Talk:Mathias Rust

Older comments

he flew from helsinki, finland!

"Rust was arrested immediately by the Soviet authorities"

This statement is inaccurate. Please check news reports from the time. I recall that no one on Red Square quite believed Rust's ridiculous story of flying in from Finland and Germany. People thought he was a comedian or an aerial stunt man, and Rust and the crowd enjoyed some good banter. The attitude of the first authorities to arrive was the same as the crowd's, and they made the arrest only after overcoming their complete disbelief of Rust's story.

Quite true from the A&S article: S_peakF_ree (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

“ He got out of the Cessna. Expecting to be stormed by hordes of troops and KGB agents, Rust leaned against the aircraft and waited. The people in Red Square seemed nervous or stunned, not sure what was going on. Some thought Rust’s airplane might be Gorbachev’s private aircraft, or that it was all part of a movie production. But once the crowd realized that Rust and the Cessna were foreign—and that he’d just pulled off one of the most sensational exploits they had ever witnessed—they drew closer. ”

Fun fact that I'm not sure is entirely relevant: The early versions of Spectrum Holobyte's version of Pajitnov's 'Tetris' featured an animation of a small plane landing in Red Square, a direct reference to Rust's flight. The Russian Central Committee, upon learning this, was not terribly amused, as they considered Rust's actions terrorism.

Where he lives now

I have replaced Berlin in 2004 with Hamburg in 2002, as the latter is a fairly reliable source (Indy) the former from a website informed by "Bernard". Rich Farmbrough. 18:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

SOurces

This article is poorly sourced, at least two of the three links are authored by Rust, and the third is itself unsourced (may even derive partially from this article). Rich Farmbrough. 19:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Bunte is given as a source once. This is not a good source for a hard=news article. Kdammers (talk) 04:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What does this mean?

I got this from the Russian Mathias Rust page:

Когда постовой сказал ему о самолёте, дежурный ответил «Ты смотри, чтобы коровы по площади не ходили, а самолёт — хуй с ним!»

My Russian is really bad: I get something like "When the lookout told him about the ariplane, the sentry answered: "You saw that cows didn't walk on the (red) square, but an airplane - penis with him!" It sounds really colourful, maybe someone can translate it better? --Slashme 15:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"Fuck the plane, make sure there are no cows walking on the square!". Most likely an urban legend, though, not a real quote... Azov 18:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, that makes much more sense. But you're right, it isn't really a well-sourced comment. --Slashme 14:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny

I'ts quite funny that a young German flew in his small Cessna from Helsinki to Moscow having evaded the suppposedly sophisticated and deadly Soviet Air Defences. The people who operated the air Defence system(s) must have been really wasted at the time. If one German in a small Cessna could evade soviet air defences, imagine how easy it would have been for the USAF.

About how he evaded air defences -- that's very simple: he didn't. His plane was consistently tracked at least for half of his flight distance -- to Pskov, that is. At some point he was even escorted by two Soviet fighters, who tried to force him down. However, following scandal with Korean Boeing just about five years before, Soviet air defence had put the regulation that no aggressive meas should be attempted if plane in question is definitely civilian. So after fighter pilots failed to communicate with him (Rust turned off his radio), they returned to base.

After Pskov his plane disappeared from radars and there is some evidence that he landed somewhere around Staraya Russa. After that his plane was also spotted several times, but was confused with rescue helicopters, working on the site of recent air crash near Torzhok or even domestic trainer plane defying the regulations.--Khathi 14:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Khathi. This also shows how this article favoring only one side and the power of mass stupidity from both sides. Certainly a breach of POV. --Garrythefish (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Landing on the bridge

People ask why the bridge always pops out -- that's simple. Vasilievsky Spusk, while quite wide, just isn't long enough to land a plane on it, even lighter one like Cessna. But it continues into Moskvoretsky bridge across Moskva river after crossing the embankment, forming a stretch of road long and straight enough to serve as an improvised runway. Read Russian accounts on the landing: they all more or less agree that Rust landed on Moskvoretsky bridge, where was little traffic at the time, then slowed down on Vasilievky Spusk and just taxied into Red Square. --Khathi 18:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hm, interesting! I believe on the pictures that I've seen the plane was between Kremlin and St.Basil's. How did he get there, did he make a turn while driving on Vasilevsky Spusk?.. Would be nice if someone who can dig out the details makes a diagram. Azov 02:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Check this interview. He clearly says that he landed on wide bridge near Red square [1]. -- Zzzzzzzzzz  19:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

First Paragraph

Is it just me, or does the first paragraph look really...weird. Not very encyclopaedic, IMHO. 35.11.183.95 08:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The Very Nature of the Act

Shouldn't the reason why Rust wanted to land a plane in the Kremlin be addressed? Bradley Smith 20:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)bradley.e.smith

No, not unless we know it. He himself describes his motivation as an attempt to build "world peace" but some psychologist discovered a nasty habit of overestimating his abilities. It was during his (attempted) murder trial and I haven't got a source handy right now. Because of his criminal acts he has a bad reputation as a nutty whackjob over here in Germany. There is no trace of heroism. 87.78.120.194

He really is a flake. His opinions reek of empty-headedness.75.75.110.235 22:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well many people who changed the world were quite nutty. I figure Rust was one of them. S_peakF_ree (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Air & Space Magazine - good source for editors of this article

I added this as a link, but would like to also draw the attention of this article to anyone editing this entry -- Smithsonian's Air & Space magazine has a July 2005 article "The Notorious Flight of Mathias Rust" that seems to me to be one of the most well-written pieces on the event available online, with a great deal of detail about the flight itself, Rust's prior activities, and the repercussions within the Soviet Union. I recommend it to anyone doing work on this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StrangeAttractor (talk • contribs) 15:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This Smithsonian's Air & Space magazine piece is not so well written, as on bottom of page 3 it says "a Soviet MiG-23 fighter-interceptor pulled up beside him. With nearly three times the wingspan and more than 10 times the weight of Rust’s Cessna, the MiG seemed huge." The MiG-23 has a Wingspan (when Spread) of 13.97 m, the Cessna's Wingspan is 11.00 m. That's not quite "nearly three times". How can they mangle basic technical facts that badly? -- Matthead  Discuß   11:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Failure of Soviet PRO?

I thought it is generally agreed that Rust was not shot down simply because noone wanted another international scandal like the recent Korean flight.

Where are the sources that he eluded anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.50.118 (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Error in timeline?

Quoting the article: "Rust's trial started in Moscow on September 2, 1987 -- After serving 432 days at the Lefortovo jail in Moscow, he was released on parole.[1] He returned to West Germany on August 3, 1988". Problem: If serving 432 days, starting no earlier than Sep 2nd 1987, he's parole couldn't start no earlier than 432-365 = 67 days after September 2nd the next year (1988), meaning ~November 8th 1988. But he returned to Germany less than a year after the trial, "Aug 3rd 1988"... Either the "432 days" is incorrect or the trial date / the return date is incorrect. Sources?

Edit: 100 days less would make sense, 332 days is 33 days short a year which'd be a bit less than year minus a month, so Sep 2nd 87 -> Aug 3rd 88 would make sense.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.223.209.198 (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You are quite right - the number is suspect - maybe it includes time already served or not? Regardless, the cited ref does not mention that number, so I have rewritten the para to make more sense. Thanks for pointing out the problem, sometimes it talkes some fresh eyes! - Ahunt (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Where-abouts of the Cessna

Does anyone have information, ie tail number or registry for his aircraft. Also, does anyone know what ever happened to the plane. Was it ever returned to the original owners? Was is kept by the USSR? Does it even still exist? 67.166.155.113 (talk) 08:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The information is all in the article and the external links. The Reims Cessna F172P D-ECJB was in the Deutsches Technikmuseum, Berlin in 2009 photo. Perhaps I can add something to make that clearer. - Ahunt (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Article split

This article has a problem: it tries to be both a people article and an aviation incident article, and that can never work. People cannot be categorized as "Aviation incidents..." or "Violations of...", and aviation incidents cannot be categorized as "1968 births". The article should be split in two. HandsomeFella (talk) 06:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that the article should be split as it would be almost 100% duplication, the cats can be fixed, however. - Ahunt (talk) 11:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there will be some overlap, but there are plenty of wikipedia articles related to each other that have overlap, so I don't see that as a problem.

However, another solution could be this: is Rust himself notable? If not, then this page should be renamed because it is about the incident (although there will inevitably have to be some background on Rust). On the other hand, what he did might be considered so significant, that the incident alone qualifies him as notable. I'm not sure which, but I'm leaning towards the latter. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I think he makes the notability requirement. - Ahunt (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

That might be valid if someone is willing to write a very detailed article named Flight of Mathias Rust with much more details than this article. They could also write an article about the first flight of the Wright brothers. S_peakF_ree (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Soviet incompetence

This article doesn't stress enough the fact that Rust was not shot down due to Soviet incompetence or a failure within the Anti-aircraft defense systems but due to sheer benevolence product of more "humane" rules of engagement given earlier scandals like KAL 007's case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.181.68.36 (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

None of the existing refs say this and in fact show the opposite. This can be added, but as per WP:V you need to cite a reference that shows this and given the controversial nature it will have to be a very reliable source. - Ahunt (talk)

He was an unidentified aircraft in unauthorized airspace, he was tracked, and they could have shot him down several times during his journey. They certainly had the means. They decided not to do that, at some point because they thought he might be a friendly after all, or because the higher-ups didn't give the go-ahead to shoot down a small civilian one-man aircraft that didn't try to hide or evade. So much is a fact. Whether you call that "benevolence" or "incompetence" is in the eye of the beholder. -- DevSolar (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Age/ DOB

There is some disagreement among sources about his age and DOB at the time. A lot say 19 year old, but if he was June/ July he was 18. Here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20609795 he says he was 19 himself. Also, his DOB is contentious. This is going to be sticky, but it is a pretty serious problem.Jamesx12345 (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

We just need to gather up all the refs and then indicate disagreement and footnote the cases for each one. It would be good if someone could locate an official source, like a birth certificate. - Ahunt (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Serial number needed as ID

Just like an auto license plate, the ID numbers do transfer, so the serial number (or construction number) is included when known, you should know that, Ahunt. I am also offended you considered my source as self-published when at most it is questionable (the sites are not even listed under WP:SPS). Here is a list of sites that offer corroborative info, here, here, and here. This site lists a number of aircraft made by Reims Aviation, however the serial # is miss-typed, saying 3087 instead of 2087, a look at the larger list show 172's of the same year mfg in the 2000 range. BTW, I am trying to see if DTM listed the S#. Flightsoffancy (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem if you really think we need to note the serial number, but that jetphotos ref is user-submitted content by an anonymous user called "Pise". and thus WP:SPS. Citing lots more self-published or user-created content items doesn't add up to one WP:RS. If there is a better ref then please put it in instead. In the meantime I will fix the ref you have there as per WP:EL, external links are not used in article text. - Ahunt (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Jetphotos site also has a photo of 172 by user "Christian A. Amado" too, a reason I chose to link that one (I guess you just glanced at it). I am still looking for something from DTM (found this site full of pictures). Appreciate the WP:EL fix, my attempts was breaking the edit. -Flightsoffancy (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

www.time-o-rama.com is just another website where anyone can post anything, it all falls afoul of WP:SPS. I found an official ref for the museum where the aircraft is on display and I will add that instead. - Ahunt (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I was looking for, and see you beat me to it, that's OK (DTM above is Deutch Technical Museum, which already is refereed to in article). They have 2 pages, here and here. I thought it was only in the first page listed, completely missed it was also in the second page, d'oh! www.time-o-rama.com is just an archive site, and it is a valid site if the original site is no longer accessible. Of course the content needs to follow WP:QS rules (and why do you insist to use WP:SPS flag, even when Jetphotos is not on Wiki SPS list?). Nice editing of the information and adding the registered tag as well, will keep it in mind on future edits. -Flightsoffancy (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter whether the site is on any list of SPS sites, as WP:SPS explains, any site that allows users to just upload content without editorial oversight is not acceptable as a ref for Wikipeida, simply because the content can say anything and maybe dead wrong. Regardless I think we can close this issue now as  Done. - Ahunt (talk) 11:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mathias Rust. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722065932/http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6738463&nseq=1 to http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6738463&nseq=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722065932/http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6738463&nseq=1 to http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6738463&nseq=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929083532/http://www.telepolis.com/cgi-bin/web/DISTRITODOCVIEW?url=%2F1397%2Fdoc%2FMisterios%2Fmathias.htm to http://www.telepolis.com/cgi-bin/web/DISTRITODOCVIEW?url=%2F1397%2Fdoc%2FMisterios%2Fmathias.htm

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) 12:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Photo

There's not much sense in featuring a photo of Rust taken in 2012, 40 years after his famous flight. He was 18 at the time of the astounding event and his youth was a major aspect of the story. Sca (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

First off, it is a biography article, so while the flight is the main thing he is famous for, the article covers his whole life, plus second, we don't have a photo available of him at the time of his flight. Are you proposing we remove the sole photo we have of the article subject? - Ahunt (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm proposing we access a photo of him at the time of his flight under fair-use provisions for "illustrating historically significant events." Sca (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a copyright lawyer, so I am not sure if we can justify a fair use image or not in these circumstances, but if you do find one and put it in, I would propose that the more recent image of him just be moved down in the article and not removed. - Ahunt (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not expert in such matters, but if a 'then'-photo were obtained, your suggestion makes perfect sense. Good to know you're not a lawyer. Sca (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

ENGVAR

Per this old revision, this article was started in British English ("defence", "labour"); there are a couple of American spellings as well but BrEng greatly predominates. Was there a reason to change it to US English? If not it should go back per MOS:RETAIN. --John (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The subject is German, so it was probably just sloppy editing. Feel free to fix. - Ahunt (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. --John (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Pictures of the landing area

Does any of the pictures at commons:Category:Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge show the area where he landed and taxied? I think it should also include the church, as seen in tt:Файл:Cessna Red Square.jpg. Not knowing Moscow, I can't choose a picture myself. --Error (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Comma

There is a sentence in the article

Control personnel presumed an emergency and a rescue effort was organized, including a Finnish Border Guard patrol boat.

I put a comma after "emergency", thus:

Control personnel presumed an emergency, and a rescue effort was organized, including a Finnish Border Guard patrol boat.

But another editor, User:Ahunt, reverted it, and fine, but then here we are, and I'll make my case.

So my argument is that without the comma there's a tendency for some readers to read it like: [Control personnel presumed] [an emergency and a rescue effort] [was organized]... that is, the personnel either presumed that both an emergency and a rescue effort had occurred, or organized an emergency and a rescue effort. Sure, that doesn't make sense and doesn't exactly parse if you think about it, and the rest of the sentence (about the patrol boat) clarifies that further. But, the reader should not have to read to the end of a sentence to figure out what it's saying, nor stop for even a fraction of a second to figure it out.

Or, maybe, "...presumed that and emergency had occurred and a rescue..." should be done, but that is three extra words.

Anyway, since placement of commas is more or less a judgement thing, neither the insertion or removal of the comma is "wrong". I just think it's better, particularly when you bear in mind that some of our readers reader are ESLers, or below average in literacy or intelligence, after all. Will to be convinced otherwise. Herostratus (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I will simply say that the sentence makes perfectly clear sense as originally written and the use of a comma in addition to a conjunction would be a very odd sentence structure. - Ahunt (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)