Jump to content

Talk:2012 Mount Salak Sukhoi Superjet crash

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Su-100?

[edit]

Are we sure it is called the Su-100 this article is the first time I have seen it called that. MilborneOne (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the Aviation Herald calls it. I'm not opposed to a move if a better title can be found. Mjroots (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plane found

[edit]

I dont have a source yet but on WHDH News it was announced that the Indonesian Air Force had found the plane. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters has a picture here. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Survivors

[edit]

It is still not known at this stage if there are any survivors. Randor1980 (talk) 04:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation Safety Network are presuming no survivors. The photo of the wreckage would seem to support that presumption. Mjroots (talk) 07:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Number on board

[edit]

This article mentions two different numbers (45 and 47) and media are still not in agreement about how many were aboard. Perhaps article should say as much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.44.114.1 (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Russian blogger Sergey Dolya who is in Jakarta Airport righta now and has access to the lastest information states that there were 45 people on plane. 5 people (of planned 50) missed the flight ToiSamy (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Number on board, crew

[edit]

While the article says the Stewardess was Italian, the table shows she as Indonesian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.180.19 (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The person in question worked for an Indonesian airline as a stewardess, but she was not part of the flight crew of the aircraft in question, who were all Russian. Mjroots (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VFR Ceiling?

[edit]

Comments on AviationHerald are speculating that the pilots were deliberately giving buyers a closeup view of this pass, which admittedly would be rather a spectacular dropoff on a northeasterly heading. I haven't seen a reported ceiling at the time, but way down at Bogor weather was at 25C dewpoint, 31C temp, 70%RH (again per AviationHerald). LeadSongDog come howl! 18:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst AH itself is a RS, comments should generally be treated as though the source is a blog, which means that we don't use them. It's the same with Pprune, although comments there are not reliable sources, linked pages may be. Mjroots (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Point was to be alert to any source that might state the ceiling.LeadSongDog come howl! 05:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Italians

[edit]

No Italians aboard see http://www.corriere.it/esteri/12_maggio_10/indonesia-relitto-aereo-scomparso_61586112-9a69-11e1-9cca-309e24d49d79.shtml (Italian)

--PaoVac (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Free Image of Crash Site

[edit]

The image of the crash site on the side of the mountain may be free use as a work of the Indonesian Government as per Commons:Template:PD-IDGov. It's the first image in this article. The source is the Indonesian Air Force. - hahnchen 21:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More sources

[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

8 Russian crew members?

[edit]

The Reuters article seems to say that the Russians on board included pilots, technicians and embassy officials. Do they all count as crew members? wctaiwan (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this instance, I'd treat the two Sukhoi officials as "crew", as they were part of the operation of the demonstration tour. That plus pilot and co-pilot would equal four crew and leave four technicians or embassy officials. If the technicians were there to oversee minor maintenance of the aircraft then they could be considered "crew". Which leaves the question of the embassy officials. As with the Sukhoi officials, they were part of the operation of the tour, and can therefore be considered as part of the "crew".
Remember, this was not a normal commercial civil flight as most aircrashes are, but part of a sales tour. Mjroots (talk) 05:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will they buy the planes anyway?

[edit]

Anybody knows? Mattaidepikiw (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not our job to speculate. If there are reliable reports of orders being cancelled due to the accident, then that info can be added to the article. Mjroots (talk) 10:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meters or feet?

[edit]

Re: this revert and its justification "this is an aviation article, we should use imperial first", where exactly are you getting that from? As far as I can tell WP:AVIMOS only states that "Units in specification tables and main article text should follow those used by the original manufacturer", and in this case we have a Russian plane crashing in Indonesia, both metric. Jpatokal (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst Russia uses metric measurements for aviation, most of the rest of the world does not. AFAIK (and am open to correction on this), in Indonesia, aviation uses flight levels in feet. That established, the rest of the article should fall in line and use a consistent format of imperial (metric) and not a mish-mash of imperial (metric) and metric (imperial). That is the reason that I made the change. If it can be shown that aviation in Indonesia uses metric measurements, then I have no objection to all measurements being in metric (imperial). Mjroots (talk) 11:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In most areas Russians use metric system, but in this aircraft they use imperial system, because it is intended to be sold outside Russia ToiSamy (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Dolya

[edit]

Sergey Dolya is the guy who blogged about the SSJ being missing. His blog is at http://sergeydolya.blogspot.com and several of photos from the superjet tour, stamped with his name on them, are at http://gallery.me.com/sdolya#102194&view=grid&bgcolor=black&sel=197 WhisperToMe (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Definite:

Is it?

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is English language Wikipedia, would you be kind enough to tell us (well, me, at least) what on earth this is all supposed to mean, and why it's relevant? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that the English Wikipedia takes source in all languages. For a topic like this, we discuss not only English sources, but also the Russian and Indonesian ones as well - Anyway this is a series of official pages from the Indonesian government's rescue agency, Basarnas, related to this disaster. It would do well to understand the acronyms and short names of the involved parties. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but to those of us who don't speak Russian or Indonesian, just adding a bunch of links without translation or assistance as to what they mean is pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

These are in English:

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dissonance between ATC permission and actual aircraft course that followed

[edit]

This information was recently added to the Aviation Herald page we are sourcing: "Indonesia's Air Traffic Control, Jakarta Branch, reported, that communication between ATC and aircraft was done in English, there was no language problem hampering communication. The aircraft had been in the area of Bogor, approximate coordinates S6.55 E106.9, about 13nm north of the peak of Mount Salak and 7nm clear of mountaineous terrain in safe flat area, when the crew requested to descend from 10,000 to 6,000 feet and to perform a right orbit. As there was no reason to decline such a clearance the flight was cleared down and for the right orbit. This was the last transmissioon from the aircraft, the aircraft could not be reached afterwards. It is unclear how the aircraft got into the area of Mount Salak and crashed afterwards, ATC services hope the black boxes will explain how the aircraft got there. All data including flight plan, radar data and ATC recordings as well as transcripts of interviews with the air traffic controller have been handed to Indonesia's NTSC.". Perhaps we could incorporate some of this in the article, as it shows a dissonance between where the clearance was given, and where the aircraft ended up. --Mareklug talk 17:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can cite it and summarise it, then no reason to not add it to the article at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There IS a reason not to add it to the article AT ALL. May I draw your attention to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Remember that tiny little rule?
For crying out loud! They haven't even published the black boxes recordings but you're already jumping to conclusions and rush to publish it here. Why not, instead of editing Wikipedia, find yourself a job in some tabloid? They LOVE stories like that. Nomad (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath section

[edit]

Don't you think it's a bit strange for an encyclopedia to have SO much speculation over something that hasn't even happened yet? I removed some of it, which was WAY beyond NPOV and WAY too far into pure speculation. Nomad (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section completely. It has only one piece of information which is not prooflinked by the airline themselves. Kartika Airlines made NO official statements whatsoever about this matter. Nomad (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To the tabloid junkee who drags trash into the article:
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/05/16/sky-aviation-s-exec-denies-sukhoi-s-purchase-cancellation.html
Again, stop adding EVERY news you find on Internet. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Nomad (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

speculation

[edit]

Hello,

I think that the following paragraph is unnecessary:

Indonesian Coordinating Economic Minister Hatta Rajasa said there should not be any speculation on the causes of the crash, and that the NTSC should be given time to conduct its investigation. [26] Dmitry Rogozin, a Russian vice-premier, pointed out that all theories would only be speculation until final conclusions were drawn by investigators.[13]

It adds nothing specific to the description of the incident and contains just obvious platitudes from officials.

As C1010 has restored the paragraph, I guess this needs to be discussed. Thanks! Bazuz (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with its removal. It's just official boilerplate platitudes. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with removal. It would be hard to find a major accident investigation where there wasn't a similar statement at this stage. Look it up in the investigator's handbook. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, will remove again. Bazuz (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

another contested passage

[edit]

Hi

I see that the following paragraph has been bremoved and re-instated:

The Russian aviation industry has been going through a re-birth since the fall of the Soviet Union, trying to compete with regional jetmakers like Brazil's Embraer or Canada's Bombardier while putting behind it a reputation of poor safety

I think that the problem here is that it contains two different assertions. The first - that the Russian aviation industry is competing with that of other countries - is indisputable and should stay, in my opinion. The second - that the Russian safety record has improved - is, at best, unsourced or, at worst, wrong. Therefore it should be amended.

Agree?

Bazuz (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I asked an uninvolved experienced aviation editor to mediate this particular dispute. As a matter of fact, what appears to be contested here is the poor reputation for safety of the industry, not the fact that it has improved. So, we have a bit of a mess. Let's wait a little bit and see if we can get some help here. --Mareklug talk 16:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a prime example of WP:COATRACK. First, the cause of the crash is still unknown, so there is no reason to believe it has anything to do with problems in the industry. Second, all of the Superjet's main subsystems are foreign-made. For example, I think the navigation subsystems (which may have failed on this flight) was made by American and French companies. So if you want to include a statement about problems in the industry, you could just as well include something like "the American aviation industry has been in serious difficulties in recent years, with new planes such as the Boeing Dreamliner suffering significant delays and safety problems" which we, of course, should not. Nanobear (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Problems in the industry" includes notoriously poor pilot performance, I would venture to say. We already source in the article a dissonance between what the ATC cleared the aircraft to do and where it actually ended up. And pilot error along with safety failures in Russian aviation industry are well documented. --Mareklug talk 17:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to look at the recent addition to the Aftermath section, the "trying to compete" is referenced but is a bit of an opinion piece and is presented as fact, I dont think it adds to the article at this point. The direct quote is OK as it is clearly presented as opinion. Not sure the bit about nobody has suspended operations is needed, its not something we would normally say and is not really neutral - if the airworthiness authority had grounded the aircraft that could be mentioned. Armavia still negotiating could also be seen as misleading we dont know how many companies are actually in discussion so it could be seen as undue weight. The Kartika delay is OK as it is clearly a fall out from the accident. As an aside the whole speculation bit should go, this is an encyclopedia not a tabloid we dont have a requirement to speculate. In summary mention the quote and the delivery delay, ditch the rest of aftermath and the whole of the speculation section. Just a comment about pilot performance these were very experienced test pilots so cant really be measured against the performance of line pilots although if they are found to be at fault then that could open up a new discussion but we need to wait and see what the investigation says. MilborneOne (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done as recommended. Thank you for helping out. --Mareklug talk 18:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Bazuz (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mareklung, may I actually see the proof of "well documented pilot error along with safety failures in Russian aviation industry"? I would be specially interested in comparison between Western and Russian pilot errors and safety failure rates. Such statements make you, at best, a propaganda victim. Soviet and Russian pilots are BETTER trained than their Western counterparts. Nomad (talk) 10:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, my username is Mareklug not Mareklung. A little more care in editing wikipedia and your own posts, please, instead of calling editors "propaganda victims", reputable TV sources "anti-Russian", and then immediately spouting off propaganda (in a complete failure of auto-irony). Second, lest I be accused of citing biased anti-Russian media and having bias, allow me to limit myself to the English-language ITAR-TASS news service from Russia, which of course will narrow down what I can give you. Sadly, they don't publish articles with links to statistics, apparently. And all the other statistics are in the domain of anti-Russian capital imperialists of the West. Here we go:
--Mareklug talk 17:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So let's summarize. You've given me several NEWS articles, written by people who know absolutely nothing about aircraft or air traffic or pilot training. You base your opinions (AND entries to Wikipedia) on "latest news", which change at least 4 times a day, WHICH is confirmed by my disproving your "latest news" about Sukhoi's Indonesian contracts cancellation. You do NOT read specialized publications with official statistics. You do NOT know the facts. You just watch TV.
I suggest, you start being careful with your sources of information. Then maybe I'll respect you enough to care how to spell your precious nick. Nomad (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you didn't provide any statistics. Your first link cites some Russian pilot, but it's not the stats. Maybe you should stop being sarcastic (it makes you sound biased as well as Nomad, to be honest) and provide some real proof for your words instead of the list of unrelated news articles.78.106.80.172 (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)Scytale[reply]

Final Official Report

[edit]

Final Report has just been released by Indonesian National Transportation Safety Committee http://www.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_aviation/baru/Final%20Report_97004_Release.pdf

Kadalia (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Mount Salak Sukhoi Superjet 100 crash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Mount Salak Sukhoi Superjet 100 crash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mount Salak Sukhoi Superjet 100 crash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Mount_Salak_Sukhoi_Superjet_crash&oldid=1196618909"