Talk:Jeju Air Flight 2216

Veered off?

The way I see it, the plane did not, in fact, veer off the runway. It continued straight on it, overshot past it, then crashed into the localizer antenna that for some reason was built as a concrete barrier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:AA97:3700:59CA:FFD3:B531:DED5 (talk) 10:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I've changed the word to "overshot". Hope that works. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 10:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Use of "overshot" makes it seem the plane didn't land on the runway, or significantly missed the start of runway. It makes it sound like human eerror. Is this intentional? 136.33.230.241 (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

"Overran the runway" would be a more appropriate term for it, with "exceeded the runway" another alternative. These are more neutral terms, that do not imply additional action taken (like the pilot actively trying to slow down the brake, which we don't know for sure if he did or not, at least not yet), it strictly refers to the plane itself sliding off at the end of the runway. Bersleid (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I've now changed it to "overran". Hope this works. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 22:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I double check the crash video and compare it on google earth and street view and confirmed that the plane have been crash into the embankment where the ILS system installed - about 140m from the end on the runway. Jackng143 (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

27th December diversion

The following statement is published in the articles opening. There is no indication how relevant this is to the article. The source also states the reason for the diversion is unknown. I don't believe this should be included. It alludes to be related to the accident, but at this stage this isn't proven.

The aircraft involved, HL8088, had been involved in an emergency landing on the 27th of December, two days prior to Flight 2216. It had been diverted from Beijing-Daxing to Seoul-Incheon. JetBlast (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I put it there temporarily with the intent that it be integrated into a section for background. It now has been, thank you for bringing this up. Darer101 (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure it should be in the article at all. At the moment there is nothing to link this diversion to the accident. JetBlast (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

That's true but it is of notability for the aircraft history. Darer101 (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I am sure the aircraft has diverted many more times for the years. We wouldn't list all those would we? Listing this event here is purely scaremongering. JetBlast (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Writing this here is pure self-aggrandizing pedantry. Lmfaowikitalkers0 (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

According to the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/29/world/asia/what-to-know-south-korea-plane-crash.html), the diversion was for medical, not technical, reasons. @JetBlast is right on the money to question its inclusion here (although I can't find it in the article... already appears to have been removed?) Zedembee (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Image

If someone has a high-quality image of HL8088 with good copyright, please contribute! Darer101 (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I've contacted multiple people on Flickr to see whether they're willing to change their licensing to a Commons compatible one. In the meantime, the aircraft's other identity, Ryanair's EI-EFR, has plenty of images for use for now. S5A-0043🚎^{(Leave a message here)} 03:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Just sent an email to a photographer that has a photo on jetphotos.com. Waiting for response. the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Appropriate to use Engine Surge?

There is a video Source showing a supposed Engine Surge while the plane was mid flight. Yosh56 (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Yosh56 Please see WP:TWITTER, we can't use Twitter as a source. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 02:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I can't find the source, I saw it from a twitter video. However it was from the news article covering the crash

Here is the news channel covering the accident

https://imnews.imbc.com/m_main.html Yosh56 (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Yosh56 I might sound rude here so I do apologise in advance for my bluntness, upon a quick inspection I can't find the image you're talking about, and I can't read Korean(?) so I can't personally verify that it says anything about an engine surge on the page. Do you have any other sources stating that an engine surge was seen? CommissarDoggo^Talk? 02:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

You're good, I am actually studying for my PPL. From the twitter video I linked you can see the engine is spewing fire, that usually indicates that it was an engine surge. This surge may be because of the bird strike. I was thinking it would be valuable to put on the Wikipedia Article. Yosh56 (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Or it may be a compressor stall Yosh56 (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Yosh56 Unfortunately, calling it an engine surge or a compressor stall would be classed as original research at this juncture. Wikipedia is in the business of summarising what sources say about a subject. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 02:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I will try to translate the news article, and find where it mentions engine surge/compressor stall. Yosh56 (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually, real quick lemme ping you a welcome message on your talk page, I see you got one back in 2019 but it's always useful to get new info. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 02:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Shall we put in a section of reported engine trouble? I have an avherald source that has some interesting info. "A ground observer reported that the aircraft flew through a flock of birds, two or three pop-sounds were heard as if the birds were ingested into engines, flames were seen from the right hand engine. The aircraft climbed a little but seemed to be unable to climb further and landed opposite direction. When the aircraft overflew the observer, it had the landing gear down."

https://avherald.com/h?article=52225189&opt=0 Liger404 (talk) 09:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Foreign object ingestion does not cause surges or stalls but rather catastrophic compressor failure. Both rotors and stators would sustain damage and at the high RPMs they usually operate would be torn apart in milliseconds. The resulting debris could damage the combustion chambers, possibly shafts, possibly turbine. Modern turbofan engines have measures in place to automatically cut off high pressure fuel delivery in such situation in order to prevent an engine fire. Strongthink (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

A bird strike or engine surge would not prevent the landing gear from being extended. First of all, it is highly unlikely for both engines to surge or stall at the same time, and second there are multiple redundant methods of extending the landing gear in a CS25 certified aircraft that has experienced a complete failure of all hydraulics, including but not limited to extension via residual pressure in the accumulator, discharging pressurized gas canisters in the hydraulic actuators via main lines through shuttle valves or alternate lines, or simply via free-fall (gravity). Each and every of these contingencies would take seconds to execute and a flight crew would never attempt a landing on any surface but water without extending the landing gear. At this point crew incapacitation might also be considered, along with unlawful interference. Analysis of the FDR and CVR should bring clarity as to what caused this accident. Strongthink (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Notification of restored source

Hi @CommissarDoggo, just letting you know I've restored the tweet by FlightRadar24 per WP:RS/SPS since I believe they're a subject matter expert. Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Staraction Yup, thanks for the courtesy ping. Didn't take much of a look at the source itself, just saw Twitter and saw red haha. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 03:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@ItzChickenYall - same thing here; I'll WP:BOLDly restore this time; will not if it gets reverted again per WP:3RR. Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I've been reverted again by @ItzChickenYall - could you please let me know why you're reverting the source addition? Thanks. Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

because its a WP:TWITTER source ItzChickenYall (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Note WP:TWITTER states "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field..." - in this case, I believe Flightradar24 qualifies as an expert in the field. Additionally, WP:RS/SPS (just two sections of scrolling above the WP:TWITTER link!) provides that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" - which I believe is true of Flightradar24. Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok i see what you mean now. sorry for the inconvenience ItzChickenYall (talk) 03:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Got it! Will restore now per agreement achieved on talk page. Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Might be a good idea to put an invisible note near the FR24 source to avoid it getting removed again. I've also added another source as a backup. S5A-0043🚎^{(Leave a message here)} 03:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps update the reference to point to their blog post instead? Has most of the same information, and is less likely to have the same Problems as twitter. On a related note, the reference currently numbered 8 is just a link to FR24's page on the aircraft, which not only doesn't directly show the previous emergency flight (requires some extra digging), it'll expire in a few days for anyone without a subscription — might need something more robust there perhaps? —Lokarutlot (talk) 06:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Good idea, just replaced it a few minutes ago. S5A-0043🚎^{(Leave a message here)} 06:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Knock EPC down to APC

There is nothing controversial about this plane crash. It was an accident, innocent lives lost, everyone is sending condolences. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Several good-faith, productive editors can no longer work on the article. the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 04:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

It is not worth the risk. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@ElijahPepe How is it risky? SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The number of fatalities appears to have been contentious enough by itself... Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it's a tertiary source, and while a week of extended-confirmed protection may be a bit much, I think the quality of the article will benefit from at least 24 hours of being edited in a lower frequency than "it has been 10 minutes, my protection message isn't visible on the history screen anymore and people are still adding and removing numbers independently of the inline citation". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree That is normal, it will sort it self out. Personally EPC is far too harsh and kills off adding info. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I see no loss in information being added an hour later than it would be with semi-protection. There are enough eyes on the article and enough people around to evaluate and implement edit requests. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree I think we should publish a nomiation to deduct the protection level. By the time they come around to review it, it would have been a full day, maybe even 2. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 04:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Ultimately there's a pretty decent chance the article will drop a level within a day or two, seeing as the large majority of quickly changing information like this evening will have been over by then. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 04:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

True. If I forget to have another look, please ping me or ask on my talk page in a few days and I'll probably go ahead. But please not before 24 hours and preferably not simply in 24 hours. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree I submitted a request: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Decrease. Just take a look at it and approve it, then the bot will automatically change the protection to APC, if my understanding of WikiPedia is not wrong. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

approve in a few hours after more info comes out, ideally. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your request actually shows exactly why the protection is necessary, the death toll hasn't been 28 for several hours now. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 04:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks.

SimpleSubCubicGraph, the bot does nothing with the protection. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

No problem SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why it was necessary to up the protection from semi to EC so soon. The only non-EC edit that affected the death count in that timeframe was Special:diff/1265890342, which to me seems perfectly reasonable, given that it is just correcting a simple arithmetic error. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 04:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Since this a breaking news event, quick updates are necessary. Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree Can we please downgrade protection now? SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

you* not we SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

SimpleSubCubicGraph, is there something specific you'd like to change? The article is still being very actively edited, there's a dispute about linking to Wikipedia articles as a note or reference ([1], [2]), there's a "rated pilot" making assumptions in a section below that was created as an edit request for the addition of original research, et cetera: It's chaotic even with extended-confirmed protection and I'm currently not interested in worsening this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree Yes, there is something I would like to change. I don't know how to insert templates into replies/add topic however. I cant find it and using source does not work. I don't know how they put Extended confirmed protected edit request as a template into topics. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Im sorry if I don't seem knowledgable about wikipedia, I don't spend much time on it. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

No worries. Please click here to create an edit request; a blue button with this link is also shown when clicking "View source" above the article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2024

"at a press conference, Lee Jeong-hyun, South Korea's fire chief, stated that the cause of the landing gear failure was believed to have been adverse weather combined with a bird strike." should be followed by a mention that the video cited afterwards does not show any averse weather to be present. TsarPeter1909 (talk) 04:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Where is this information from? The video itself, directly? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the video very clearly shows no adverse weather to be impacting the area. The bird strike theory is dubious as well but I don’t have direct sources contradicting that part. TsarPeter1909 (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Original research based on a primary source, declined. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The video clearly shows a clean wing. There are no flaps or spoilers deployed. This never happens in a normal landing. The landing speed without flaps is much higher. This is the reason it went off the end of the runway. WikiHelp1451 (talk) 06:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

You need to present a credible secondary source that will support this, self-interpretation of that video is not accepted. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 06:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Watch the video. I am a rated pilot. WikiHelp1451 (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I am a rated pilot
Again, we do not accept original research. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 07:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand the procedures. I am suggesting an avenue for someone to find references. There was no landing gear, no leading edge slats, no wing flaps, and no over wing spoilers to slow the plane. All of those are extremely reliable systems on that plane. An analyst on CNN is suggesting cockpit confusion after a bird strike. They literally forgot how to fly the plane. Maybe a bird went through the windshield and they were badly injured and in a panic? You cannot post this, but you heard it from me first. WikiHelp1451 (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

You don't understand the procedure. It's sometimes fine if you speak up with personal expertise (e.g. "hey I'm a pilot and this seems weird from my knowledge, can someone find sources that support my understanding?" is ok to post), but you made an edit request with original research. There is no way the request would have been approved. Please don't participate like this; takes up space. seefooddiet (talk) 08:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I can give you a reliable reference for the weather. The weather was indeed fine, arguably perfect.

Here are the Metars at the time of the accident.

"RKJB 290100Z 21002KT 9999 FEW045 06/M02 Q1028 NOSIG=

RKJB 290000Z 11002KT 9000 FEW045 02/M00 Q1028 NOSIG="

https://avherald.com/h?article=52225189&opt=0 Liger404 (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if we can source the weather, the implications of the weather has to come from a reliable source. See WP:SYNTH. Having two details and then extrapolating the relationship between the details is not ok. seefooddiet (talk) 09:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, whilst I don't actually agree with this overy strict application of the "original research" rule we can just use this CNN article.

"Aviation industry consultant Scott Hamilton echoed Soucie’s concerns and urged South Korean authorities to “stop making declarative statements” at this stage.....He added it is perplexing that the crash happened, given it was landing under dry and sunny conditions at a good airport.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/12/28/asia/south-korea-plane-crash-intl-hnk/index.html Liger404 (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Strict because people are dead and we're writing about them. You can say you're a pilot, but we have no reason to believe you. And even if you provide proof, what if you're not a good pilot? We have no way of knowing and it's not worth the effort to vet everything you say.

If people weren't dead I and others would probably care a lot less. seefooddiet (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

And we can use this one as well.

"On the 29th at 9:03 a.m., weather conditions around Muan International Airport in Jeonnam, where an aircraft runway departure accident occurred, were found to be favorable with almost no wind.""The visibility distance was also 9 km. Typically, fog reduces visibility to below 1 km. With a visibility of 9 km, there was no issue for the pilot in seeing ahead.

Clouds were slightly above 10 km from the ground. There was no precipitation, and the temperature was 1.5 degrees. It was clear weather with no rain, wind, or clouds."

https://biz.chosun.com/en/en-society/2024/12/29/ZPQLZY3XJJDNBFNWSXBA4EW2DU/ Liger404 (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

There we go, this is stronger. I may not add the detail myself, but that sounds good to use. if you can't edit it, you can make an edit request. seefooddiet (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll put the request through. Liger404 (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks btw, i find this rule chaffing but can understand the reddit war issue it prevents. It's just a bit of a problem that we end up needing a reporter to say something and can't pull answers from textbooks or the like, which are frankly far more reliable on technical matters. Liger404 (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for being patient. The rules are chaffing, but I've spent months thinking about them and have come to appreciate their design and implications. And I normally hate rules; these I respect. seefooddiet (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I just realised you might call my interpretation of the metar "original research"? Surely we are allowed some level of editorial oversight here? The intent can't be that we are to basically form wikipedia from newspaper clippings? Winds were 2 knots and visibility was touching the maximum reported visibility of 10km (Reported in METAR code as 9999. We don't report above that under ICAO because its so good it's become irrelevant. Under 5km become haze.). I am an airline pilot, but trying to find a newspaper that has said these words will probably be impossible. Liger404 (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The intent can't be that we are to basically form wikipedia from newspaper clippings?

Philosophically complicated. There will inevitably be some things that are so obvious that they don't need to be sourced. E.g. "the sky is blue". But the fact that you feel the need to bring up your credentials to back up your interpretation of events is a sign that the analysis is too much, and it unfortunately falls under original research.

In the future there'll probably be technical reports on this that come out with further analysis; we should wait until then for these kinds of details. seefooddiet (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Was the landing gear ever extended or not? There's talk of someone reporting the LG was extended however that seems unlikely given the videos circulating in the media. A symmetric collapse seems unlikely, especially judging by the fuselage's trajectory which was almost in line with the runway centerline. And the crew would not attempt nor have time to disengage the anti-retract latches in order to retract the gear with the aircraft on the ground as an attempt to stop before reaching the obstacle. Strongthink (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

There is credible commentary from experts in media reports that the plane was not configured for landing at all. It was configured for cruise flight. It landed too fast and too long down the runway. A widely distributed video proves all of that. WikiHelp1451 (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

They seem to have gone under the glide slope and way too fast. I'm unaware of Jeju's procedures but doubt any airline's operations manual would remotely hint towards landing in a that configuration in any event including FOD. And they had more than enough time to go through the procedures even with both engines out and no hydraulics. Also the cockpit windows appear intact in that footage so a bird strike resulting in pilot incapacitation seems out of the question. Strongthink (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Date format

As this subject is primarily Korean in all aspects, Korean airplane, Korean airport, majority Korean deaths, the date format should be MDY instead of DMY per MOS:DATETIES. Given the recency of the article, arguments along the lines of WP:DATERET are weaker. Pinging @Fork99 for discussion. – robertsky (talk) 06:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Robertsky: I'm not fussed over it or anything, but it was inconsistent throughout the article prior to my edit - I don't personally care what it uses, as long as it's consistent. I thought that DATETIES says Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation. meaning that only articles regarding English-speaking countries follow DATETIES (if my understanding is correct). For example, Asiana Airlines Flight 733, Asiana Airlines Flight 162 and Asiana Airlines Flight 991 as articles I'd say have strong ties to South Korea use DMY, is this incorrect? Fork99 (talk) 07:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Fork99 Apologies. I am going through the edits since my last edit, Special:Permalink/1265891944. It seems that the inconsistency started with @ElijahPepe at Special:Diff/1265894208.

But in any case, it seems that MOS:KO-DATE allows either one (P.S. I wasn't aware that there is an rewrite of the MOS KO page). My assumption having editing many Korean articles is that it is generally MDY format.

With regards to other Korean articles, articles like Goo Hara, 2024 South Korean martial law crisis, etc, also with strong national ties use MDY date. If there's any inconsistencies... It is project best done at project level then. The last discussion however having it hanging. I am not too hard up with either format, like you, as long as the article is consistent somehow. – robertsky (talk) 07:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the discussion was more final than hanging; a prev discussion at the site-level MOS blocked our effort to make MDY consistent, and I don't see another path to making MDY standard. I prefer MDY and think it's the de facto standard for eng-lang writing in SK btw. But KO-DATE is what we abide by for foreseeable future. seefooddiet (talk) 07:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Robertsky This is the American version of Wikipedia. That is why we use DMY. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

It might confuse readers as they are not usually adjusted to the MDY format. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@SimpleSubCubicGraph This is English Wikipedia, period. There is no American version. See WP:ENGVAR that we accept a variety of English standards. In fact, for Americans, the preferred date format is MDY (see WP:DATETIES as it states it explicitly as an example). – robertsky (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Robertsky American-English. Wikipedia is headquartered in the United States while its founder is British. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@SimpleSubCubicGraph again, see WP:ENGVAR, we accept a variety of English standards. There are articles written not only in American English, but also in various British English variations, i.e. Canadian, Singaporean, Malaysian, Australian, Indian English. – robertsky (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth engaging with SimpleSubCubicGraph much more; they've been consistently off base with wikipedia style and protocol on this talk page. seefooddiet (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Robertsky but don't all of them use MDY? i could see this for the South Korean wikipedia and other asian countries but not the main page. And to respond to @Seefooddiet I have not done anything wrong. This is quite insulting. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Take this up at the site-level MOS, not here. My patience with this is thinner because you clearly ignored the previous deletion of the reactions page you tried to make last time to try and do another one. It's suggestive of disregarding protocol, then you tried to do it again here. seefooddiet (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @SimpleSubCubicGraph No. Not all of them uses MDY. For example, Singapore-related articles are using DMY format, .e.g. Lawrence Wong, Punggol Coast MRT station, Ministry of Digital Development and Information (randomly taken from 2024 in Singapore). In fact, most, if not all, of British English varieties use DMY format since these inherited British colonial English standards. Some national-level topics, like Korean, Indonesian, etc, are ambiguous as they do not standardise English styles nationally. To know which nations use which variations in general, for English speaking ones, you will need a bit of history lesson on which nations or territories were under which English-speaking nation's colonial rule. i.e. Philippines should be following American English standards mostly. For the other nations which were ruled by non-English speaking ones or had been independent, i.e. Indonesia, Korea, Thailand, plenty of ambiguities.

@Seefooddiet, I don't know about you, but I see SimpleSubCubicGraph as relatively new editor with 100+ of their 133 edits here had been accrued only in the past 1 week, despite being registered a year earlier. Registration dates don't bear much, in my opinion. After all, I registered in 2000s, but only started editing a lot from 2019.

SimpleSubCubicGraph, it would do you good to take some time to peruse the WP:Manual of Style in general, as there is a set of expectations that editors here demand of each other, and following the manual is one of them. Hot topics like this though do attract new editors, but for the above reason may end up putting them off eventually. You are probably going now, "Why are established editors so snooty?" I can only say... It is a rite of passage.

If you wish to stick around without stepping on toes too much, observe what's being edited on the article by the editors now as all of them are extended-confirmed editors by virtue of the page protection. Reference against the MOS, and to some extent, the older articles. However, don't reference against articles that are too old as many of them are grandfathered against older versions of the MOS. Any articles created in the last 4, 5 years are largely adhering to the current version of MOS. The MOS is a living document of sorts. If you have any questions, you can ask your mentor assigned to you (see Special:Homepage). If you are unable to the special page, see mw:Help:Growth/Tools/Enable_the_Homepage#Enable_the_Homepage – robertsky (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2024 (4)

TravelWithMatt (talk) 07:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The aircraft was produced in 2009. Serial Number (MSN): 37541 Line Number:3012

This looks like WP:OR. Do you have a WP:RS saying this? guninvalid (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@TravelWithMatt. Airfleets.net is an unreliable source as its reliability was discussed multiple times at WP:RSN. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 09:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.

Is planespotters.net a better source?

It indicates the same data.

https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/boeing-737-800-hl8088-jeju-air/e54n1v TravelWithMatt (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Planespotters.net isn't any better as its reliability was also discussed multiple times at WP:RSN. See this. Do you have any other sources? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 23:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

References

About the non-free image of the accident

In my opinion, these photos depict the accident scene in more detail. link 1, link 2 or link 3 What do you guys think?--Namoroka (talk) 09:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Article Title Amendment

Edit: The tragedy has been named as 참사 (cham-sa) according to official Korean media such as MBC, SBS, and KBS, meaning disaster. Therefore, the title should now be:

     " Jeju Air Flight 2216 Disaster " 

Instead of " Jeju Air Flight 2216 "

Swipe2Left (talk) 10:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Denying for now. WP:COMMONNAME is determined by what English-language sources say; Korean sources are just a nice bonus but not a determining factor. And this is more appropriate for a move request than an edit request; you're welcome to open one, but please research and provide evidence of common name in english-language sources call it before the proposal. seefooddiet (talk) 10:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the current title is more concise. Ca ^{talk to me!} 08:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Flight 2216? 7C2216?

The naming conventions say to include the air carrier and flight number. The sources I've found (Reuters, AP, NYT) do not use the flight number alone, but rather include Jeju Air's IATA code. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 10:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

No, that's just the normal naming of an aviation accident and incident here in Wikipedia: Unless a way more common name to refer, we all use: "Airline common name (Usually align with the title of airline pagep)+Flight number (Without IATA or ICAO code)".

Though we can launch further discussions about this naming pattern, but I'm afraid this will affect all pages, so we should get a community consensus first. Awdqmb (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Remove South Korean politics

> """...while snubbing attempts by Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials for the third time for questioning into his botched martial law imposition."""

Seems irrelevant to the topic at hand. The previous sentenced explained why there's an interim president, and this seems like a heartless dig. 2600:1702:29C0:DDA0:B965:391F:9DB3:D584 (talk) 12:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Reworded – robertsky (talk) 12:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

JJA8135, 2024.12.27

After hearing the recent news, i decided to open FR24 and check the recieved alerts, i noticed a flight called JJA8135, with the same registration of HL8088 that squawked 7700 and had to divert to Seoul on a flight to Beijing, like 2 days earlier.

Just sharing some information. BM142 (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

This was added last night, but has since been deleted some time within the last 7 hours or so. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 13:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Non-technical related emergency landing, see https://m.ekn.kr/view.php?key=20241228028449548 — 🎄☃️ Paper9oll ☃️🎄 (🔔 • 📝) 13:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2024 (14)

Add the line ", Russian embassy in Seoul" after the word "Goldberg" and before "and Boeing" in subsection "International" of the section "Reactions" with a reference: https://t.me/rembskorea/5640 (a post of the Russian embassy in Seoul) Valomor (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't quite understand, because I linked the post of the official account of the Russian embassy in Seoul. how is that not a reliable source? Valomor (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia editors will not accept Telegram posts as a "reliable source", unfortunately (nor anything coming from Russia, tbh). 2804:14D:5C59:522B:810F:F8D1:ABFE:22DB (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

A telegram post by a Russian embassy can still be reliable as long as it is used for information about themselves. (WP:ABOUTSELF). However, there is also a concern of due weight; a boilerplate condolences post isn't all that notable. Ca ^{talk to me!} 07:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Slight adjustment to the impact/crash coordinates.

Please adjust to 34°58'35.4"N 126°22'58.4"E Jovanin99 (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

"Explosion"

At the "Accident" section there is the following text: "Video footage showed the aircraft skidding down the runway without its landing gear deployed before colliding with an embankment holding the ILS array and exploding.". But I disagree, a bomb explodes, a grenade explodes, but this plane hit the embankment an was teared apart, broke apart, was shattered, and then caugth fire because of the ruptured fuel tanks, it did not "exploded". Phack0 (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Then how do you describe accidents like TWA Flight 800 and Pan Am Flight 214? Who said fuel explosion can't be called as an "explosion"? At least most news report describe the sense like this, so we just put it there. Awdqmb (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Awdqmb,

Because in both examples you gave, there was an explosion. One of the possible causes of the TWA 800 loss was "... a fracture in the wing center section of the aircraft caused by an "overpressure event" in the center-wing fuel tank..." "... the overpressure event could only have been caused by a fuel-air explosion..." (exerpt from the Wiki page on that flight). And for PanAm 214 "... the crash had apparently been caused by an explosion that had blown off one of the wing tips. The left wing tip had been found a few miles from the crash site with burn marks and bulging from what looked like an internal explosion..." (exerpt from the Wiki page on that flight). The definiton of explosion, also by Wikipedia: "An explosion is a rapid expansion in volume of a given amount of matter associated with an extreme outward release of energy, usually with the generation of high temperatures and release of high-pressure gases."

So an explosion is when something expands rapdly and rupture its containment, that's not the case of JEJU 2216. The tanks of the airplane ruptured on impact and when the fuel contacted something hot or sparks, it ignited. Phack0 (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

But you agree here's obviously a fuel explosion when the aircraft hit that obstacle. The fuel tank immedinately ruptured, compressed by impact forces, caught fire, and the aircraft itself (which contain the fuel tank) was nearly completely destoryed by such strong energy release, right?

So just like the accidents I mentioned, this crash obviously had a explosion, and causing catastrophic result– I think more people will survived if here was no explosion. Awdqmb (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Per below, we should avoid analyzing the situation on our own, that's WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. What we should do is align with what descriptions WP:RELIABLESOURCES are saying. In other words, the only analysis we should be performing is whether or not we're closely sticking to sources. seefooddiet (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I know this. Obviously most reliable news reports suggest the same, so we just use the same words, just like I said before. I just explain to him why it should be considered as "explosion" by my understandings. Awdqmb (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

My point is this: our analysis isn't important either way, so we should avoid debating this at length. The user below already conceded that we should just agree to disagree. Phack0 please avoid responding to this; it won't result in a change to the article. seefooddiet (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Well the word explosion doesn't necessarily mean explosion like a detonation. Explosion can mean a myriad of things like; to ¨tear apart with sudden force¨, or ¨destroy violently¨. Mikal N (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Mikal N/Assendor

So "destroy violently" is a definition of explosion? So if I hit a car into a concrete wall, on purpose, at 280 km/h, can I define it as a explosion? And "tear apart with sudden force", if I tear apart a piece of paper, can I say I exploded it?

The definiton of explosion, by Wikipedia: "An explosion is a rapid expansion in volume of a given amount of matter associated with an extreme outward release of energy, usually with the generation of high temperatures and release of high-pressure gases.". That's not the case of JEJU 2216. The tanks of the airplane ruptured on impact and when the fuel contacted something hot or sparks, it ignited thus the flames. Phack0 (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean it sure seems like an extreme outward release of energy. The flames ignited and shot out in a wide radius. Most people would feel perfectly comfortable calling that an explosion.

Ultimately we should just follow what reliable sources describe it as as though. This is our own analysis, which is not really appropriate on Wikipedia. seefooddiet (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Seefooddiet,

What defines an explosion is the cause of it, just because it looks like an explosion because of the flames doesn't means that it is an explosion! "... people would feel perfectly confortable..." that's not a valid argument, what if people think that in a forced or belly landing, that is a valid procedure, fuel tanks can explode? That's not true, and calling a fire an explosion is just misinformation.

Anyway, you are saying to follow the reliable sources, but the source of this text "Video footage showed the aircraft skidding down the runway without its landing gear deployed before colliding with an embankment holding the ILS array and exploding." (35), on their website, says exacly what i'm defending: "At around 9:07 AM on the 29th, Jeju Air Flight 7C2216 from Bangkok, Thailand, attempted to land on the runway at Muan International Airport, but it deviated from the runway, collided with an exterior wall, and caught fire." https://www.chosun.com/national/national_general/2024/12/29/3O2GTWML3VEVRFPTX5FN5ZHQ34/ Phack0 (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The definition you have doesn't specify it has to be defined by the cause. I don't have any opinions on this btw, I think it's a really minor detail, just pointing out that your argumentation is erratic.

Sources describing it as an explosion:

• [3]
• [4]

I'd put more but I'm on mobile. Google it, it's a really common descriptor.

Again, I don't care about this but just don't think your reasoning is very strong seefooddiet (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, let's agree in disagree, to me fire and explosion are two very different things.

A news outlet is not the best source for detailed information, especially involving aviation. I'll exemplify, using you first source, BBC.

The article says: "Footage of the crash - which happened shortly after 09:00 local time (00:00 GMT) - showed the aircraft landing without wheels, overshooting the runway and crashing into the airport's perimeter wall"

That is just uninformed/lazy writing. "... without wheels..." what was being tried to be said? That the six whells were missing, or that the landing gear wasn't extended...? in the same phase: "... crashing into the airport's perimeter wall...", that is jus plain wrong info, the airplane crashed into the concrete barrier holding the ILS array not the perimeter wall. So if they can't even write that right, what to say about differentiate a fire from an explosion.

I really though that Wikipedia articles were aimed to be as correct as possible, not just texts so that "people would feel perfectly comfortable" reading. Phack0 (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

You're asking to change how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia relies on RS. Making editorial decisions on our own is discouraged. I don't do it, neither should you. Also mind tone; I don't really appreciate the jabbing use of the quoting of my words.

Don't think this conversation will lead to much more; let's aim to close it here. seefooddiet (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

My man, the very own news outlet article (35) sourced right next to the word "... exploding." on the Wikipedia article says "... caught fire." and not "exploded", so how can the person who wrote the Wikipedia article using a different word and meaning be following the RS? Phack0 (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Tone. Seriously, is it so difficult to stay professional without turning condescending?

That is a valid issue you're pointing out, but your extra reasoning I'm unconvinced by. seefooddiet (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Seefooddiet, I can see that you are a nice, educated and intelligent person, maybe I'm not using the best phrases to express myself but I assure you that I'm not trying to be agressive or condescendent. Actually, with "My man" I'm trying to deescalate and be friendly.

Anyway, you are right, I think that is enought on this subject and I than you for the exchange. Phack0 (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Emergency Landing Days Prior - Squawk 7700

Same plane experienced issues landing in Seoul a few days ago. Squawk 7700 HL8088 Squawk 7700 2601:203:100:3E50:9078:CF3D:6FA4:F01D (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Issue was not mechanical, it was a medical emergency, thus it's not really relevant to the accident. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 18:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Whether the plane executed a missed approach or not

Most news outlets and media are reporting that the aircraft conducted a missed approach before initiating the landing without landing gear. However, based off of FlightRadar24 data, it does not appear to have conducted a circuit/missed approach. They seem to have gone straight in. 174.126.41.217 (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I think FR24’s blogpost states that they lost data when the airplane was at certain altitude. It’s possible that the plane stopped sending data down due to power loss. L31g (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

At least the FR24 data showed the aircraft was towarding RWY01 before track loss, but all the videos released showed the aircraft was touched down from RWY19, the opposite direction, and hit the embankment at thershold of RWY01. So that's why most resources think there must be a go-around and second attempt. Awdqmb (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Decimal digits in the location of the plane

How the hell did you get very exact decimal digits in the location of the plane? Nail123Real (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced coords. It's been removed Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

ok thanks Nail123Real (talk) 08:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2024 (2)

International Reactions

[FLAG OF THE KINGDOM OF THAILAND] The Foreign Affairs Minister, Tanee Sangrat said "I wish to extend my heartfelt sympathies to the families and loved ones of those who lost their lives or were injured in this unfortunate incident”,

[FLAG OF UNITED STATES] President Joe Biden published a statement reading, "Our thoughts and prayers are with those impacted by this tragedy," Biden said, according to a statement released by the White House. Additionally Biden said that he and his wife, Jill, were "deeply saddened" by the crash. He said that the US was ready "to provide any necessary assistance."

[FLAG OF UKRAINE] President Volodymyr Zelenskyy expressed on twitter "Tragic news of a devastating Jeju Air accident at Muan International Airport in Muan County, Republic of Korea, claiming so many lives. Each life lost is an immeasurable tragedy.

On behalf of the Ukrainian people and myself, I extend heartfelt condolences to the bereaved families, the people of Korea and Acting President Choi Sang-mok.

We share your sorrow and stand with the Korean people in this time of grief."

[FLAG OF JAPAN] Prime Minister Shigeru Ishibia sent a message of condolences to the acting South Korean President claiming "I feel deep sorrow over the loss of so many precious lives in Korea in the unfortunate passenger plane accident.”

[FLAG OF CHINA] President Xi Jinping professed condolences which read "On behalf of the Chinese government and people, I express my deep condolences to the victims and my sincerest consolations to the victims' families, and wish for the swift recovery of the injured," SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I could not do it in the add topic but fix citations and add the flags. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

No need to add flags or expand the reactions at this point, condolences are fairly par for the course and can be summarised quickly in much the same way that it is in the article currently. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 23:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@CommissarDoggo Please do it, eventually. could be in a day, week, month just organize the reactions, they are bloated and this cleaner more standardized form helps with readability. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

At the moment, both the domestic and international reactions are very concise, not adding undue weight to the, again, run-of-the-mill condolences. Adding entire paragraphs for each condolence message from a world leader like you're suggesting here would very quickly result in bloat and is, quite frankly, wholly unnecessary.

Lumping them all together is the right thing to do and quite common, which I believe you were recently made aware of on Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 23:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@CommissarDoggo Well I was, but I like that format more so thats why I suggested it. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Well I was informed/made aware of* SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

You should know that Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia that operates on a consensus of editors. Not a candy store where you can pick what you want alone. Borgenland (talk) 08:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done - Current format is perfectly fine, converting to the proposed format would be far too bloated for what boils down to normal condolences. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 23:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@CommissarDoggo could a seperate page be created? SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@SimpleSubCubicGraph I doubt it, as it would almost certainly not pass notability standards or WP:NOTNEWS. Everything is already well summarised here on this article, thus it would likely be deleted in short order.

Despite being deleted for general sanctions reasons, the last similar article you made was likely going to be deleted/redirected per WP:SNOWBALL citing much the same reasons I am now and more. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 00:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with CommissarDoggo, not separately notable enough. Please don't attempt to create articles like that again in future, especially if your last article was speedy deleted. seefooddiet (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@CommissarDoggo@Seefooddiet Can one of you guys at least clean up reactions more and to add reactions of every single country? SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The reactions of every single country are hardly relevant. Why would we care what the leader of Mali or Uruguay has to say about this? seefooddiet (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Surprised they still haven’t figured out WP:NOTNEWS and WP:IDNHT as to why they haven’t found consensus to bloat the article. Borgenland (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a Manual of Style entry governing flags. See MOS:FLAG, specifically subsection MOS:FLAGCRUFT for this specific request. – robertsky (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Robertsky @Borgenland @CommissarDoggo Death and state funeral of Manmohan Singh very recent page, could the same thing happen here? SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Could I use Death and state funeral of Manmohan Singh as justification for it passing notability standards/news-worthy? SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@SimpleSubCubicGraph Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The page you linked isn't even just reactions to, which is what you're proposing here, it's seemingly independently notable and about his death, the state funeral and reactions to them. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 22:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@CommissarDoggo How does wikipedia have a page for literally everything and how do i find these pages? Would be useful in a debate/argument. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@SimpleSubCubicGraph If you're looking for pages solely on reactions to something, you'd have to look for seriously notable articles like the September 11 attacks, which is shown here.

English Wikipedia has some of the strictest notability requirements across the entirety of Wikimedia, and for good reason; we're coming up on 7 million articles now, and maybe 100,000 or so at a time probably don't meet those guidelines. We get to be a bit picky about things.

If you're looking for policies, you'll find them thrown around during discussions pretty regularly so you'll memorise the most common ones eventually. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 22:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@CommissarDoggo So I know there is a notability guideline but I did not know there was a tier above that, so notable that entire pages needed to be dedicated to one section. How would I know such event is in this unofficial tier? SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Sufficient major coverage in reliable sources seefooddiet (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@SimpleSubCubicGraph Well, that and if/when pages get so large they need to be split. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 22:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

References

"most" "most" "most"

I thought we had agreed that the "most deadliest, etc." would be limited, not these clusters of things that are verging on redundancy. Any thoughts on what should be done? PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Add Malaysian Prime Minister response (edit request)

Malaysian Prime Minister, Anwar Ibrahim responded by sharing his condolences on his social media page, which he stands in solidarity with the people of South Korea and Thailand. (https://x.com/anwaribrahim/status/1873310463666348044, https://www.facebook.com/share/p/179doHK2zX/) Weareblahs (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Will add shortly. Source found. Unknown reliablity. Could also go with SPS with X and Facebook links, will leave it up to more experienced editors to change that if applicable.

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2024/12/30/jeju-air-crash-reminds-us-of-lifes-fragility-says-pm the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Added. the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Wildfireupdateman Thanks. Weareblahs (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Barrier

In the first paragraph it states: The aircraft crashed into a barrier at the end of the runway and exploded,

Looking on Google street view: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.9757859,126.3840553,3a,41.3y,336.35h,89.84t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sbnpfp9fGZSCjVbJafCDLug!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D0.1566053656599138%26panoid%3Dbnpfp9fGZSCjVbJafCDLug%26yaw%3D336.3539208045534!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTIxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

I would call that a concrete block wall. It could be further described with razor wire and an electric fence on top.

I don't have editing privileges for extended protection articles. Could someone consider changing that word barrier to something more descriptive? And perhaps a photo of the wall? StuZealand (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

This looks like original research. Do you have a reliable source for this info? guninvalid (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

It's right there on google street view. StuZealand (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@StuZealand Considering the last street view images were taken in 2015, I doubt their usefulness. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 10:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Passengers and crew -wikitable

The wikitable section was created and CNN Cited News provided a reference for it, @Wildfireupdateman removed it, (removal due to contradictory numbers and inappropriate for 2-countries only)

Number of passengers and crew members not yet identified? How many nationalities are involved in this incident ?? Spworld2 (talk) 09:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

That was not me. I was the previous edit about the Malaysian PM. That was @Borgenland. Ask him for any concerns. the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, if you want it back, I would start an RFC here in the talk page instead of just bringing it back. the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

There were too few countries for it to be written in anything not in prose. And the table was written and labeled in an utterly confusing manner that had me counting why the totals never seemed to add up to 181. Borgenland (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2024

Change

"the aircraft involved was making four flights a week between the airport and Bangkok" to "the aircraft type involved was making four flights a week between the airport and Bangkok".

[Rationale: Clearly flights on that route were not operated only by the specific aircraft involved in the accident, that's not how airlines work. Jeju operates around 3 dozen B738s]. DaveReidUK (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done - Source specifically states "Flight 7C 2216, the airliner that crashed, traveled between Bangkok and Muan four times a week." Unless you have a source that supports your request, I'm afraid it can't be made @DaveReidUK CommissarDoggo^Talk? 10:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The source IS correct; but it does not support the statement that cites it, although you don't appear to understand the difference. A better form of words (which the citation does support) would be "The airliner that crashed was operating Flight 7C 2216, that traveled between Bangkok and Muan four times a week". I hope that helps you to understand the issue. DaveReidUK (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@CommissarDoggo I believe DaveReidUK is correct here – just because the same flight number was used for all flights on this route doesn't necessarily mean the same aircraft was used for all such flights. Toadspike [Talk] 21:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Toadspike @DaveReidUK I'm totally fine to be proved wrong here, and I don't doubt that that's the case, but the source itself does not make that distinction. The exact text of the source more makes it sound as if that plane specifically is flight xyz, not that it was one of multiple on one route, which is an absolute pain in the ass. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 22:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems both are right, strangely enough. The source does say "flight 2216 traveled four times a week", which technically doesn't imply only this aircraft, but flight tracking websites do show aircraft HL8088, specifically, flying from Bangkok (VTBS) to Muan (RKJB) five(!) times between 22/Dec and 29/Dec: once on the 22nd, once on the 23rd, once on the 26th, once on the 27th, and the accident flight on the 29th — all numbered as flight 2216. Further data also confirm this was the only aircraft carrying out this flight number since the 22nd, with various others doing that job before then. At this point this might qualify as original research, maybe, but the claim is technically correct, if poorly phrased. —Lokarutlot (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for confirming. This is exactly the kind of technicality a journalist might miss, but if more technical sources confirm it, then I drop my objections. Toadspike [Talk] 22:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Yep, I suppose whoever wrote it in the source didn't know better to distinguish a plane's tail number from a flight number but still came to the correct conclusion by chance due to this specific situation — which, on second read, is what I think DaveReidUK meant on their second message. Could still mean we might need an extra source verifying it was indeed the same aircraft and not just flight number (archives of flight trackers?), but I'll defer that to someone who actually knows policy better than me. Lokarutlot (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2024

Accident subheading, 2nd paragraph, beginning 3rd sentence states the Jeju aircraft made a go around, and landed gear up on the second landing attempt. Reference 33 The Indian Express is the source. That is not correct. I have read a lot of the worldwide coverage, and Reference 33 is the only source of a go around. A go around would be integral to the story, and is not found elsewhere. Please change: At 9:00 a.m., the plane attempted an emergency landing, being forced to go around again after the landing gear was not deployed.[31] The crash occurred between 9:03[31] and 9:07 a.m as the aircraft attempted to land again.[32] It overshot the runway while attempting a belly landing without the landing gear deployed.[33][34] The aircraft made ground contact at the middle of the runway, reducing its available braking distance.[35] Please change to: At 9:03 a.m. with the landing gear not deployed, the aircraft belly landed far beyond the runway normal touchdown area and skidded off the end of the runway.[31][32][34] P Richard Yarbrough (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done - I've since looked into sources, using the search on Google south korea crash "go around", and have uncovered five sources on the first page that support the current narrative and actually expand on it; The Guardian (live coverage source, certainly not preferred but still), Reuters, CNN, Hindustan Times (wouldn't personally use this one, but there we go) and the BBC. Even discounting the two I wouldn't use, that's three reliable, secondary sources supporting this information.

I'll now be trying to expand the entry based on these timelines. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 10:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Wall, Barrier or Embankment

There are many reliable sources referring to the object the plane collided to as Wall, Barrier or Embankment. However these images show the object is an embankment.

• Arial view
• Street view

Sources referring to "embankment" are as follows:

• Reuter: Flight 7C2216 crashes into embankment after over-shooting the runway.
• CNN: Footage of Sunday’s crash-landing showed the Jeju Air flight sliding on its belly at high speed, hitting an earthen embankment...
• The Guardian: Flight 7C2216 crashes into embankment after over-shooting the runway
• CNN: the concrete embankment
• The Guardian: colliding with a concrete embankment

The above street view image shows the material of the embankment seems dirt, but we should wait further reports whether the material is concrete or earthen (dirt). ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Phoenix7777, civil engineer here; my interpretation of post-crash photographs it that the ILS localizer was mounted to a substantial reinforced concrete footer within an earthen embankment. Hopefully a WP:RELIABLE source will emerge with a more concise description. Current sources describing it as a "concrete embankment" are likely an example of journalistic imprecision mixed with mistranslation. (For what it's worth, the footer appears to be about 138'x6'x9" with 3' deep grade beams on either side, which means it would weigh about 170,000 lbs excluding the equipment mounted on it, and the impact flipped it over and broken it into many pieces. Yowza.) Carguychris (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Not scheduled, is a charter flight

The aircraft served as a charter flight for group tours mostly organized by a Gwangju-based travel agency.

Per https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/dec/30/south-korea-plane-crash-news-jeju-air-flight-2216-airlines-muan-airport-live-updates 210.242.144.235 (talk) 12:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The ADS-B datas from FR24 do not agree with this: The same flight number and route has more recordings for at least 3 days. It's more likely this travel agency bought most seats, instead of fully charter flight-these two scenarios aren't same. Awdqmb (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2024 (2)

Typo: “ althouh” in the sentence: “ Within the last year, it flew 2,136 times to more than 12 countries and 747 times domestically, althouh it had not flown to Muan before 20 December.” 2A02:A44F:CDB3:0:1431:8834:E3B6:7366 (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Map Image

The map image has a typo in it where it says crahsed instead of crashed. I don't know how to fix this, nor who added it so I can't do anything about it. I just wanted to let the people know here. Reader of Information (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I have notified the original creator of the image and they have already changed it. CaptainGalaxy 18:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Survivors

Surnames of survivors have been released but I would like to seek consensus on whether it would violate BLP to disclose. See [5] for reference. Borgenland (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Borgenland It would probably violate WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE or WP:BLPNAME, yeah. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 19:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the policy of the English Wikipedia, but just stating a surname is generally not considered personal information in South Korea. When maintaining a person's anonymity, it is common to cover the given name and only mention the surname like "김모씨" or "이모씨".--Namoroka (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Landing gear

The summary states 'after landing gear failure'.

There is for the time being no evidence, that the landing gear malfuntioned. The fact is, that the landing gear was not down. Torbenarent (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed 100%, did not notice this. I think "belly landing" should suffice until more solid information emerges. Carguychris (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Fine! Torbenarent (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Unneeded airports built in dangerous locations

For decades now, South Korea has been building unneeded airports on its southwest coast. These airports, like Muan, have all been losing money. They were simply political boondoggle projects. Muan Airport in particular was built dangerously close to a bird sanctuary, and it has far more bird warnings than any other airport in Korea. The Korea Times has been covering this:

https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2019/01/113_263016.html https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2024/12/113_389412.html

Westwind273 (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

You can't just make posts with opinions. You need to make clear what kind of change you want to be made to the article. WP:NOTFORUM seefooddiet (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Don't accuse people of just making posts with opinions when they are not. That is slander, and it is not appropriate to this talk page. As for my comment: (1) It is not my opinion. It is based on reporting by the Korea Times, which is a reliable source. (2) The kind of change is obvious. I think the article would be enhanced by including information on the Muan airport along the lines described in the Korea Times articles. You need to re-read the guidelines for participating in this talk page. Unfounded slander is not permitted. Westwind273 (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)