable source for this so just parking it here for the moment:

  • 06:12 QZ8501 requests a deviation to the left which is approved
  • 06:12 QZ8501 request a climb from FL320 to FL380
  • 06:12 ATC asks the pilot to wait while atc get approval for climb from next sector (which is Singapore)
  • 06:14 ATC call QZ8501 with approval to climb to FL340 but get no response
  • 06:14 ATC request nearby aircraft to attempt to call 8501
  • 06:16 No response on radio from QZ8501 but aircraft still on controllers screen
  • 06:17 Radar contact lost with the aircraft at FL290 MilborneOne (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Lost contact 0617, 0618 or 0624?

I observe that information (and also article text) differs on this. This needs to be clarified and probably corrected also in the appr. graphics. --Matthiasb (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Lucasjohansson (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Should we merge this discussion with "Lost Contact at 0624 or 0724?"? -KaJunl (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually that is a different problem, the time zone issue. Here we need to resolve the problem with the minute of the hour in which the last contact made is claimed. --Matthiasb (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
See the timeline from Indonesian Transport Ministry in the "Lost Contact at 0624 or 0724?" discussion. The authority claimed that the aircraft is lost contact with the ATC at 0617 WIB (UTC+7). @NnAs (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Flight departure rescheduled

Some sources have reported that the flight was rescheduled from a 7:30am departure time to 5:20am - over two hours earlier. See the story on Yahoo Travel: https://www.yahoo.com/travel/people-who-escaped-the-death-on-air-asia-106416418947.html

I have failed to find any relevance of this to the catastrophe, or corroboration that it's even true, but I believe there should be mention of it in this article. Haryadoon (talk) 00:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Definitely should be mentioned. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Twitter Radar Image

File:QZ8501 secondary radar image.jpg is sourced to some random person on twitter with a blogspot.com blog. Is this image real and what is it's original source? What "secondary radar" screen is it supposedly a photo of? Is it at an ATC facility in the area? Is this some random guy's home ADS-B receiver or something? It says "leaked", but leaked from where and is it fake / real / hoaxed? --Dual Freq (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted before I saw your talk entry here. Are you satisfied with the added citation? Layzeeboi (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
That explanation is better than nothing I suppose, but I'd feel better if it was in an official release from Indonesia or AirNav Indonesia. I still wonder if this is a photo of a screen during a data replay or a chance photo of a display located in a public area at an airport terminal or something. It doesn't make sense that someone would take a picture of the screen before the incident occurred. --Dual Freq (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I think it must be possible to replay the radar data, selecting for display any time from the radar image log. It seems natural that an ATC would choose to create an image showing the last radar transponder signal, to inform the search effort, and also archive it for "posterity" and his friends. Layzeeboi (talk) 06:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Associated News Tabloidlike Update

The Daily Mail is a rag, and can be equated with the Daily Prophet/Quibler from Harry Potter. Not too be taken seriously. Even for celebrity gossip/ --04:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course while this is bad for AirAsia and Malaysian airlines in general, it would make more sense to target an AirAsia plane or AirAsia X one not an AirAsia Indonesia one if you really wanted to target Malaysian airlines and it seems they must have the capabilities if they can take down 3 planes in the different circumstances. Nil Einne (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Possible Debris found

Agence France-Presse is reporting that items resembling an emergency slide and a plane door have been spotted in the search for the missing AirAsia flight. [1] and The Today Show is reporting that the reported debris in the AirAsia plane search is near South Borneo, 105 nautical miles from Pangkalan Bun. [2]. Since there have been a few false alarms, I think we need to hold off until official word and confirmation. Coasterghost (talk) 05:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Reuters is reporting that Indonesia TV shows footage of objects in the sea, possibly part of missing AirAsia jet. Coasterghost (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Agence France-Presse is reporting that in a press conference that Officials said "We spotted about 10 big objects and many more small white-coloured objects which we could not photograph,". CNN is saying "Official: Photos of debris that could be from missing #QZ8501 are being examined. Helicopters will be sent when weather permits." [3]. This is a link to a screen grab to an object in the Java Sea https://twitter.com/W7VOA/status/549805952795295745/photo/1 Coasterghost (talk) 06:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
There are also news article saying an oil slick and stuff were discovered near Long Island. What do you say? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
This is not about the oil slicks that turned out to be coral. And did you read what I posted in my first post under this sub-topic "Since there have been a few false alarms, I think we need to hold off until official word and confirmation." Coasterghost (talk) 06:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes I did. Why else did I ask you for your opinion? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
This is the most credible finding, they've found. Coasterghost (talk) 06:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Clearly. Debris found and the body found. Indonesian TV airing the live event of the evacuation process.@NnAs (talk) 08:00, 30 December 2014

1 body remains already evacuated, previously Admiral Manahan Simorangkir says "there are 40 bodies found". (Source).--AldNonUcallin?☎ 14:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/AFP/status/549798798629666816
  2. ^ https://twitter.com/TODAYonline/status/549803494983467010
  3. ^ https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/549807166841171969

Final altitude

"the final altitude indicated by the transponder and collected by Flightradar24 was 32,000 ft (9,750 m)." is misleading, as the data from Flightradar24 is by no means "final". From The Indonesian Transport Ministry tweets "6 of 17", "7 of 17" and "8 of 17" it seems that at least ads-b and some sort of radar (either primary or secondary) was working at 06:16, and at least ads-b was captured at 06:17 by The Indonesian Transport Ministry. Flightradar24 data ( http://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/qz8501/#5240449 ) ends at 23:12 UTC, which is 5 minutes before last known altitude (known to The Indonesian Transport Ministry that is).

Also I don't see how anything other than 0m could be called final altitude for a plane.

This question also closely relates to a previous topic in this talk Clarification of "Lost from Indonesian air traffic control radars"

Nahijaindend (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it's generally accepted that "final altitude" in this context is the last altitude at which the aircraft was in controlled flight. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, agreed, but that still leaves those 5 minutes. Nahijaindend (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I think that the FR24 info was added in the early days before we had anything from the Indonesians, it can probably be removed and replaced by an official quote. FR24 uses the ADS-B signals but as it uses amateur receivers its coverage is sometimes limited. MilborneOne (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
"Leaked" photo of some secondary radar (= transponder?) shows 36,300 ft for the height of the plane, but not credible source? Nahijaindend (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Time of that photo doesn't seem to be known, but as FR24 newer displayed it so high, it should be later. (If at all credible, could also be straight-out fake) Nahijaindend (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for "Flight Path" images update

This web page offers new information:

- The ADS-B transponder continued for one minute after "radio" [radar?] contact was lost, with ADS-B loss at 23:18 UTC; the last recorded position was S3.3708 E109.6911. This is 6 minutes after the last location reported by flightradar24.com, and seems fairly consistent with the "leaked radar image". As 6 minutes corresponds to about 40 km, or almost the size of the nearly island, this later ADS-B location might be added to the image from flightradar24.com, shown in "Flight Path (top)".

The time of "Contact lost" on the figure "Flight Path (bottom)" is still the AirAsia value of 23:24 UTC, while the recently updated "Timeline of disappearance" table now gives 23:17 UTC, citing AirNav Indonesia. This figure should presumably be updated, preferably also with the final location from ADS-B. Also, I think this "Flight Path (bottom)" image is available with better quality here: [2]

- This Aviation Herald web page also show a nice image of the oil slicks, which could be useful if/when they are confirmed to be jet fuel.Layzeeboi (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm the one who made the upper map and corrected the time shortly after this post (although I didn't see this before making the change). I'll update the map with the new information about the last known location & where debris has been spotted. Like most users, I need sleep and have a life outside of editing Wikipedia, so keeping the map constantly updated with the latest details is not really feasible. An SVG version of the map has been uploaded so that others can update the map easily (note that background of svg file is a raster and doesn't scale well, so PNG version should be updated at same time & used in article). Hopefully I'll have time to update the map within 3-4 hours of this edit. AHeneen (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Affiliation to AirAsia in lead paragraph

In the lead paragraph, it says:

Indonesia AirAsia is an affiliate of the low-cost Malaysian airline AirAsia.

Is this really important for the lead, or can this relationship be stated later? Epicgenius (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

IMO, yes. Since AirAsia appears in the airline name, readers are entitled to know the relationship with the parent company. WWGB (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I would agree with WWGB, it is there to make it clear that they are related airlines but not actually the same operator. MilborneOne (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Sure, but maybe Epic was referring to low-cost, not the ownership connection. Doubtless he will advise. Moriori (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes on Moriori's point. I was actually wondering why the fact that it was low cost was important to why it disappeared. Maybe the first sentence can be reworded, though, to combine the statement about affiliation: "Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 (QZ8501/AWQ8501) is an Airbus A320-216 flight operated by Indonesia AirAsia, an affiliate of the low-cost Malaysian airline AirAsia, that disappeared on 28 December 2014 with 155 passengers and 7 crew on board while en route to Singapore from Surabaya, Indonesia." or something similar (I don't recommend using this sentence specifically). Epicgenius (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
That sounds quite right. The affiliation is important because IAA is not the same as AA, nor is it a subsidiary. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
We can probably re-add it to the lead, given that there is interest in doing so. Epicgenius (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
It's noteworthy because there had been much confusion in media coverage referring to the as just AirAsia, including a lot of references to this being the third crash involving a Malaysian airline. Plus the aircraft is painted in just AA livery and it seems that most branding is just as AA, not IAA. AHeneen (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Debris photos

This is a preemptive post to let everyone know that photos created & published by the Indonesian government are in the public domain (see commons:Template:PD-IDGov). So photos of debris from the Indonesian military or SAR agency can be uploaded to commons and added to this article. Especially interesting would be a photo of the "shadow" under the water that is claimed to be in the shape of an airplane (the Java Sea is fairly shallow... mostly under 100m). AHeneen (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Google Earth reports the depth at location of last contact as about 25m. Layzeeboi (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Crash or water landing?

If it was an emergency water landing, then the temperature of the water may be important. --77.8.116.144 (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Dialect

If one must be preferred, it should be Singapore English, not British English. It only makes sense. Honestly, however, while it is preferred to remain consistent, a tag doesn't necessarily need to be used at all. That is just my say. Dustin (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It can probably be removed.- MrX 14:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The Fisherman's Tale

After crediting a fisherman with the first discovery of debris "in the Tujuh islands", which both Jonathan Pearlman of The Telegraph and I assumed must be in the Java Sea, I now note that the only "Tujuh islands” that I can find on Google Maps and Google Earth are indeed in Indonesia, but about 2000 km east of the crash site! So, would reverting my addition to the article amount to commission of the crime of WP:OR? (I have emailed Mr. Pearlman.) Layzeeboi (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a small group of islands approximately 80km northwest of Belinyu called Kepulauan Tujuh (-1.201858° 105.269816°)( 1° 12.111' S 105° 16.189' E), which may be what he was referring to. It would be original research to deviate from the source though.- MrX 14:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I queried The Telegraph editors, and got this reply:
Re: Telegraph Reference: 972046
31 December 2014
Many thanks for your email to The Telegraph in regards to the plane crash.
The quote was given to the Indonesian news website, Tempo, with regards to debris being found floating off the Tujuh islands and has been confirmed by Indonesian flight officials. I hope this does offer further detail to you and may I take this opportunity to wish you all the very best for 2015.
Yours sincerely,
Andy King
Editorial Information Executive
I found the story on this Indonesian language Tempo web page. The location given is "Pulau Tujuh, Kecamatan Belinyu, Kabupaten Bangka", which I guess could be translated as "Island Seven, District Belinyu, Bangka", not "Seven Islands..." ("tujuh" means "seven", and "Pulau" means "island"). "Kecamatan Belinyu, Kabupaten Bangka" seems to be the collection of islands in the strait, with the second-largest, Pulau Belintung, about 150km to the west of the crash site. But there are many small ones, even to the east of Pulau Belintung, and they might be just assigned numbers rather than names. So the story isn't as dubious now. Layzeeboi (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest changing it in the article to Pulau Tujuh (which is apparently in the same group of islands that I referenced above) and citing the tempo.com article as an additional source. And this.- MrX 15:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Beware: No body found wearing life jacket

Many english-language news sites are reporting that one of the recovered bodies was wearing a life jacket. An official from Indonesia's search and rescue agency (Basarnas) has contradicted that earlier report. Layzeeboi (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yet another fish story: heard the boom of impact

How "dubious" do we find this one? (I originally provided the wrong URL.) At least the location reported seems to be close to the crash site. Layzeeboi (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

It's backed by other sources, so it seems OK. [3][4][5]- MrX 18:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

A report from Fisherman 3 (same island/sandbar as Fisherman 2?)

And now we have a report of a corpse found on Gosong Senggora. (The image shows a toe-tag from 2006, so it's irrelevant.) This is reported to be where other debris and bodies are being found. Google says that "gosong" means "sandbar". Perhaps this is the same location that was designated Pulau Senggora by Fisherman 2. Layzeeboi (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Early suggestions of a cause

Apparently the investigation is looking at radar data showing a very steep climb that may have pushed the aircraft past its airframe's limit.--v/r - TP 18:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The new information here is the "unbelievably steep climb" rate apparently observed on radar. But there is no evidence that the two pilots consulted were invited to specifically address that, resulting in some incoherence in this report. In support of this, here is some otherwise-fobidden-even-on-talk-pages WP:OR: It's hard to find the needed curve, but I see indications that the maximum climb rate for the A320 in still air at 32000 ft might be of order 1000 ft/min, depending on load. If someone wants to check this, the Load and Trim Sheet for the crashed aircraft is available here. (Should we include this in the article?) It reports the total takeoff weight as 63624 kg (or 86.6% of maximum allowed). A hang-glider who almost died in a Cumulonimbus updraft rose at the speed of 20 m per second (4,000 ft/min). In the Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences, edited by G. R. North et al., we read "The greatest updraft speed that has been measured by an aircraft is an astounding 40 m/s", or 8000 ft/min. I recall other reports that such unusual Cb updrafts can exceed climb rates in still air. So it seems that discussions of stall from the large observed climb rate may be premature, as the pilot/aircraft may not have been responsible from this large climb rate, and the pilot would presumably point the nose down to compensate for an updraft, reducing the risk of stall. Furthermore, the speculation about a parallel with the loss of Air France Flight 447 also seems premature, as that loss was largely due to persistent co-pilot error (partly due to confusing information from the flight system), while the captain was resting. For these reasons, I would hesitate to cite this report from Reuters. Layzeeboi (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I dont think we need any speculation or theories in the article (or on this talk page) we are not in a hurry and we are not a news blog we can wait for something official even if it takes time. MilborneOne (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was not in a hurry either, merely explaining why I recommend deferring the citation of that Reuters report. In other words, I was recommending caution, not haste. Consideration of the subject matter, in this case technical, can help to distinguish useful sources from the rest. Layzeeboi (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Lost Contact at 0624 or 0724?

Times are in Western Indonesian Time (UTC+7) unless otherwise specified

The map says the plane lost contact with Indonesian ATC at 0624 WIB but according the Airasia Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/notes/airasia/updated-statement-qz8501/10152667884908742), the plane lost contact at 0724 Surabaya LT (that is, WIB). Please edit the map.Aforl (talk) 09:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

AirAsia.com says 0724 Surabaya LT either, but this piece of text is identical to the one in your Facebook link — Peterwhy 10:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is not supposed to be 0624 WIB, but 0724 WIB. But according to other sources, it is 0724 SGT. Need clarification here. Aforl (talk) 10:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Some conflicting sources:
  • "AirAsia said the plane lost contact with Jakarta air traffic control at 7:24 a.m, but Indonesia’s Transportation Ministry says it was earlier, at 6:17 a.m." Jakarta Globe
  • "This is an estimated position of #QZ8501 at 23:18 UTC when AirNav Indonesia say they lost radar contact" FlighTrader24, where our coordinates of last contact comes from
— Peterwhy 10:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Can't be an hour difference, AirAsia might have gotten their time wrongly... But we can't assume can we? Aforl (talk) 10:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I removed the 07:24 time as it is clearly not right as the information from the Indonesians is (Indonesian time):
  • 06:17 Radar contact lost. Radio contact lost. Only ADS-B signal remained.
  • 06:18 All contact lost.
  • 07:08 ATC declares "aircraft position uncertain"
  • 07:28 ATC declares "emergency alert"
  • 07:55 ATC declares "emergency distress"
I think it is misleading as presented so suggest we wait for clarification. MilborneOne (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Agree the times are currently conflicting, but the 07:24 lost contact time has been given in AirAsia Facebook for 12 hours with no sign of correction. So previously I agreed Aforl left it that way — Peterwhy 16:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
It sounds around the time that ATC declared it an emergency and told AirAsia, not really the same thing. I suspect that the Indonesian ATC is more relaible than a facebook page. I dont think waiting until is is clarified does any harm, anybody looking at the article with it in could be mislead that the aircraft was tracked for over an hour after losing contact. MilborneOne (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
the x:24 time has been given in multiple sources, including CNN,[6], we don't do analysis or event reconstruction on Wikipedia (see WP:NOR!) and only report what sources say. CNN falls under WP:RS. Restoring. kashmiri TALK 16:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I dont have a problem with your restoration Kashmiri it was the earlier 07:24/08:24 that was in the article that was misleading. MilborneOne (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
From the CNN source above, it is stated as well that "AirAsia says it lost contact with the aircraft at 7:24 local time" (that is, 7:24 WIB). Please restore the table of disappearance back to 7:24 WIB as we can only take it as it is. 6:24 WIB is NOT reported. Aforl (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
CNN article was published off Hong Kong office, so "local time" is HK time which is the same as Singapore time. Never copy information blindly. kashmiri TALK 18:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
While I understand the policy of no original research, it should be pointed out that the 7:24 time is nonsensical. The plane (WIB times) departed Surabaya at 5:35 (scheduled was 5:20) and was scheduled to land in Singapore at 7:30, so if it disappeared at 7:24 it would be very close to Singapore...even when considering it was 15 minutes behind schedule, that would still place it very close to Singapore! The Flightradar24 data ends at 23:12UTC (6:12 WIB) not far from where the plane reportedly made final contact. FR24 is limited in coverage, but isn't unreliable in this area...so in order for the 07:24 time to be correct, the plane would have had to fly in circles for an hour to be in the spot it was last sighted at 07:24!! It's clear the plane was about halfway through its journey, which also correlates to a loss at 6:24 (between a 5:35 departure & 7:30 arrival, WIB time). Again, there's definitely the NOR policy to consider, but this certainly seems like the misinformation that spread after MH370 disappeared. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the FR24 is correct and the reported time of loss is the time the airline was notified, also like the immediate aftermath of MH370. Hopefully this can be clarified soon. AHeneen (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I think this confusion played out in early reports, I'm fairly sure some said it was only minutes away from landing which was fairly weird since they were also saying it wanted to climb to 38k to avoid clouds. Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I saw that footnote A said that conflicting sources were giving 6:17 or 7:24. I clicked on both cited sources, and both show 7:24. Also, given the chart in "Timeline of Disappearance," I would guess that there really isn't an hour discrepancy but rather a 7 minute discrepancy - but it seems like that's being discussed in more detail above. My main suggestion is that footnote A be fixed with updated sources (if true). -KaJunl (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

BBC now saying "Flight QZ8501 lost contact with air traffic control at 06:24 local time (23:24 GMT Saturday)." (GMT=UTC). AHeneen (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
NYT is saying the discrepancy is between 6:17 and 6:24 (not 6:17 and 7:24). They mention Jakarta time, which would be UTC+7. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/29/world/asia/airasia-jet.html -KaJunl (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
The 7:24 WIB (Surabaya local time) from air asia facebook page is clearly wrong, no other sources support the information. They maybe get the time wrongly. @NnAs (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I suspect the first thing is someone simply got the timezone wrong, the AirAsia statement came from AirAsia not AirAsia Indonesia and so may have been prepared by someone in Malaysia, and the timezone in the destination was also UTC+8. So likely the time was UTC+8 and somehow the person writing incorrectly wrote Surabaya LT. This still doesn't explain the :24, perhaps this was initially reported to AirAsia (it may be the time when they decided it had definitely lost contact, or even the time AirAsia was informed that it loss contact) Nil Einne (talk) 06:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Timeline from Indonesian Transport Ministry

The Indonesian Transport Ministry (on Twitter) has tweeted a timeline of events in Indonesian. Using Google Translate, here's some of the events on the timeline:

  • (1 of 17) [loss of contact with Flight QZ8501]
  • (2 of 17) aircraft departed Surabaya at 5:36 to Singapore, aircraft flying at 32,000 feet (flight level 320)
  • (3 of 17) aircraft followed flight path M-635; aircraft contact ATC Jakarta 06:12("06.12 WIB"), height FL320, frequency 125.7 MHz
  • (4 of 17) at the time of contact, ATC Jakarta identified the aircraft on radar screen
  • (5 of 17) at the time of contact, the plane asked to avoid cloud to the left of M635 and requested to climb to 38,000 ft (FL380) (Note: Does that mean the pilots wanted to divert to the left or was the cloud they wanted to avoid to the left?)
  • (6 of 17) at 06:16, the plane was seen on radar screen
  • (7 of 17) at 06:17, "a plane just seemed to signal ADS-B, at this moment once lost contact with ATC" (Note: quote from Google Translate translation. Not sure what the first part of this message means.)
  • (8 of 17) at 06:18, the aircraft disappeared from radar, only track and flight plan visible
  • (9-10 of 17) [number of passengers & crew]
  • (11 of 17) ATC measures 1 of 3: declare INCERFA (early stage plane lost contact) at 07:08
  • (12 of 17) ATC measures 2 of 3: declare ALERFA (advance stage plane) at 07:28
  • (13 of 17) ATC measures 3 of 3: declare DETRESPA (statement of missing plane) at 07:55
  • (14 of 17) Note: "In INCERFA statements and so on, Basarnas been informed" (Note: quote from Google Translate translation. Barsarnas=National Search and Rescue Agency...Indonesia's national search & rescue agency)
  • (15 of 17) Activity: In tower, Soekarno Hatta Airport opened the crisis management centre according to SOP AirNav Indonesia
  • (16 of 17) Chairman of the crisis management centre: "Plt. Director General of Civil Aviation" (Note: quote from Google Translate translation. "Plt." appears in Indonesian...pilot?...an honorific?)
  • (17 of 17) [contact numbers]

It would be helpful if we can find someone who understands Indonesian that can provide a better translation and clarification of these tweets. This should settle the debate about the time of the incident being "06:XX WIB" and not "07:XX" WIB, although there have been conflicting statements about the exact times of the events. AHeneen (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Plt appears to mean acting, see id:Pelaksana Tugas or some searches for the term. Nil Einne (talk) 12:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I am Indonesian, I am happy to help you. For the number 5 of 17, its mean "The pilot want to divert to the left" (because the cloud is in front of the aircraft). For the number 7 of 17, The first part of this message means "a plane just seemed as an ADS-B signal in the radar". This is the clear statement from Indonesian authority that the aircraft lost contact in the 6.:17 WIB (UTC+7) or 7:17 SGT (UTC+8). @NnAs (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. AHeneen (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

168 or 162?

The article says "Fifteen aboard have been confirmed dead, with the remaining 153 presumed dead" but the summary says 162 are presumed dead. Which is correct? TreeRol (talk) 06:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The total number of people on the aircraft was definitely 162 as our article says in numerous places. It looks like someone added 15 confirmed dead without updating the number presumed dead, nor removing the source despite placing it next to the confirmed dead bit (the source doesn't say anything about any confirmed dead). I updated for consistency and to remove the source which didn't support the stated claimed. I had a quick look and I have to say I'm unconvinced with the number 15. From what I can tell, even the number of bodies recovered may not number this high, many sources say 7 or 8. Also I'm not sure what the standard for these things is but in a case like this where the bodies were recovered outside the aircraft I would presume the standard is to wait for formal identification before it's considered a confirmed death, as unlikely as it is that any body recovered doesn't belong to someone from the plane. And from what I can tell, the number of formal identifications is at most 2 or 3. Nil Einne (talk) 12:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

"normal cruising altitude and speed"

What exactly is "normal cruising altitude and speed"? NorthernThunder (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

What may be considered "normal" is determined by a quite complex trade-off between a number of factors: type and total weight of aircraft (due to both load and fuel required for the route), length of route and dependence of wind velocities on altitude along the route. In still air, cruising fuel economy is generally better at higher altitude, but on the other hand, an altitude with strong tail-winds could substantially reduce fuel costs, while investing fuel on the climb to a higher altitude pays off only if the remaining route isn't short. Your question seems quite relevant to this flight, because it was at a much lower altitude than other aircraft in the vicinity, and was apparently the only one to encounter serious weather problems. (Recently "leaked" radar data indicate astoundingly rapid altitude changes near the end, but let's wait for the investigation.) The official Load and Trim Sheet for this trip shows that the total aircraft weight at departure was 63624 kg (or 86.6% of maximum allowed), including 8296 kg of fuel, so half-way along the route, the total weight was roughly 60,000 kg. At this weight, the aircraft manufacturer Airbus specifies in the figure on page 38 of their manual getting to grips with fuel economy that the most economical cruising altitude for the A320 in still air is about 38000 ft, whereas QZ8501 was flying at only 32000 near the middle of this route (when the pilot requested permission for 38000 ft). So it's no surprise that other aircraft were much higher. Regarding "normal" speed, we need to distinguish air-speed from ground-speed, which can differ substantially if there are strong winds. The rather complicated figure on page 36 of that Airbus manual shows the tradeoff between fuel economy and duration of the trip in still air (also "time is money"). After writing this, I realize that such material might be used in a new section of the WP article Aircraft, so that we could wikilink to it at some point. Layzeeboi (talk) 17:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Flight level might be useful. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Websites of official sources

I realized that it could be useful to clean up, e.g., the Disappearance section to utilize higher-quality official sources where possible, as quite naturally it still cites preliminary media sources from the early stages, and even apparently unsourced phrases such as the above-mentioned "normal cruising altitude and speed". But then I also realized that a complication is that the principal official web sites appear to be available only in the Indonesian language, requiring most of us to resort to Google translate (which seems to do a useful job for this language). I failed to find WP guidance about choosing between a foreign-language official source and a secondary English media source. I suppose we could include both, while identifying the primary source in the text. Perhaps someone can comment. Anyway, for the record, here are websites for some primary sources that are apparently not cited at all yet in the article (although we do cite several media sources in the Indonesian language):

Indonesian Ministry of Transport: "Air Asia Lost Contact": Acting Director General of Civil Aviation, Djoko Murjatmodjo
Indonesian Ministry of Transport: "Air Asia Found" ("Found" doesn't appear to refer to the fuselage)
Indonesian National Search and Rescue Agency (Basarnas): Chief Bambang Soelistyo
Manager of Information & Documentation, Indonesian Police

MoT conveniently collects all QZ 8501 items on one page, but unfortunately, the others do not, and their search facilities are not the best (although Basarnas does have a convenient google-translate button in case you are not using the Chrome browser). Also, some Basarnas news items don't include anything in the titles that relates the topic to QZ 8501. If we hope that either "8501" or "AirAsia" appears somewhere in the text, it is convenient to google:

site:basarnas.go.id "qx8501"|"8501"|"airasia"|"air asia" or
site:humas.polri.go.id "qz8501"|"8501"|"airasia"|"air asia"

and then restrict the time period to the last week and search again. If you're using the Chrome browser, you can use the button at the top to immediately translate the page of result titles and snippets as well as for each result page. Layzeeboi (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Picture

How on earth do we know that this is the missing aircraft? --85.74.139.220 (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Because all the reliable sources are saying it is PK-AXC. MilborneOne (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, this is the most morbid coincidence I have ever encountered.--85.74.139.220 (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
You will have to explain as your statement doesnt make sense, the airline/authorities says which aircraft it was, somebody finds an image on commons and adds it, simples. MilborneOne (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
That image was uploaded in mid 2013, and the company says that it is the airline. I don't see any coincidence. Dustin (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
The morbid coincidence is that the airplane depicted on a flickr image uploaded to Commons in 2013 by a bot, would eventually go missing in 2014 and the image would be used in the article about its disappearance. In other words, it is like the plane had «booked» before disappearing.--85.74.139.220 (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Other articles about airline hull-loss accidents which include pre-loss photos of the specific aircraft: Air India Flight 182, American Airlines Flight 11, American Airlines Flight 77, American Airlines Flight 191, Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, Pan Am Flight 103, Turkish Airlines Flight 981, TWA Flight 800, United Airlines Flight 93, United Airlines Flight 175. And so on, and so on. To be called a coincidence, this would have to be somewhat rare. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 01:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
It would be stranger if there wasn't an image available on Commons, or easily findable under a compatible license. The folks who get those pictures often take hundreds in a single day; images are available for most aircraft of most major airlines. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
There are enthusiasts who are obsessed with taking photos of aircrafts. This is not rare at all. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 04:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I fail to understand why something cannot be coincidental unless it is also rare. Further, what is morbid about someone having taken a photo of the plane before it disappeared? Much Ado About Nothing in my book. EditorASC (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Diluting edits in the response section

Can someone explain why mention of Tony Fernandes' personal response was omitted here? Granted there are redundancies in the sentence, but it's not by all means "repeated statements". - 175.139.223.230 (talk) 08:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

And again! What kind of wiki editor brushes off additional information with the idea that the "previous statement was better"? The sentence is still vague and unspecific, like all the things in this wiki that aren't Western-centric. This wiki is a joke. - 175.139.223.230 (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

List of passengers

User Eastwind ceo added a list of passengers hosted on some filehosting site. I have removed it for now because it doesn't seem very verifiable. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

stuff.co.nz is Not a filehosting site, it Is a major News site of New Zealand! SCMNZ (talk) 06:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
And now, a passenger manifest has arrived on scene. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Highly unlikely that it would be a fake considering time lapse from the initial report to the upload. In short, looks legit to me. kashmiri TALK 06:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
BLP might apply here, so I would be leery until it is confirmed that wreckage was found (on Twitter, that seems to be a starting trend). Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to see a reliable source characterize that list before we'd use it, as a bare minimum. Bad enough that we misreported Sen. Giffords death, it's not clear to me, for example, that that list includes people who had tickets but missed their flight. Please see WP:BNS. --j⚛e deckertalk 06:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
My mistake. I thought Stuff.co.nz was a filehosting site. But as Ktr101 pointed out, I wouldn't add it here either until wreckage is found. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I didn't add it nor did I plan to. I was just correcting a factless assumption ;) SCMNZ (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The second part of my message wasn't directed at you. It was directed at Kashmiri. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

There are a couple of small discrepancies in the reports. Firstly, the report said that the 7 crew consisted of two pilots and five 'cabin crew'; in fact, one of the five is clearly a flight engineer. The second discrepancy concerns the nationality of passengers. The report says that all but six were Indonesians, three were from South Korea, with one each from France, Malaysia and Singapore. However the UK Foreign Office has said there was one Briton aboard, and has 'notified the next of kin'. Clearly a discepancy somewhere. Rif Winfield (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Not necessarily, as there may well be dual nationals on board. Jpatokal (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of dual nationalities on board (especially we have reports here in the Philippines that two of the passengers turned out to be Filipinos too, among others), isn't it necessary to post their "other" nationalities in the article? If it can be permitted, how we can present it? Can't post the external source yet here, but I'm sure it's on the GMA News website, I'm using Wikipedia Zero at a moment. Chitetskoy (talk) 03:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I rechecked the source, oops, the two "Filipinos" were actually Indonesians who married a Filipino who is currently working in Singapore. Not much encyclopedic unless the victim(s) are notable themselves. Chitetskoy (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Also remember if this turns out to be a fatal accident we dont list passengers in the article unless any are otherwise notable, normally an external link to the airline released list and a summary by country of origin is all that it is needed, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup

I'm removing these two events from the timeline of disappearance, because they occurred two days later and the second turned out to be false (both use the same ref, which is hidden at end of first listing):

  • Wreckage of the plane was seen near the location of last contact
  • The Indonesia National Search and Rescue Agency (BASARNAS) Air Force Hercules found an object described as a shadow at the bottom of the sea in the form of a plane

I've also removed the "passenger manifest" section, which only contained the image of the passenger manifest. Past precedence has been that the names of individual passengers/crew are only listed if noteworthy (eg. pilots or famous passengers). AHeneen (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Weather analysis in the crash vicinity by the Indonesian Central Office of Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics (BMKG)

This detailed analysis of the weather in the location and time vicinities of the crash by the Indonesian Central Office of Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics (BMKG), led by Prof. Edvin Aldrian, is unfortunately in the Indonesian language. Nevertheless, at least the figures and tables can be useful. For example, they reveal that the sea level atmospheric pressure at the nearest airport WIOO/PNK at the time of the crash was QNH = 1008 hPa, or only 5 hPa below the nominal sea-level pressure of 1013 hPa. This has the implication that the altitudes presently appearing at several places in the article that were derived by multiplying reported barometric Flight Levels by 100 exceed the true altitudes above sea level by only about 400 ft at 33,000 ft, as determined by the known dependence of atmospheric pressure on altitude. (I hope that someone checks my estimate.) I think this discrepancy is too small to affect any implications of the article content. Therefore, I propose that this small discrepancy (first noted by User:MilborneOne) be relegated to a footnote at most. Otherwise, it could introduce more confusion than is warranted.

The first few paragraphs of the BMKG report are available in HTML here for convenient browser translation—they mention previous weather-related incidents at cruise over the Java Sea, which we might cite. But the WP article describing the PK-GWA incident in 2002 that seems possibly relevant to 8501 seems to need work—it isn't completely consistent with the summary in this NTSB document, which could be a good source. Layzeeboi (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indonesia_AirAsia_Flight_8501/Archive_1&oldid=1085914911"