Talk:Jeju Air Flight 2216/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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

Can you change the missing to 0 and the fatalaties to 179 (presumed), thanks 180.74.227.102 (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Source, access date and time? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

https://www.euronews.com/2024/12/29/at-least-28-killed-after-plane-crashes-bursts-into-flames-in-south-korea Ca ^{talk to me!} 05:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Citing where? QalasQalas (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

updated indepedently of this. considered this as  Done. – robertsky (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Wrong name order in refs

A number of refs flipped the surname and given name. Could someone fix? seefooddiet (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

resolved it; was out at the time i made the request seefooddiet (talk) 05:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Should we use (known)

Since the total amount of casualties and survivors are not finalized, should we put (known) next to the survivors and casualties on the summary table? CrushedAsian255 (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe "reported" is better. The story is still unfolding. guninvalid (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Alternatively, I think I agree with @Mason7512's edit. Probably better to keep the numbers off the infobox entirely for now. guninvalid (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

is it possible to put citations in the infobox? CrushedAsian255 (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

yes, you just have to place it in plain wiki text (i.e. <ref>{{Cite news|....}}</ref> ) Mason7512 (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I put one in for the plane type already, but you can do full citation format in infobox. guninvalid (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Statement From Jeonnam Fire Department: 179 out of 181 unfortunately passed away.[1] Yosh56 (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we should hold off on putting any numbers in the infobox until official statements on definitive or known numbers are made (not just "__ feared dead" or "__possible casualities" or "approximately ___". There is no harm in waiting for the situation to develop. Mason7512 (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I think this is the best idea until more information comes out. CrushedAsian255 (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I added a comment in the Infobox wikitext but people are still adding numbers, don't want to break the 3RR CrushedAsian255 (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it's about time we take this to WP:RFPP. guninvalid (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Definitely. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 02:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Listed at WP:RPPI#Jeju Air Flight 2216. guninvalid (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

https://x.com/yonhaptweet/status/1873214955597783099

korean news confirming official death toll is now 75, should be updated but people keep reverting 87.208.30.164 (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Name Jeju or South korean

Jeju Airline — South Korean airline, WP:COMMON QalasQalas (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I would 100% go Jeju here, as Korean Air is a thing I believe, and they are much more well known. the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The airline is, of course, named Jeju Air. It named after Jeju Island. 27.55.66.219 (talk) 05:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Finalized Fatality Count

Jeonnam Fire Department: All passengers who crashed at Muan Airport are presumed dead except for 2 survivors[2] Yosh56 (talk) 03:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I would not say this is finalized yet. Presumed dead is not yet confirmed. the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping the gun, this was the statement from the fire department. Yosh56 (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Presumed is a mistranslation. The word used in the article is "추정" which best translates to estimated. The fatality count in no way should draw from this just yet. Darer101 (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Whoops, darn google translate Yosh56 (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

True, but it can also mean "suspected" or "presumed in absense of solid evidence". Ca ^{talk to me!} 05:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Add a photo of the plane before it crashed

There is footage of the plane before it crashed before. Showing the wreckage is a bit disturbing so maybe a photo of the plane before the it crashed would be better. Japser D cook (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The article does currently contain an image of the crashed plane and how it looked in the past. If I understand correctly, your main request is removing the current title photo labeled "Emergency responders at the site of the crash". This is comparatively unlikely to happen as Wikipedia is not censored. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2024 (3)

We got international reactions coming in, first is Thailand. https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/dec/29/south-korea-plane-crash-casualties-reported-after-jeju-air-flight-veers-off-runway-at-muan-airport-live-updates?CMP=share_btn_url&page=with%3Ablock-6770d09b8f08d6f7991f6cbd#block-6770d09b8f08d6f7991f6cbd

Please update the reactions section accordingly, thanks. Colin Zhong (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

updated and was  Done. QalasQalas (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit: Another domestic reaction, from Jeju Air's CEO: https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/dec/29/south-korea-plane-crash-casualties-reported-after-jeju-air-flight-veers-off-runway-at-muan-airport-live-updates?CMP=share_btn_url&page=with%3Ablock-6770d9e48f08d6f7991f6cdf#block-6770d9e48f08d6f7991f6cdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin Zhong (talk • contribs) 05:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Will add. the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

179 assumed dead

Recent reports indicate 179 suspected to be dead, should this total be updated? [3]https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/dec/29/south-korea-plane-crash-casualties-reported-after-jeju-air-flight-veers-off-runway-at-muan-airport-live-updates?CMP=share_btn_url&page=with%3Ablock-6770c63f8f08d6f7991f6ca4#block-6770c63f8f08d6f7991f6ca4 Marleeashton (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Marleeashton this is already indicated in the body of the article: The remaining passengers and crew were presumed dead by firefighting authorities. As for the infobox, we will update the total when the actual numbers have been confirmed. – robertsky (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good thx! Marleeashton (talk) 06:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

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

add link to the wikipedia page of X in the reaction section for the paragraph on the thailand prime minister’s reaction ItzChickenYall (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done - Wikilinked. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 06:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Fatality number now higher than that of Air China 129

We should remove Air China 129 from under the info box and replace it which whichever one is next deadliest. Ordsju (talk) 08:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Which infobox are you referring to? Air China 129 is already referenced in the lede. guninvalid (talk) 08:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

It’s fixed now, never mind. Ordsju (talk) 08:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2024 (5)

Fatalities = 179 2.27.194.171 (talk) 08:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done There is no source for that number and your request is not of the form "please change X to Y". Sjö (talk) 08:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The fire department presumes it to be 179, but we will have to wait for more concrete reports to come out. Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2024 (6)

Location: Aircraft section, in between the lines '..HL8088.' and 'The aircraft was first....'

Add: The aircraft was powered by two CFM56-7B engines. [reuse source 7]

Make sure to link the 'CFM56-7B' bit to the Wikipedia article ItzChickenYall (talk) 09:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done: Thanks for helping out. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 09:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Minor edit request

This may be a little pedantic, but note (a) states that

Boeing assigns a unique code for each company that buys one of its airliners, which is applied as a suffix [...] time the aircraft is built,

and it should probably be in past tense. I realise some other articles also use this phrasing and it might not be very important, but Boeing completely did away with customer codes eight years ago (and started doing so even earlier), so that's technically incorrect... suggest something along the lines of

For aircraft made up to 2016, Boeing assigned unique codes for each company buying its airliners, which were applied as a suffix [...] time the aircraft was built,

The Boeing customer codes article mentions this but lists no source, if one is needed (one that doesn't itself source airliners dot net) there's the Flightradar24 blog.

— Lokarutlot (talk) 10:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Lokarutlot:  Done – robertsky (talk) 11:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2024 (9)

Death toll now 177 Lufthansa24 (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: You need a reliable source. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 10:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2024 (10)

change the joint-deadliest aviation occurrence involving a Boeing 737 Next Generation aircraft (tied with Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752) to the deadliest aviation occurrence involving a Boeing 737 Next Generation aircraft 112.199.153.96 (talk) 10:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

already done. – robertsky (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2024 (11)

Under the ‘International’ category of the “Reactions” section, add a separate paragraph documenting Boeing’s response to the accident which includes the official statement published by the company Lhxmilton (talk) 11:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Lhxmilton link? – robertsky (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

https://x.com/Boeing/status/1873240531771285768 Lhxmilton (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

 Already done This is already in the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2024 (12)

Wouldn’t the accident have taken place at 9:07AM KST (UTC +9)? The article mentions the timezone as ICT Lhxmilton (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Lhxmilton: fixed. – robertsky (talk) 11:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2024 (13)

Hey All, I don't need to this my self, but I think that it would be beneficial to the page to embed the video of the plane crash. This is currently online. https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c4glr85l2ldt Silverdrake2008 (talk) 12:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Silverdrake2008 unfortunately, we cannot embed the video directly without uploading to commons. This does not qualify as non-free use either given that we already have one such image. However if you can find a standalone video hosted somewhere like youtube, we can include it as a link stating it as an external media. – robertsky (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I have added what I think is suitable in the Accident section. – robertsky (talk) 13:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Names/Nationalities of the crew?

Has this been released anywhere? It might be good to add this information to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.219.113.137 (talk) 11:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Insert Image of Plane Crash

Insert the image of the plane crash. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 02:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@SimpleSubCubicGraph If you've got one that's copyright free, feel free. Otherwise it simply cannot be included I'm afraid. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 02:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@CommissarDoggo: What about a WP:NFI? E_F⁵ 03:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@EF5 There are certainly plenty of potential candidates around at the moment, definitely worth a look. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 03:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:BRD

@ItzChickenYall, please explain why including both the year of manufacture and specifying how old the aircraft is isn't redundant? CommissarDoggo^Talk? 02:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@ItzChickenYall Tagging again, in case you missed the first one. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 03:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I've seen it go both ways. The Azerbaijan crash has the year of aircraft listed, while JAL123 does not. Tenerife has the date of first flight of one of the planes, but not the other. the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 03:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The year of manufacture or how old it is fine in my eyes, it just seems pretty redundant to say "this plane was manufactured in x year, it is y years old." CommissarDoggo^Talk? 03:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Good point there. I feel like how old it is would be a better way to go here as people cannot math the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 03:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Nationality of victims?

Are the nationality of victims really all that notable? I'm new to airplane articles but I'm afraid we will run into cluttering issues with those types of things, as each country's local media will likely report "XXX *insert country* nationals killed", and I feel like it would not be necessary to include all of them. the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

"The passengers included two Thai nationals and the rest are believed to be South Koreans, according to the transportation ministry." [4] Yosh56 (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread your question.

Usually, in most Wikipedia articles related to aviation accidents (especially of this scale), there is a table of nationality's that were in the manifest. At the present moment, that is the information given from the Transportation Minstry. Yosh56 (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Aviation is out of my normal domain(I normally do weather-related articles and maybe a bit of earthquakes). the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Why was the table removed? I understand only two presumed nationalities were involved, however it would make sense to have a table to line up for air disaster articles. Yosh56 (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

It would generally if the passenger list was multinational, but at the moment it seems to be majority Korean and two Thai outliers. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 04:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

They are standard for all air disaster articles. Darer101 (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

To the person who keeps adding the see also section

This section normally comes along after all of the information has been made clear and comparisons are made. As this is a recent incident so please don't add the See Also. Darer101 (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, what does MV Sewol have to do with this besides both being disasters in Korea? the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Illegitimate Barrister CommissarDoggo^Talk? 04:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Ryanair or Jeju Air plane image??

Everybody keeps flip flopping between using an image of the plane when it was EI-EFR and an image of the plane as HL8088. Can y'all please clarify why you're doing this before you get into an edit war? Thanks. Poxy4 (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Every photo of HL8088 (aircraft reg.) is copyrighted/under a license. Yosh56 (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Transfer of ownership

The FR24 tweet says that Jeju Air started operating the aircraft in 2017, but it doesn't say when Ryanair stopped operating it. I know Airfleets is not considered reliable, but it states that the airplane was sent to storage in 2016, so I think we should either remove that Ryanair stopped operating it in 2017 or we say that Jeju Air started operating it in 2017. Thoughts? L31g (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Suggested edit

Is Note A regarding the 737-8AS naming scheme really necessary? While it's interesting to note, it's not really necessary for inclusion in the article I feel. At the very least, I don't think it deserves to be in the infobox. guninvalid (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

It is generally standard to indicate the customer code information (and in the case of Airbuses, the engine code) alongside the normal model (in this case, Boeing 737-800) when there is a reliable source for these. Plucking a random GA and FA each involving a Boeing aircraft, United Airlines Flight 328 and American Airlines Flight 77 both indicate the customer code information in the infobox too. S5A-0043🚎^{(Leave a message here)} 08:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2024 (7)

Right now there is a section quoting the fire chief "

"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."

However other reliable sources and the reported weather and video at the time suggest perfect weather.

"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

"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

"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/

So I was thinking this should have a little section after it politely saying something along the lines of, other aviation experts have suggested weather was not a factor in the accident as conditions were dry, sunny and clear with light winds. Liger404 (talk) 09:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Liger404  Done to some extent. Do propose corrections if required. – robertsky (talk) 11:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The edit seems fine for now. I't wouldn't surprise me if this entire section in gone by the time the accident report is out. Just important to emphasise that while the fire chief considered weather a factor, it probably wasn't (IMO not at all) an causal factor.

Thank you for taking the time to balance that section. Liger404 (talk) 12:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2024 (8)

Under "Accident" heading

Change

It overshot the runway while attempting a belly landing after its front landing gear failed to deploy

To

It overshot the runway while attempting a belly landing after its main landing gear failed to deploy 82.47.68.110 (talk) 10:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done: Thanks for helping out. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 10:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Do we know if the landing gear failed to deploy or wasnt deployed? 2001:2012:832:1900:97D7:937F:DBD4:C192 (talk) 11:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The article says "landing gear failure" so I think it failed to deploy. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 23:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

"Korea Train Express announced a dedicated bullet train service,"

It should be "Korail announced a dedicated KTX train service".

Thank you editors for the coverage. This is a terrible story. Junghyeon Park (talk) 13:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done — 🎄☃️ Paper9oll ☃️🎄 (🔔 • 📝) 13:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Partially done, haven't personally checked the Korean source but The Guardian (?) source doesn't state Korail. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 13:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll leave it as answered, but feel free to re-open if you disagree. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 13:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

For clarification, I performed the edit as KTX (or Korea Train Express) is the high speed service name operated by Korail, is also supported by the inline News1 sourcing. — 🎄☃️ Paper9oll ☃️🎄 (🔔 • 📝) 13:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Nationalities table

Hi. I want to suggest adding a table including the nationalities in the rows and passenger, crew, victims and injuries in the columns. Aminabzz (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

There's only two nationalities listed so there's not much point. It's been added and removed before; I'm okay with it whether or not it stays. guninvalid (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

" . . . and with climate change . . ."

So every bad thing that happens around the world (but zero good things that happen) has some form of "it's because of climate change!" inserted . . . within a day of the incident no less. Landing gear fails to deploy, concrete wall at runway threshold, bird strike talk . . . Wikipedia agenda drivers: "This looks like another opportunity to impress upon people the horrors of . . . "climate change"!

Suggest removing that absurd aside . . . unless you want to continue bolstering the contention that Wikipedia is (Left-wing/"progressive-politics") driven, and not objective encyclopedic that strictly sticks to well sourced facts.

141.155.165.35 (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarises sources. That content is attributed to a source. Thus, it's fine. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 15:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure how mentioning that there are more non-migrating birds due to warmer temperature(so more birds in the area) has to do with politics. Let's not make this tragedy into another culture war. Ca ^{talk to me!} 18:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

In any case, it was worded badly–I have edited it for clarity. Ca ^{talk to me!} 18:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Cut down the see also, please.

We do not need that many links in the see also, we could shorten it down to something like:

• Air India Express Flight 812
• 2024 in aviation

there are certainly more we could put there besides from those 2 links, that was just an example. however we shouldn't have every runway overrun under the sun. Kyllstru (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

A few of the category pages, i.e. 2024 in Aviation, Accidents involving a Boeing 737, can be compressed to categories on the page and removed from See Also. guninvalid (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and re-organised the section. Leaving only crashes I think match closest to this one. I have also left both "List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 737" and "List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft" as articles like that in the See Also section seem to be standard practise for most airline crash articles. CaptainGalaxy 16:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2024 (15)

2A02:C7C:D779:4100:58E6:8740:6A84:F3B6 (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Not done. It is unclear what you want to change. Please edit this request to include a "change X to Y" format. guninvalid (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2024 (16)

Kim In-gyu, director of the Korea Aerospace University Flight Education Center, stated that it was unusual for all three landing gears to fail and that "it is difficult to conclude that a bird strike alone was responsible". Citation needed? 2A02:C7C:D779:4100:58E6:8740:6A84:F3B6 (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: There is a citation. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Accident section: Requested changes

Could someone use Template:Convert in this section for the length of the runway? It should look like "2,800 metres (9,200 ft)", not "2,800 meters". Same with the following uses of runway length.

Thanks, Hurstbergn (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Done. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2024

King Charles III and United Kingdom Prime Minister Kier Starmer have also shared their condolences to the families of Jeju Air Flight 2216. SEAviation (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done: Thanks for helping out. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

References

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)