Talk:Airblue Flight 202

Dubious

The aircraft cannot be an A320, as Airblue does not operate the type. Of course, once the registration is known, then the type will be apparent. Mjroots (talk) 06:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the article meant Airbus A320 family, which includes the A319 and A321 that Airblue operates. It seems they have not determined the exact model that was operated for the flight. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 06:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed all mentions of the A320 throughout the article. We'll find out the tail number soon enough. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 06:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Its an A321, AP-BJB. Mjroots (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I found the article on AirBlue Wikipedia page concerning the crash. I had "reference needed" on the A319 but was deleted not long after. I feel my actions for citation for the type of plane Airbus whatever was not taken into consideration if it was really that type of plane flown by the Airblue Airline. Adamdaley (talk) 09:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

METAR

I've re-added the METAR to the article. This is relevant to the accident and weather conditions prevailing at the time. Mjroots (talk) 07:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

While I understand the importance of the METAR data, it would be preferable to use the translation in the actual prose and use the hard data in the footnote. Using it as is provides little help for the casual reader. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 07:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The use of the METAR with a translation in the refs is established practice. Mjroots (talk) 07:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

While it's commonplace, it doesn't make it right. It's of no use at all to 99.99% of readers, while the translation is far more accessible. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the translation from a ref to a note, and wikilinked various terms in the translation. This should allow readers to fully understand the METAR now. Whether or not they understand its significance is another matter. Mjroots (talk) 08:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's still a footnote (not part of the main prose) and provides no meaning unless the reader scrolls or clicks on the annotation. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 08:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In the past, I've been criticised for putting the translation directly into the article. On the American Airlines Flight 331 article, the metar is on a subpage - American Airlines Flight 331/METAR. See Talk:American Airlines Flight 331#METAR for reasons. Mjroots (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That topic brings up the same exact issue I am raising, which is the the distraction caused by raw METAR data in the main prose. I understand the objection to full direct translation as well. I may have been unclear before, but I would prefer the positions of the raw data and a condensed explanation swapped. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 08:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I've asked for input from members of WP:AVIATION on this issue. Mjroots (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

See British Airways Flight 38 - do you mean something like this? Mjroots (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I think the translation can be in the same footnote. It need not be in a subpage. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 08:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:NORUSH, can we await input from other editors now that I understand exactly how you wish the info to be presented? Mjroots (talk) 09:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No objections. Took us only an hour and a half. :) —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 09:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The BA Flight 38 approach works for me, and no need for subpage, per Arsonal. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. --Ferengi (talk) 09:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

on a sidenote, as another editor who worked on the AA 331 page, the exclusion of METAR translation was not universally accepted. 66.220.101.210 (talk) 10:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The raw METAR data is no good to anybody in the main article 99.99% of readers would either not have a clue what it was about or think it was some sort of mistake on the page. We just needs a prose translation in the main body. MilborneOne (talk) 11:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I've converted it to prose and left the raw data in the note. That raw data being presented in the text of an article is about the most ridiculous thing I've seen in a long time, and you see a lot of wierd crap on these aircrash articles. MickMacNee (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And can people stop removing the explanarion of what METAR stands for (aviation routine weather observation message), this needs to be included as a basic requirement of the MoS. It's bad enough that METAR raw data has been splattered all over different aircrash articles it seems, we should at least keep this article, as one being read by many people right now, compliant with basic standards. MickMacNee (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Side question that has been bugging me. Is the METAR raw data supposed to have the (stray) equal sign at the end of it? —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 19:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

According to our article, yes. It's an 'end of data' character. MickMacNee (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I was in Islamabad at the time of the crash - about 2 miles from the crash site. The METAR description does not accord to how most people would describe the weather at the crash site (rather than the airport).

Aircraft photo

There is a photo of the aircraft at Plane Spotters. I've e-mailed the photographer to request permission for its use in the article. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 07:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a load more over at airliners.net. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 08:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a beautiful photo! I'm really grateful to a talented photographer for just giving away her/his work to us! Dcs002 (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Number of survivors

The number of survivors was changed from 45 to 4. I've just checked the ref and it clearly states 45 survivors. If there is a new source for a lower number, then it needs to be added when a change is made. Verifiability beats truth every time. Mjroots (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

How can there be 45 survivors and 20 deaths on an aircraft carrying 152 people? WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 10:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

45 confirmed survivors, 20 confirmed deaths, 87 unaccounted for. Mjroots (talk) 10:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I see now. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 10:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You probably didn't update your cache. At the time that I changed the number of survivors, the source article at India Times had been changed to 4-5 survivors. Later on, BBC also confirmed that there were conflicting reports on survivors. I've been an editor long enough to know what beats what.--Ferengi (talk) 10:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Is there any source at all for the speculation that there may actually be survivors despite the statement of none? this seems very out of place here.

Flight Times.

I noticed a discrepancy in the flight times quoted in the article. ....

"The flight left Karachi at 07:50 local time (03:50 UTC).[11] Flight controllers at Benazir Bhutto International Airport lost contact with the aircraft at 09:43 local time (04:43 UTC)[4]"

I have checked and found that Karachi and Islamabad are BOTH in the same time zone, namely UTC +5.

Either someone has got their times wrong or their simple arithmatic wrong :-) . 0750 (Local) is not 0350 (UTC +5).

94.192.224.56 (talk) 10:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Greg (not signed in)

Pakistan is in summer time, which is UTC+6. Mjroots (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

OK - I made the assumption that the city pages would have correct information (Gibbs' (NCIS) 1st rule - never assume! - lol) - However, then both times in the OA were wrong! The UTC times should read 0150 & 0350 respectfully. Which I see has just been altered as I write - fair play :)

94.192.224.56 (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Greg (not signed in)

Victim Names

I don't think this section should be included in the article. Slasher-fun (talk) 11:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

OK nevermind, it has already been deleted. Slasher-fun (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Khizer Pervaiz did not board this flight, please remove his name from the victims list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.40.3 (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Generally, names should not be mentioned per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, unless any Wikinotable people were involved. Mjroots (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Mj: Remember that names are mentioned in the FA Gol 1907 article. Gol_1907#Passenger_and_crew_list WhisperToMe (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point WhisperToMe but it is is not normal practice, we did try and remove them from that article, perhaps we need to go back and remove them. MilborneOne (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not start a discussion about it? Usually the FA's have the practices that should be copied by other articles, so as long as the list is in the Gol 1907 article, it is an "example" that other articles should copy. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Still doesnt indicate it meets guidelines like WP:NOTMEMORIAL but that discussion is not for this article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree that naming non-notable passengers is contrary to guidelines and accepted practice.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Wikipedia isn't a memorial site, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. None of the people on board are notable, so including their names serves no encyclopaedic purpose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

hey guys i created this list sourced from a news site , i did not know that this was against guidelines ... as i registered on same day i added this list... new to all this (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salmantq (talk • contribs) 16:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

2 US citizens killed?

But in the table of casualties it is displayed as 1. AlexHe34 (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

See disclaimer at top of article. Mjroots (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Flight route

I found some sources saying that flight was coming from Turkey to Islamabad via Karachi. [1]. --Saki ^talk 09:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There were several mentions of this in various sources but nothing concrete in reliable ones. Plus we have the announcement about the incident on Airblue's site: "Airblue, with great sadness, announces the loss of flight ED 202 on July 28th 2010 inbound from Karachi to Islamabad (emphasis mine). --Ferengi (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That means was a domestic flight ? Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was a domestic flight. --Saki ^talk 18:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Approach route

The plane was inbound to Islamabad on an approach requiring a heading of 296 degrees (from SE to NW). When the field was in view, they were to circle to land (left-hand traffic, counter-clockwise, semi-rectangular path), requiring them to pass to the east and then to the north of the airport until lined up with runway 12, at which point they would turn to the runway heading of 116 degrees for final approach. This approach is called "ILS approach runway 30, circle to land runway 12." The plane was supposed to stay within 5 nm (9.26 km) of the airport, but the crash was just over 8 nm to the north. They never made it around to turn final on runway 12. All of this is in http://avherald.com/h?article=42ee2e58&opt=0. This answers a lot of the earlier questions about going around, missed landings, etc. I put some of this info in the article. There's also more technical info in http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2010/07/reference-document-on-the-pakistan-crash/60545/ for those able to read approach plates, but this info needs to be corroborated with a current approach plate. The one reprinted in the article is expired. Dcs002 (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Number of fatalities

The Times of India list has 158, repeat: ONE HUNDRED FIFTY-EIGHT, names on it. --Kenatipo (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

ANSWER: The following 12 people were NOT on the airblue flight: Imtiaz Ali Khoro, Syed Shan-e-Hussain Naqvi, Salauddin Saeed, Salman Khan Bijrani, Mehran Khan Bijrani, Ayesha Amir, Aliza Amir, Abid Mehmood, Mrs. Shaheen, Jehangir Khan, Shamasur Rehman Alvi and Khizar Pervez. This info is from the online Daily Times (Pakistan) http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\07\29\story_29-7-2010_pg7_21. --Kenatipo (talk) 23:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the Youtube video airblue crash passenger list that someone made of the last page of the airblue passenger list, you can see that there are 159 people on the list. The last 13 were not on the flight. They confirmed but didn't fly. This is indicated by their not having two black dots next to their names in a column on the right. The 13th is Mohammed Saqib Rafiq Shaikh. The Times of India list combines two people's names into one: Khamid Hussein Rehmat Khan, which is why their list is one short. May all who perished rest in peace. --Kenatipo (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Non Pakistani nationals

There is some confusion regarding foreign nationals on board the flight. After some checking I think that there was no German citizen on board. I have found no other source other than [2] claiming there was a German passenger. However I have found more than one claiming he was Austrian [3],[4],[5] and a mention in an aviation forum that he had dual citizenship (search the comment section), but that is not a reliable source, so we have to more or less ignore it. So I think we should go with one Austrian passenger, no German. --Ferengi (talk) 07:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Early speculation

Just looking at this article for the first time. The undue weight flag on the "Early speculation" section is in place, but I don't see any discussion yet. I personally don't have a problem with the section per se, but I do have a problem with citing someone's credentials solely as an "aviation expert," even if that's all the BBC gives us on the guy. I particularly have a problem with the following:

Ferguson suggested that the crash might be attributed to a navigational error by the pilot. "If you are going to circle for a while, there is a safety height below which you should not descend. Usually it is the height of the tallest nearby hill, plus a couple of thousand feet for clearance. Was the plane below that height? And if so, why?"

That was simply a quote from a guy musing about whether the plane was "circling" (does that mean holding, missed approach procedure, or going around?), but the plane crashed during a landing attempt, didn't it? I think it adds nothing of expert value to say that if a plane was doing a maneuver that we know it wasn't doing, we would want to know whether it was high enough to execute that maneuver safely. That's not even speculative. Dcs002 (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Not really needed in the article he is just an Aberdeen based journalist that the BBC go to for quotes about air accidentes. He doesnt actually know any more facts than the readers of this article. Basically he has made something up which doesnt really make much sense. I would just delete the comment. MilborneOne (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I just deleted that section. The more I looked at it, the more offensive it seemed. The sentence began by saying Ferguson was commenting on a pilot's navigational error. This is not only speculating blame on a flight crew who just died, but it's also not what Ferguson said. Ferguson, though clearly not a very good aviation writer IMO, was at least careful enough not to speculate that it might have been a navigational error. He said if they were "circling" (again, what does that mean?) too low, we would want to ask why, not that we would presume a navigational error. (I read his article a couple days ago - waste of my time - but I think I'm fairly summarizing that bit here.)

But that leaves us with very little in the section. So now what? Dcs002 (talk) 08:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Just changed Ferguson from an aviation expert to a BBC aviation consultant, and removed language (nothing quoted) referring to what he thought might have caused the accident. (Ferguson never said what he thought might have caused the accident. He just listed a bunch of questions that now need to be answered in order to learn what caused it.) The selected quote refers to the improbable role of the monsoon weather, and I think it reads better now, with Consultant Ferguson now cautioning the reader against assuming it was the monsoon that caused the crash.

Referring to him as a BBC aviation consultant is factually correct without uncritically agreeing (or disagreeing) that Ferguson is an actual expert. It simply tells readers that the BBC accepts his opinions as credible. Dcs002 (talk) 04:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

See also

Adding links to AA965 and AI148 is a little dark, isn't it? Sure, they were both CFIT, but I can't really see any other connections. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 09:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Relevant?

Why is this relevant to the article when it is about the airline itself and not the accident? /HeyMid (contributions) 19:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Why are you assuming it isn't? What you might find irrelevant, others won't. MickMacNee (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, I think I already know you won't accept that as an answer, but I am not willing to accept that readers are not harmed by removing this harmless little bit of context from the lede. I can't find a specific policy wording to justify that, so I will just invoke WP:COMMON SENSE, on the basis that it is not reasonable to expect the majority of readers to have the first idea that 'Airblue' is a significant domestic carrier based in Pakistan, and is in actual fact Pakistan's second biggest airline, and it is not reasonable to expect most readers to have to go to a whole other article to discern what can be relayed in one sentence, effectively and concisely. It's not as if I have replicated the whole lede section of Airblue here, it would probably also help to add the formation date and private status of the carrier, but I won't. Therefore, to not leave this hanging, and if you are agreeable, I am willing to defer to the very next opinion that comes along. And if nobody does, the judgement of a WP:3O. MickMacNee (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I understand, but what I mean is that if they want to know more about the airline, they can just simply click on "Airblue" to find out more about the airline. /HeyMid (contributions) 08:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with MickMacNee (). Airblue may be the second biggest airline in Pakistan, but most won't have heard of them. A short clarification of who they are is justified. Mjroots (talk) 09:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the size of the airline is always germane when it comes to airline accidents because it's a factor in their their safety record. It speaks to how much flying they have done safely without crashing. Also, in this case, I agree with Mjroots that the English-speaking world probably knows very little of them. When I first heard the name "Airblue," one thing that did not come to mind immediately is "a major Pakistani airline." However, the term "market share" itself reads awkward to me. I think it belongs, but I'd prefer a more ordinary term to "market share." Something like "second largest airline" or whatever would sound much better, IMO. Dcs002 (talk) 08:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Crew photos

An IP has been inserting a link to photos in the nationality table. Does anybody else think they are necessary? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Necessary? No. Newsworthy? Yes. In compliance with WP policies? I'm too much of a noob for that one. Dcs002 (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Current approach plate?

Calling all you pilots and dispatchers! Does anyone have access to a current approach plate for Islamabad? If so, would you confirm the information at the end of paragraph 3 in the "Accident" section, and cite the current plate? I cited an article from The Atlantic, but the approach plate they used and reprinted was expired. Thanks! Dcs002 (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)