Talk:Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Recovered remains

Right now the main page is saying 15 "confirmed dead". I think we should switch to recovered remains until some sort of formal declaration is made of (unfortunately, probably) everyone being lost. I can't find any source for the '15' and it's flagged citation needed. The BBC, CNN (see sidebar), and others agree on 9 recovered. Without objections, I'll make the switch. Hemsath (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure we need a running total of bodies found or confirmed dead, just leave the fatalities at 162 (uncomfirmed) and mention in the lead that bodies are being recovered. This is an encyclopedia not a news feed or blog we can wait to see what happens and change the totals when the recovery phase has concluded. MilborneOne (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'll tidy it back up. Hemsath (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Well it's back now. Frankly although I voiced similar concerns above, I don't think this is worth worrying about. (Also things have changed a bit too, as some of the people were found in seats which would also clearly put them in the confirmed category even if unidentified.) It's not ideal, but I long since realised that this sort of thing is best left in some sort of structured chaos. You're probably not going to convince the plenty of well meaning editors to stop this sort of stuff even with an edit notice or hidden comment. As an example, not long ago I once again noted that the source we used said 22 even though we were saying 30 and tagged this. I had a quick check later and unsurprisingly what happened was someone had just changed the number, without changing the source (or making sure the source supported the number). Sadly this sort of stuff happens with these sort of newsy articles. I didn't look for sources this time (unlike last time with the 15 confirmed), it sounds like I may have been able to find them this time. At least in this case it's IMO ultimately unimportant. And looking at the history, it seems it was added [1] once again without the presumed being updated so we once again seemed to suggest there were more victims than there were. That sort of stuff should be tagged or fixed but it's not like some other cases we're were running numbers of people dead, rescued or missing which often turns out to be wildly inaccurate so I'd leave the confirmed even if it's very newsy and we're sometimes wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I suspect you are right and it is thanks to the editors watching this article that it has remained reasonably sane and stable through all the events. MilborneOne (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Also I recognise that since we are simply putting the presumed and confirmed in brackets next to the numbers and using the word presumed rather than unconfirmed, 162 is probably the better number. 162 i.e. all people on board are presumed dead of which 46 as of now are said to be confirmed. So my comment above was a little wrong on this point. Saying 116 presumed dead is not necessarily wrong if the numbers are interpreted as taken together but probably more confusing in a case like the infobox unless perhaps we include an & or similar. Since we effectively already give the total number of people on board as 162 (or 155+7) hopefully people will understand. Nil Einne (talk) 06:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Criticism section

Criticism sections go against the consensus that such criticisms be integrated into other parts of the text. Also, this criticism section is made of quotes and seems to be attempting to finger particular news organizations is the sole contributors of the criticisms. Wikipedia reports the consensus of opinion; Wikipedia is WP:NOT#NEWS and should not be a compilation of fragments of news. Abductive (reasoning) 17:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that, in an article about a crash, any so-called "criticism" should be integrated. (But I think such a separate section can be appropriate in other topics, e.g., a government or commercial organization.) Layzeeboi (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe this the following paragraph should be removed from the article as it's not relevant to AirAsia Flight QZ8501:

On 29 December 2014, The Daily Dot raised the issue of "the outdated technology we use to track aircraft".^ref1 The issue had been previously raised by the press following the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 earlier in 2014.^ref2

• ref1 - "Why we still don't have the technology to find missing airplanes". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 2 January 2015.
• ref2 - Stephen Trimble. "Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 makes it clear: we need to rethink black boxes". The Guardian. Retrieved 2 January 2015.

The cited The Daily Dot article is an opinion piece or editorial. We had real time tracking of QZ8501. We also had real time tracking of AF447. Both aircraft were located within a few days. MH370 has not been located as the tracking systems were disabled. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Should lack of Emergency Locator Transmitter message be in the article?

A piece of "find the aircraft" technology that has not worked on AF447, MH370 and now QZ8501 is that the Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELT) did not fire. This Google new search shows that the lack of an ELT transmission by QZ8501 has been noticed and reported on.^{[2][3][4][5] and more} Should we add anything to the article about this? --Marc Kupper|talk 06:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I dont think we need to add that per standard practice ELTs dont work under water, nothing unusual in that radio waves dont like water. MilborneOne (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The ELTs are supposed to activate if an aircraft crashes. Most passenger aircraft have several transmitters. Some are attached to the slides which also act as rafts for water landings, others are stored by the exit doors in holsters that allow them to pop out and float to the surface. Another is in the tail section and should activate if an aircraft impacts hard into the ground or mountain. On the 767 (MH370) there is one by the rear exit door with its antenna on the roof in the rear section and another that could be activated from the flight deck. If an aircraft lands hard on the water and breaks up, or breaks up in-flight, the theory was that at least one ELT would be ejected and would start transmitting.

The lack of an ELT transmission contributed to the delay in locating the crash site.

There has been WP:RS coverage that Indonesian searchers know the aircraft's ELT transmission code and that while ELT transmissions have been picked up from that region none of them were from PK-AXC.^[6]

Less WP:RS are [7] and [8] both of which are data aggregators from other sources reporting on "UPDATE on AirAsia Flight QZ8501 Search and Rescue on Monday, December 29, 2014" which includes "Officials said they no detection of any signal from the Airbus A320-200 airliner’s emergency locator transmitters." I can't find the original source (no WP:VER) for that update and so consider that one less of a WP:RS. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Flight Level versus altitude

There seems to be opinions that this article should express altitudes reported by aircraft, controllers etc as only flight levels, as the approximation made by multiplying FL by 100 to yield feet is imprecise. It has also been written that "WP uses flight levels". In fact, both recent reversions (which removed much more than the altitudes in feet) failed to change all occurrences of feet. Also, I have no difficulty finding WP articles about crashes that use approximate altitudes in feet, possibly accompanied by the corresponding flight levels. An example is the well known Air France Flight 447. And ironically, the NTSB Safety Recommendation cited above also uses the approximate altitudes in feet! My talk item above explains that the discrepancy in the case of 8501 is only about 400 ft, which in fact is less than the rounding error to 3 digits when the aircraft altimeter converts barometric pressure to flight level, and is of no consequence to the article. And surely a typical WP reader might find altitude in feet to be more familiar. So is there a formal WP policy to be found about this? Wouldn't it be preferable to be pragmatic? Thanks. Layzeeboi (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I think way too much is being made about this alleged issue. All the article has to say is that the plane was flying its assigned altitude of FL 320 and then use parenthesis to further explain for the sake of laymen understanding, if deemed necessary (32,000 feet -- and meters too, if that will make everyone happy), and leave it at that.

Since "Flight Level" is the standard nomenclature in ATC clearances and read backs by the pilots, it makes no sense to change it to "feet" if trying to report what ATC and the pilots actually said, anymore than knots should be changed to miles per hour, if reporting a speed restriction by ATC.

As to the alleged error of up to 400 actual feet, that shouldn't be mentioned at all as it will only create unnecessary confusion. Since all altimeters in all airliners are required to meet the same precise calibration standards, it doesn't matter if there exists some actual pressure error in any given mass of air, since ALL airliners in that same vicinity, will be flying by reference to that same "error." That is why all altimeters are set at 29.92 at FL 180 and above: to ensure all planes will be flying by the same standard, error or not. That ensures all will be properly separated. EditorASC (talk) 10:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree we should use flight level as that is what the aircraft and the pilots use, no reason not to include an approximate height with conversion to make it clearer for the reader. What we dont want is to say the pilot requested 38,000 feet because he didnt. MilborneOne (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that way too much was being made of it; that's why it went to the talk page, as another small baby was being thrown out with this bathwater. I also agree with giving Fl, followed by feet in parenthesis if needed to relate to other information that is given only in feet in its source.Layzeeboi (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:TECHNICAL we should be using feet with {{convert}} to show meters such as {{convert|38000|ft|abbr=on}} which displays as 38,000 ft (12,000 m). Also, news reports are nearly always in feet or meters. The only time they mention flight levels is if they are directly quoting someone from the aviation industry such as a transcript of conversations between aircraft and a control tower or Air traffic control and even then likely provide non-technical explanations. Pilot announcements to passengers are always report the altitude feet or meters. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

FL is technical jargon that does not belong in a popular encyclopedia, certainly when it is not quoted in mainstream sources. The tech-heads can add FL if that think it is so important, but only after using common English to describe the altitude. WWGB (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Flight level is not "technical jargon", it's the industry standard across the entire world of commercial aviation. And it certainly belongs in a popular encyclopedia. If we want to slavishly mirror the sources, we should understand that they are wrong and we are just amplifying their mistake. Aircraft all fly at the International Standard Atmosphere setting of 1013.25 for a very good reason. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

"slavishly mirror the sources" is exactly what Wikipedia does. We are neither a technical repository nor an industry standard. WWGB (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

And the sources, drawn from popular press and media, are not always encyclopedic, are they? I think there is fair justification for using the correct and most appropriate technical terms when discussing a technical matter. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, Flight level is "technical jargon", since it is not understood by many outside the aviation industry. However, "technical jargon" is neither banned on Wikipedia nor is it necessarily a derogatory term. According to WP:TECHNICAL#Avoid overly technical language (bold is in original...not added):

• Use jargon and acronyms judiciously. Explain technical terms and expand acronyms when they are first used. In addition, you might consider using them sparingly thereafter, or not at all. Especially if there are many new terms being introduced all at once, substituting a more familiar English word might help reduce confusion (as long as accuracy is not sacrificed).
• Don't use a technical term where a common term will do. If no precision is lost, substitute common terms for technical terms .
• Use technical terms only where needed. Don't substitute technical terms for common terms with no increase in precision.

Given that, I think that Flight level is needed for precision. The aircraft was reporting it's position based on instruments that measure pressure and thus give the pilots and ATC the aircraft's altitude based on pressure altitude, which is exactly what a flight level is. Regarding mirroring the sources: it's However, Wikipedia does need to be accessible, so the concept should be explained so that people without much knowledge of aviation can understand. A good example of this can be found at Malaysia Airlines Flight 370#Departure, where there is both a lengthy note and a short explanation. The reason for using both is that the note is easily overlooked by most readers (it looks like a ref) and when printed or used in other mediums, the note as well as the wikilink to "flight level" can easily be lost (ie. at end of printout or lost when used in an app).

"Less than a minute after take off, Flight 370 was cleared by air traffic control (ATC) to climb to flight level 180—an altitude which corresponds to 18,000 feet (5,500 m) based on atmospheric pressure—on a direct path to..."

I understand where @WWGB: is coming from when saying we must "slavishly mirror the sources": no inference can be made from references, WP can only contain a statement if the reference explicitly says so. However, it's important to consider that media will often report inconsistent or conflicting statement and make inferences that are close enough to the truth for their audience, but not completely accurate. In this case, saying "32,000 feet" is ok for the media, but we can also reference the primary sources (government officials) that say the plane was flying at FL320. The following are excerpts from tweets by the Indonesian Transport Ministry (full translated tweets in this archived discussion):

• "Pesawat terbang dengan ketinggian 32.000 kaki (Flight Level 320)" ([9], Google Translate: "aircraft flying at 32,000 feet (flight level 320)")
• "ketinggian FL.320" ([10], Google Translate: "height FL320")

Per WP:WPNOTRS: "specific facts may be taken from primary sources". So I think we are safe using "flight level", given the appropriate reference. It's also important to express values as they were measured. While I don't know of any case where this is relevant in this article, but in the MH370 article the final position was determined by primary radar and the altitude expressed in feet because actual altitude (not pressure altitude ) is what primary radar measures and so after using FL for measures, it was necessary to revert to using feet for that measure. AHeneen (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are talking about Military Primary Radar, that would be correct. It can determine the altitude of an unidentified aircraft via complex math calculations, using the info provided by multiple located radar stations. But, Civilian (ATC) primary radar, doesn't have the capability to display altitude all by itself. The ATC system relies upon secondary radar, which interrogates aircraft transponders, to acquire identity and altitude. That is why ATC loses altitude and other information about a radar target, when the transponder in the aircraft is turned off. EditorASC (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Underwater locator beacon

Why has the Underwater locator beacon not been detected? Biscuittin (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Only one vessel just started looking: "Indonesia has also deployed a pinger locator to look for the plane's underwater locator beacon, which should help locate the plane's "black box" flight recorder. Singapore has said it it sending another two underwater beacon detectors." [11]. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

As I said of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, the current system for locating missing aircraft is seriously inadequate. We have a good idea where Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 went down but the Underwater locator beacon has still not been detected. Biscuittin (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

A fascinating debate, I'm sure, but here it's WP:FORUM, alas Martinevans123 (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I have added a section with references. Biscuittin (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems relevant. But not sure if it is "Criticism". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

What heading would you suggest? Biscuittin (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it may just be part of "Reaction." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure the criticism section is worth including the technology did track the aircraft within a few miles of the where bodies have been found and comments about the underwater locator beacon are a bit iffy because according to the reports they have not got a ship in place yet to listen for the beacon. The main hinderance has been the weather and hours of darkness, perhaps the criticism should be aircraft dont fly except in perfect sunshine with no weather in case they crash. MilborneOne (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Evenso, the topic now seems to be firmly back on the agenda: [12], [13], [14], etc etc. Live data streaming is widely seen as the necessary next step. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I know this is not a forum but it would not have helped find the aircraft anymore than the radar plots that have already been used, and the reality is these things dont work without power or under the water so would not have really helped. More to do with the press keeping the story going in the information gap until the data recorders are found. MilborneOne (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Knowing the cause of the crash sooner might not only allow for better location but might also alert airlines to possible faults on other aircraft. I don't think these pieces are necessarily provided just to "keep the story going". That's just my opinion. Also, in this case, "The water is less than 100 feet deep in the area where the objects were found, officials said." So we shouldn't have to wait as long as we did for Air France Flight 447. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with MilborneOne. Live data streaming would have helped to pinpoint the crash site because the time the transmission stopped would be the time of the crash. Biscuittin (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

About the same time that the ADS-B signals (which is live data) stopped then so no gain. MilborneOne (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Was the plane fitted with ADS-B? Biscuittin (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is mentioned in our article. Anyway AFAIK pretty much all modern aircraft have ADS-B [15] (at least ADS-B out), it's only the older ones which may not have. Of course the aircraft having it is no use if there's no one to pick up the signal (which I think wasn't a problem here but may be if it were far over some ocean or land areas which still lack ground coverage*) or it's turned off or otherwise stops for some reason (MH370). * Well I believe an additional more minor problem is the lower your altitude the poorer your coverage due to LOS issues so there will generally be some loss before time of crash. But as has been said, in this case we were talking about 10km or so in this case and I'm not sure how likely you are to get closer to time of crash in cases like this were you do have decent ground coverage and aren't in extremely mountain terrain [16]. Nil Einne (talk) 07:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

P.S. came across this [17] which is interesting because it's not saying that much different except it fails to mention the issue of someone turning off the transponder. Nil Einne (talk) 07:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm just surprised that, with all the technology we have in the 21st century, there is no means of knowing exactly where every aircraft is at every moment. Biscuittin (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Its a question of additional cost and weight on the aircraft - to be borne by the operator. MH saved a few bucks each flight by opting out of ACARS. 68.144.194.164 (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Survivors

Some sources, e.g. Reuters say that there actually were no survivors; don't you think we should delete the word 'presumed' before the number of fatalities and survivors, which is usually the case in other articles on aviation accidents? Philodemos (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Reuters, in this article, does not cite an official source for the claim. It seems that they are simply presuming that there are no survivors. Given the time that has elapsed, this presumption seems reasonable. There have, however, been reports that an emergency exit and evacuation slide were found , indicating a possible attempt at evacuation. Other reports are speculating that the plane may have made a relatively controlled ditching into the ocean. I think the loss of all lives on board should still be labelled as 'presumed' until either the majority of the wreck and bodies have been found and/or an official declaration of all-lives-lost is made. ScubaSharky (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

These sources also say "no survivors": IB Times, BBC, CBS News, Metro, Independent, although, admittedly, some say "no survivors have been found" rather than "there were no survivors". I'm guessing you want a more "official" categorical statement from the Indonesian government. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Once the aircraft is found (assuming that it will be), it may become apparent that no one could have possibly survived the impact and thus the presumption that all passengers are dead will be confirmed, even if some bodies are never recovered. Until that time, the unrecovered passengers are still 'missing' given that the nature of the plane's demise is not yet known. Look at the entry on MH370. It still lists the passengers of that flight as 'missing' despite the overwhelming likelihood that they are all deceased and somewhere at the bottom of the Indian Ocean. I think all the cited news sources are acting under a presumption that all passengers are deceased, but stating it as fact. ScubaSharky (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

370 may be floating above the Earth protected by an invisible shield. 8501 is at the bottom of the sea with bodies appearing regularly. No comparison. WWGB (talk) 08:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, kind of agree that if there is no body, a person is still officially considered "missing". Circumstantial evidence suggests, however, that both here and for MH370, no-one can have survived. I seem to remember that in one of the earlier discussions on this topic (MH370?) the action of the insurance companies was suggested as a possible yardstick, as people have to be classed a s "legally dead" before any compensation or life-assurance payout can occur. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Engineer?

"The crew consisted of: two pilots, an engineer and four flight attendants"; I'd be pretty surprised if the Airbus 320 had a flight engineer. --John (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. The "engineer" was an aircraft maintenance technician and certainly not a flight engineer. "Engineer" being used as a British/Commonwealth English term for what is known in the US as a technician...an aircraft maintenance engineer is "a licensed person who carries out and certifies aircraft maintenance"—the title AME is used in many countries, including Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, India, and New Zealand (ie. countries using British/Commonwealth English) and similar to an aircraft maintenance technician. It's unclear why he was mentioned as part of the crew (ie. whether he was working while on board). It's possible and very likely that the engineer was a non-revenue passenger and not actually working while on board (and hence part of the "crew"). Maybe he was based in one city and had to travel to another to perform work and was just in-transit. In that case, he's probably listed as part of the crew since he was an AirAsia employee and not a revenue passenger. AHeneen (talk) 07:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have adjusted the article to more closely reflect the source. It was misleading to imply there was a flight engineer on this fairly modern plane. --John (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It probably needs to be clear in that section that the engineer isn't included in the passenger count. That's why I mentioned 'as part of the crew' originally. 'A company engineer was on board' is ambiguous as to whether they were included in the passenger count. Suntzu3500 (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I fixed that in the article though while doing it seemed the wording seems redundant but now like it as it also helps the engineer stand out as not a member of the aircrew but also not a passenger. I wish AirAsia had said if the person was deadheading or working. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

BASARNAS -> Basarnas

Rationale for this change:

• On the home page of the Basarnas website "Basarnas" is always used when it appears in mixed-case text.
• Wikipedia's article, National Search and Rescue Agency, says "Basarnas" in its first sentence.
• A majority of sources appear to use "Basarnas" (although this is impossible to quantify since search engines ignore case). ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 12:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

straitstimes.com

It appears that straitstimes.com updates articles over long periods of time meaning an article may have material needed for older citations. For example, we are citing http://www.straitstimes.com/news/asia/south-east-asia/story/airasia-flight-qz8501-debris-and-bodies-are-found-search-bad-weather for date=31 December 2014. I added some new material today in a different part of the Wikipedia article and discovered that the same URL is now a news article dated Jan 10, 2015 4:50 PM. I can't think of an easy fix other than not using straitstimes.com. --Marc Kupper|talk 17:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to locate the archived versions of older straitstimes.com stories? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, go to archive.org, paste the URL into the box, and click BROWSE HISTORY. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 17:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The same issue exists with http://www.financialexpress.com/article/industry/four-large-parts-of-airasia-flight-qz8501-found-say-rescuers-indonesia-may-ban-tony-fernandes-airline/25720/ which is used in a citation when the article was dated 2 January and 5 January.

• 2 January 2015 - Four large sections of AirAsia Flight QZ8501 found
• 5 January 2015 - Five large sections of AirAsia Flight QZ8501 found, say rescue teams; Indonesia set to ban Tony Fernandes’ airline

This is getting painful. I was trying to merge citations that use the same URL. --Marc Kupper|talk 17:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for a web news page to change over time, sometimes a lot, and the reader has to bear that possibility in mind when going after a source. The solution is to archive immediately upon use and specify accessdate and archiveurl. Anyone who wants to see the page as it existed when used as the source can access the archive version. Granted that doesn't help much in this case, unless past revisions were archived. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 17:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The above (second) URL was archived on 3 Jan and 7 Jan. That may be sufficient, but different archiveurl's would require separate refs. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 17:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The above (first) URL was archived 12 times between 31 Dec and 10 Jan. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 17:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Controversy

I thought that there was some controversy because the plane was not "officially permitted" to fly that day? Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Last para of "Response and reaction" section? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Now, I see it. It's certainly pretty well buried at the bottom of the article. Isn't that a pretty significant fact that should be highlighted much earlier? Perhaps even in the lead? "A plane crashes. That plane was not even authorized to be in flight on the day of the crash." Seems like that is leading information. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Unlikely to be related to the cause of the accident hence it is not in the lead. MilborneOne (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. But, obviously, the lead is not limited to "causes" only. The plane crashed; it should not have been flying in the first place on the day of the crash. That's not leading? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

MilborneOne is right and that the placement is fine. The article shouldn't be given undue weight on this issue (unless it was shot down because it wasn't permitted to fly, which it isn't) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The placement – namely, buried at the bottom of the article – is fine? OK. I'll disagree with that. Maybe there is a reason this plane was not supposed to be flying? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Article and the talk page are not forums. We're not here to speculate the cause. Leave this task to the experts. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 09:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

What does my above comment have to do with a "forum"? It is all over the news (i.e., reliable sources) that the plane was not authorized to fly that day (i.e., the very day that it crashed). So, perhaps there is some reason (rather: well, of course there is some reason) that the plane should not have been flying on that particular day. You do not think that this topic is applicable and relevant to this article? Again, what does my above comment have to do with a "forum"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The only reason whatsoever that the plane was not supposed to fly on that particular day was either that somebody forgot to submit a form or somebody else forgot to read a form. Nothing else. It has literally not connection to the incident and it is really irrelevant regardless of how much the media wants to make out of it. At best it deserves a footnote but only after the circumstances have been cleared up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.139.192.22 (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, my English is not good enough to make the corrections in the article myself but there needs to be some clarification: Indonesia AirAsia has in fact a permission to fly this route every day of the week, however they had initially submitted a request to fly only on 4 days a week during the winter to the authorities. This request was acknowledged. Ultimately Indonesia AirAsia change it's mind and decided to continue flying the sunday flight. A request to this regard was made - again - to the authorities but this time was not acknowledged by them. If the request just got lost or if the authorities were just working slow is not known. Singapore authorities and Changi Airport jointly stated that AirAsia DID in fact have their authorisation for the sunday flight. So, no cigar for conspiracy buffs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.139.192.22 (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Got a light? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I will try to find more proper sources but at least here is one for the statement from Singapore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.139.192.22 (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

RE:

"Article and the talk page are not forums. We're not here to speculate the cause. Leave this task to the experts. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 09:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)"

While I agree with the others -- that the fact the plane was not technically approved to fly that day -- shouldn't be in the lead section (opposing the view of Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC) ), it is not a valid response to slap him down with the "this is not a forum" argument.

Whether or not a specific RS fact should be placed in the article, and if so, where -- is a legitimate issue to be discussed on a Talk Pages. We should not discourage raising questions like that; it is preferable to editors possibly starting an edit war by inserting it their way, without discussing the issue on the Talk Page first. EditorASC (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree. It is a valid issue/question to be discussed on this Talk Page. It is about editing/improving the article. It has nothing to do with a "forum". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

As this article is about the loss of an aircraft and is not a regularly scheduled passenger flight it seems appropriate that details regarding approvals for the flight schedule would be in the body of the article and not in the lead. 175.139.192.22 found this news article. I found that article to be confusing as it's dated January 3, 2015 but it's unclear if the approvals mentioned were from the middle of the year 2014 or recent approvals. It implies, but does not say, that the approvals were given last year. It also appears approval was given on the Singapore side but the article does not say if the Indonesian side had approved the flight. Overall, it seems like a non-issue unless it turns out lack of approval was directly relevant to the loss of the aircraft. I am not surprised that issues such the details of the approval for a flight, or how and when the airline gets weather maps, is being scrutinized. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you to whoever cleaned up my footnote mess. I couldn't figure it out. As for the article itself, if I may clarify: The Singaporean Transportation board as well as Changi airport jointly stated that this particular flight - QZ8501 - has a submitted and approved flight schedule for the day of the accident for their side of the flight (schedules need to be approved on both sides of the flight). I agree with comments above that while this issue (probably) deserves a side-note, in regard to the accident it is a non-issue. There is enough speculation about the actual cause of the accident. 175.139.192.22 (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

If consensus is to include the material within the article – yet not in the lead – that is fine by me. But, I do disagree with that. Furthermore, I want to make a comment/correction to an above post. This article is about "Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501". It is not about the "Crash of Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501". Those are two very different things. This article is about the flight itself. Is it relevant that it crashed? Yes, obviously. But, it is also relevant that the flight was unapproved/unauthorized. I think that several editors are treating this article as if it is an article about the crash (specifically), when it is really about the flight itself. If it is the former, then the article should be renamed to "the Crash of ...". Otherwise, it's an article about the flight. Its crash is one notable component of the flight, for sure. But there are other notable components of the flight, as well (for example, the fact that it was an unauthorized flight). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Joseph A. Spadaro, I do not believe any editors believe that the article is about the crash only. However, the reason AirAsia QZ8501 became a notable subject with a Wikipedia article is because an aircraft flying under that particular flight number crashed. Had it not crashed there would not be an article. The fact that the Indonesian government discovered after the fact that they had not approved Sunday's edition of the flight on their side is one of those interesting details that should be in the article. As that detail does not seem directly related to the loss of the aircraft the consensus was that it did not need to be included in the lead. My earlier comment about that the article is not about the flight was that this article is not like Singapore Airlines Flight 21 which is an article about a flight (there is no crash, loss of an aircraft, or anything of interest other than people were willing to pay to sit for 18 hours). --Marc Kupper|talk 09:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, Joseph, but I suspect such rules are broken every day and simply make no difference to anyone, not least the fare-paying public. In general I'd say most commercial aircraft and most flights are completely non-notable. Flights and aircraft only really become notable when something tragic like this happens. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I tend to agree. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

References

For whatever it might be worth, Reuters included these statements today in its article about the retrieval of the FDR:

"Indonesia AirAsia, 49 percent owned by the Malaysia-based AirAsia budget group, has come under pressure from authorities in Jakarta since the crash.

The transport ministry has suspended the carrier's Surabaya-Singapore licence for flying on a Sunday, for which it did not have permission. However, the ministry has said this had no bearing on the crash.

President Joko Widodo said the disaster exposed widespread problems in the management of air travel in Indonesia."

[18] EditorASC (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Detail to be added?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/12/indonesia-airplane-idUSL3N0UR1BV20150112 has a section on "ALTITUDE DATA INTERRUPTED" which says that the transponder transmitted altitude up to 38,000 feet (12,000 m) and then from 38,000 feet down to 22-24,000 feet. It is not known why altitude data was no longer available. They appear to have other data during the decent to the water with the last data received being the speed of descent.

Are we including information from anonymous sources reported in a WP:RS publication in this article? --Marc Kupper|talk 08:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with it if attributed to sources close to the investigation, but I think inclusion would be premature. I'd give it a day or two to see how the rest of RS feels about it. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Location

I've changed the location of the plane in the infobox to that of the flight recorders (blackboxes). The fuselage has been found 3000 metres away, but I can't find coordinates for it. According to the Aviation Herald:

"On Jan 11th 2015 Indonesia's Ministry of Transport announced, that one of the black boxes of flight QZ-8501 has been located at position S3.6225 E109.7144 at about 30-32 meters below the sea surface...The CVR was found about 20 meters from the location, where the FDR had been recovered from...On Jan 14th 2015 Indonesia's SAR announced that a large portion of the aircraft, sized 30 by 10 by 3 meters with a wing still attached [was found]...located about 3000 meters from the tail section of the aircraft and about 800 meters from the CVR."

The coordinates are for the FDR (the CVR is so close that I've just used the term "Blackboxes" for the coordinates), but there's no relation given between the FDR/CVR and the tail, so theoretically (in a straight line) there can be 3800 metres between the CVR, tail, and fuselage. So I've put "Blackboxes found at [coordinates], fuselage and tail located within 4 km (2.5 mi)" in the infobox. Since the location isn't quite "between" Belitung and Borneo, the wording of the location has been changed to "Karimata Strait, Java Sea (near Belitung and Borneo Islands, Indonesia)".

If anyone can find the coordinates of the fuselage please update the article and mention them here. I would like to update the map in the next couple of days, ideally with an inset showing the relation of the fuselage, tail, blackboxes, and other debris. If anyone finds such a graphic on any website, please provide a link here. Thanks!! AHeneen (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion on the coords, for what it's worth. First, imagine a circle that would likely enclose all/most of the wreckage on the sea floor. Estimate the location of the center of the circle, and use that as the coordinates. Make a guess as to the diameter of the circle and use that to establish the precision of the coordinates, using the colored table at WP:OPCOORD (scroll down). I think the best precision is likely to be three decimal positions, as four gives a circle no larger than about 750 m (half a mile). With so little known at this early stage of the investigation, I don't think we can expect a lot of accuracy as to the center point, I could sleep well with a potential error of ten miles. The center point could probably be adjusted later, as findings of the investigation are released.

Using this method, the coordinates would be without a citation, which might set off original research alarm bells. But the same methodology was applied successfully in 2014 Isla Vista killings, where the coordinates are the approximate center of an 850-meter circle enclosing the multiple crime scenes, estimated simply by eyeballing the points on a map. This has stood for some seven months and passed muster with multiple experienced editors. The same applies to the main coords in Virginia Tech shooting. We would include a hidden comment, explaining what the coords represent, to help prevent future "corrections". ―Mandruss ☎ 05:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Further, any such original research claims would be misguided according to Wikipedia:Obtaining geographic coordinates#Google tools. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I propose the following changes to get this started:

• Use the existing coords and round them to three decimal positions, giving 3.623°S 109.714°E / -3.623; 109.714.
• Remove mention of specific pieces from the infobox, and those citations.
• Add the hidden comment.
• Place all details about the locations of specific pieces in the body, including inline coords where available, with citations.

Then it's just a matter of tweaking the infobox coords as per new information. Your new inset could be a circle, with its diameter and center as described above. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we should stick with using the cited coordinates for the blackboxes until coordinates of the other wreckage is known, per WP:OR. I don't think trimming one decimal off the coordinates is a very good way of determining coordinates for the wreckage. In this case, the fuselage is most likely the best coordinates to use for the aircraft's location. I'll hopefully update the map within the next 24 hours. AHeneen (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought I made a pretty strong case that it is not OR - citing both precedent and Wikipedia guidance - but you seem to have completely ignored it. As described at WP:OPCOORD, the coordinates precision reflects the size of the "object", in this case the wreckage site - the entire debris field, not simply one piece of debris, not simply the boxes. I still think my proposal would be an improvement, but I'm not going to battle you over it. Perhaps others would like to weigh in. (Personally, I prefer a more collaborative editing environment, as opposed to "here's what I'm going to do and why, have a nice day"). ―Mandruss ☎ 21:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I agreed with @Mandruss:'s proposed solution. However, @AHeneen:'s point is a good one. I think the article's title coordinate should use the Mandruss approach and individual bits and pieces should be labeled with high precision individual coordinates, perhaps in a table as they accumulate. —EncMstr (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

With EncMstr's support and absent a response from AHeneen or other objection, it seems reasonable to move ahead with my proposal. I reiterate that the initial center point is just that and will be adjusted later as more information comes out. I agree wholeheartedly with AHeneen that the fuselage would be better for the initial center point; regrettably, we don't yet have coordinates for the fuselage. As far as I can see, we currently have two sets of wreckage coordinates:

• for the FDR at 3.6225°S 109.7117°E / -3.6225; 109.7117 (from AHeneen's 17 Jan Indonesian language source, converted to decimal)
• for some unidentified 18m object mapped by sonar at 3.9242°S 110.5252°E / -3.9242; 110.5252

I had about decided to set the initial center point as the midpoint between those two locations, until I discovered that the second is 60 miles southeast of the first. It seems unlikely that the second object floated for 60 miles before sinking, so it seems suspect. We need to try to find out whether it was ever confirmed to be part of this plane (if it was, our debris field is much larger than we thought). In the meantime I'm going to use the FDR coordinates as the initial center point. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the wreckage coordinates in the body text were all we had at this point. Looking more closely at AHeneen's map, it appears I was mistaken. Of particular interest, the map shows "Debris & bodies recovered 30 December" at a location about six miles from the unidentified object I mentioned above. That makes it look a lot less suspect, and the debris field could actually be 60+ miles wide. I'm less happy with using the center of the debris field as the title coordinates if it includes objects that have floated for 60 miles; that would be worthless as an estimate of where the plane went into the water. Now I'm inclined to abandon that plan and go with the location of the main fuselage body, when we have it. AHeneen was right, although I still think the infobox should not include mention of individual pieces. Comments please. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to respond to your previous comment. What I was going to say was basically that, at this point, trying to determine the coordinates for the plane using your method is a moot point, because there simply isn't enough information (coordinates) available right now. There have also been conflicting reports about what has been found and where. At this point, the quote in the first comment is the best information that I have come across (and possibly the best information available on the internet). The fuselage is really the main part of the aircraft and would sink to the bottom very close to where the crash occurred (especially since the water is so shallow), while the tail likely broke off on impact and took longer to sink (but since the water was so shallow, it was relatively close...the tail of Air France Flight 447 was still floating on the surface several days after the crash). Lighter debris and many bodies floated on the ocean surface for several days before they were found. When you discussed your circle method, I thought you were referring to the debris on the seafloor, not the debris that was found floating days later. I don't think it is a bad method, per se, but can really only be used when a map of the full extent of debris is released along with their coordinates (or at least a reference point so the coordinates can be calculated). Maybe that will be possible several months from now, but for the time being the location of the fuselage (or its largest piece) is really the best point to use for the location of this flight. As far as the infobox goes, it may be worth clarifying what the coordinates represent, especially since it is for a blackbox and not the fuselage...would a footnote after the coordinates be a good solution? AHeneen (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• @AHeneen: I was referring to debris on the seafloor. And the unidentified object 60 miles from the FDR is on the seafloor (mapped by sonar = on the seafloor). Obviously it had to float 60 miles to get there. The floating objects on your map simply lent credibility to that object, being only six miles away.
• Re the quote in the first comment, I thought you liked the "official" Indonesian language source better, since you adjusted the coords to that location on the 17th, two days after the first comment. Those are the coords we're using now.
• I'm now convinced that the fuselage main body is the best indicator of the crash location, and I feel it should be used for the title coordinates when we get it. Are you going to argue my former position now? I hope not. :)
• Since the fuselage is unlikely to be more than 375 m from the point of the crash, we can return to four decimal positions on the title coordinates when we get that location. Or, if that's likely to be 37 m or less (I haven't a clue), we could even go to five decimal positions. In other words, now we would be describing the smallest circle that is likely to include the point of entry into the water.
• A footnote might work. I added one.
• We need to get all known wreckage coordinates into the article body, as discussed above. A table? ―Mandruss ☎ 10:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)