Talk:Air India Express Flight 812

No. of survivors

My understanding is that one of the initial survivors of the crash has now died. I am changing this accordingly - let me know if this not the standard pratice for other aviation accidents and I can revert the changes. User:kmisra (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2010 (IST)

Rescue Efforts

I have added a section about the rescue efforts. Thing is that I am newbie so please tell me when you believe I made a mistake in doing so. Tucking fypo (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

I first started this article, and now all of sudden its been replaced with a new text and it's not even showing me in the contribution history. Huh? Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack2012 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jack2010, he was using information from a BNO News article, they had information about the crash before the others currently listed on this article. --173.31.143.33 (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the various redirects. This article was started in at least two places, one of which was by me. Various people were merging, some of them improperly. An admin should conjoin the edit histories. --Mareklug ^talk 05:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Give this a few days to settle down first. No point trying to do a merge with the current level of activity. I expect that Jack 2012 is worried about an ITN credit), which I will sort once I've checked his edit history. Mjroots (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Having checked, the article was created by Superm (talk · contribs) amost half an hour before Jack2102 created his version. Mjroots (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Sourced material removed

This edit, by Jack2012, has removed much sourced info. Bridgeplayer (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

-- It was deleted because most of it didn't make sense. Such as: "Upon overshooting the runway the plane caught fire and smoke was seen coming from the airport."

As it appears, it MAY have been on the ground briefly but then aborted landing. Since most of the plane was destroyed, it must have crashed rather than simply overshot and catch fire.

Also, the quote saying latest information is awaited is not really informative. We should stay with facts.

Further, the section occupants denotes 173 passengers. So far, the sourced link and CNN-IBN and NDTV all report 169 were on board rather than 173. Plus, NDTV reported that 19 children is unconfirmed and is merely a report.

It also revised 169 in the fatality box which cited Al Jazeera. This was initially reported by Reuters - the source which Al Jazeera is using - but was never confirmed on the record. In fact, Reuters has now changed that number to 160 dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack2012 (talk

Flight number

Some sources are reporting the flight number as 892. This seems to be a typo. Flight Status reports the flight number is 812. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Figleaf (talk • contribs) 04:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

PTI is the most reliable reference for Flight no. Times Now and Cnn-IBN are also using the flight no as 892. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I checked the Air India Express timetable and IX 812 is the Dubai to Mangalore flight. There doesn't seem to be a IX 892.--Canley (talk) 04:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

http://www.flightstats.com/go/FlightStatus/flightStatusByFlight.do?id=192492544&airlineCode=IX&flightNumber=812 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.154.172.34 (talk) 05:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

sometimes, flight numbers change at the last moment. The site may not be updated. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Air India have released a press release confirming the flight number as IX-812 [1]. --Canley (talk) 05:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Initial claims of no survivors

I am adding this here because I am not sure if it should be incoporated into the article, or not

reported in the Sydney morning Herald here http://www.smh.com.au/world/plane-overshoots-runway-in-india-bursts-into-flames-reports-20100522-w2ji.html

"Mangalore deputy police commissioner R. Ramesh said the plane, a Boeing 737 believed to be carrying 160 passengers and six crew, was arriving from Dubai when it crashed about 6.30am (10am AEST) after overshooting the runway."

"All are dead. There is no doubt about it," Ramesh told AFP by telephone from the crash site.

Speaking to the NDTV news channel the chief minister of Karnataka state, B.S. Yediyurappa, said: "They're all not alive".

It seems to me, rather strange that the deputy police commissioner would say that there were no survivors, "no doubt about it", when several survivors had already been named. Eregli bob (talk) 06:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

NDTV has shown an interview from one of the survivors. Figleaf (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarification There were no survivors of those on board the aircraft when it crashed. The 8 who did survive were thrown out of the aircraft when it collided with the localiser antenna at the airport - Aviation Herald Mjroots (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Image

I see someone has just replaced the image with what they claim to be the accident aircraft. However, the registration on the new photo is VT-AXU, the same as the previous photo. The article states that the registartion number was VT-AXV. If the aircraft was VT-AXV, should we not switch back to the older picture as it is higher resoloution, as there are no pictures of VT-AXV on the commons? WackyWace ^talk 12:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Shit, that is my mistake. Why VT-AXU came up in my google search, when I still see VT-AXV in the search box is beyond me. I didn't even notice that mistake. I'll see if I can find VT-AXV for placement on Commons. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 13:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

¿Belly ripped open by localizer antenna?

This is speculation. Maybe the tail section became loose after crashing against the antenna shack, maybe it was a major tail-strike against the runway, the survivors might not have come all from the same section of the aircraft, etc., etc. Aldo L (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

We should be careful with speculations in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCRYSTAL. --Kslotte (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not speculation, it is reported by a WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

¿Go-around?

There is a statement by a politician that the crew attempted a go-around. With no radio communications nor FDR or CVR data, and no other more-direct witnesses, it is too early to say the crew were attempting a go-around instead of trying to bring the plane to a complete stop. Aldo L (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

"Victims" Section number discrepancy

There is a discrepancy here, this section, LINK, says: br>

"There were 173 persons on board, including 163 passengers (19 children), four infants (with no separate seats) and 6 crew members" (c/w references)

Looks like the injured have been added to the total on board 166 + 7 =173. Then the last sentence says:

"A total of 166 passengers and crew were on board"

Let's be consistent. Let's be correct. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 Done Or rather better data has made my comments irrelevant!--220.101.28.25 (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Air India external links

Until AI revises how it links its content, AFAIK this is the best way to organize the external links:

• Central press releases page
• Survivor list
• Passenger list
• Crew list

The three lists are not linked from the central press releases page WhisperToMe (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Under WP:EL multiple links to the same site are discouraged, and when possible to merge links into the article space it is better to do so. These links certainly can be put in the sections (victims/airline crew). With a requisite cite.(Lihaas (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

So far the crew list link has been cited, so for now I could remove that link. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Reaction lists

As per other articles about attacks/accidents is maintained on wikipedia: 2010 Kygzstani uprising, 2010 Moscow Metro blast and 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash#Reaction Furthermore, it is WP:Crystal ball to say "expected" condolence reports.Lihaas (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

By "expected" it meant that anything non-expected is allowed. Your reasoning is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. A list of messages with the same content is non-encyclopedic. For example the International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash was up for deletion because it violates many policies and it is still does. --Kslotte (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I think somebody misread the rule which states

"Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Note that this policy does not apply outside of the main article space. While using user space to create a memorial is generally not acceptable, limited exemption applies to the user space of established Wikipedians who have died. At a minimum it is expected that they were regular contributors, and that more than one tenured Wikipedian will have used the deceased user's page (or an appropriate sub-page) to add comments in the event, and after verification of, their death..

As far as I know international reaction to major incidents are mentioned in the response section. --yousaf465' 16:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The issues can be read here: Talk:International_response_to_the_2010_Polish_Air_Force_Tu-154_crash#List_of_condolenses --Kslotte (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

[2] [3]

"By "expected" it meant that anything non-expected is allowed." expected is not allowed? expected updates and news articles are then barred? That's what the update indicates. This debate has happened before in int'l reactions and the conclusion has been that it may be of interest to other leaders, if one person didnt want to see the flag collection they could skip it. Additionally, even the other debate consensus to the polish crisis was not a removal. To say "because it violates and still does" is one man's opinion. the debate on the issue did not yield that reading you just listed. No need to scare of editors before they were WP:Bold.

At any rate, there isn't a consensus here for the tag. Yousef seems to agree (and the precedent if you must) Lihaas (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The word used was "predictable", not "expected". I may not put forward the best suitable policy. Anyway, responses that are predictable is not encyclopedic. --Kslotte (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

in a sense i agree with you, but in another sense (as was discussed on one of the past such lists (Kyrgz riots i think) as to who says what could be of interest the lay reader in the sense that they may see who said something, if someone said something. and by inference who didn't. For example, it would be for the poli. sci. fresher to study such comments are a feature of IR when India/Pak give such messages of condolence as a pure CBM.Lihaas (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC is the strongest policy against a list. --Kslotte (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think this list is just going to grow, I mean every goveremnt is, as a matter of protocol (I assume), likely to send a message of some sort to India. I have aleady reverted an unsourced edit about Kuwait expressing condolences (which came from a French IP). This may snowball and exceed the crash text itself! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Tail number

How can it be that the plane had two tail numbers? This article operates with two tail numbers, "VU-AXU" as mentioned below the image, and "VU-AXV" in the link that leads to aviation-safety.net. The site also use VU-AXV in its description of the accident. The image clearly shows that the aircraft involved in the accident was registered with the tail number VU-AXU. This leads to confusion and should be corrected soon. – Sandip90 (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's VT-AXV. The image of VT-AXU is used as we don't have one of VT-AXV. As both aircraft are B737-8HGs, the photo is good enough. Mjroots (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. – Sandip90 (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

British/Serbian

Bit of back and forth over this issue. (Not by me!) Including that the Captain was English of Serbian origin may stop good faith editng to the victim table and stop a Serbian appearing on it separately? Though there was a Serbian and English flag at one stage!--220.101.28.25 (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Localizer/navigation aid

The section in the page says "localizer" and then in brackets adds "navigation aid" although the 1. localizer described what it is (as the point of intra-wiki links), 2. the navigation aid refers to general aids not for aircraft as per the context of this article it is a decepting link. (probably nav. aid can go in the localizer's page's see also if its not already there)Lihaas (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

But what if a reader prints the page out? I see this as making it unambiguous as this is the only mention of nav aid on the entire page. I and presumably you know what a localiser is, many don't! Take your point about navigation aid, maybe "instrument landing system antenna" is better? Certainly unambiguous as a localizer is definately part of the instrument landing system. "--220.101.28.25 (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I went with "hit the instrument landing system (localizer) antenna". "Instrument landing system" is very descriptive, if the reader wants more detail, then they can click on either of the links. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Legal challenge?

The construction of the airport was challenged in court as its not as per the norms(http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?265541). Why its not included in this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.196.168.102 (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The page is about the crash. If you have a wp:reliable source for anything that has a bearing on the accident, you can put it in yourself, be wp:BOLD. Just keep in mind Wikipedia policies on SOAPBOXING, Original Research, Verifiablity etc. (and please sign your posts thus ~~~~ (four "tildes") or use the "signature" ícon.) Regards, --220.101.28.25 (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• I also have to add Neutral point of view as this article seems rather one sided! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how these guidelines work, should a thing appear in some website like BBC or western media to be reliable? A similar article in Rediff(http://news.rediff.com/special/2010/may/22/mangalores-new-runway-was-legally-challenged.htm) also says the same thing.

Wikipedia sucks, its dominated by western media interests. I am never using it ever again. Good bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.196.168.102 (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Well that's unfortunate. If you don't edit here how can any bias be corrected? But you didn't give me a chance to reply to your initial question re: "appear in some website like BBC or western media"! I think you will find this article uses all types/nationality of sources ie. The Hindu,Press_Trust_of_India, Hindustan_Times. Sources like personal blogs or self-published books or websites are NOT considered reliable for example. Please stay and give your point of view, we need it! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)