Talk:2015 Sumatra Indonesian Air Force C-130 crash

Fatalities

"It is too early to know exactly how many people were killed in the disaster, or what caused it, our correspondent says." From the BBC. [1] Given the circumstances, it seems unwise at this point to attempt to give exact numbers - they will almost certainly change. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I note that this entirely sensible advice has been ignored - and that as a result we now have contradictory numbers in the article. A mess, entirely avoidable if people were to stop treating Wikipedia as some sort of instant-update news medium, and instead apply a little common sense, and a little patience. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Happens all the time with breaking news. As for the cause, I'm betting on the hydraulics running dry. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: The numbers still don't add up. I tried to find an un-sourced change, but haven't yet. The crew number of 12 seems high, but is that typical for a Herc transport? I was thinking it was 4 crew at one point because the lede said "109 passengers" & "113 people aboard", and if that was right, then the figures make sense. However I have removed that 113 figure[2]as it appears nowhere in the text.
Possible: 109 pass. + 4 crew + 9 ground=122. Current:109 pass. + 12 crew + 9 ground=130 ??. 220 of ^Borg 07:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Sources I can find all seem to say 122 on-board, 10 crew, 112 pass.[3]. But Jakarta Post says 113 pass.[4]. Also up to 141 dead recovered [5]. 220 of ^Borg 08:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

(Moved my misplaced comment to the right section. Just ignore tehe comment.): There is clearly some incorrect information given in the article about the total number of fatalities. How can the number of fatalities (122) include nine fatalities on the ground if there was a total of 121 people on board the aircaft who were all killed in the crash? The previous number of 140+ fatalities seems more likely to be true. – Sandip90 (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Are there any better figures available now? The article still contradicts with the figures in the sidebar (nine vs. twenty two fatalities on the ground) Etherealflux (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Title

The aircraft involved was a Lockheed C-130 Hercules - the manufacturer is Lockheed, and the aircraft type is C-130 Hercules. Not 'Hercules C-130', as some sources may incorrectly have it. U.S. military aircraft are designated by a letter-number combination, followed by an optional name. The title is accordingly incorrect, and will need amending at some point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree, "2015 Indonesian Air Force Lockheed Hercules crash" fits the naming convention. The C-130 can be included if desired. Mjroots (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I assume you mean 'Indonesian'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep, coffee hadn't kicked in then! Mjroots (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd support 2015 Indonesian Air Force Lockheed C-130 Hercules crash. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Probably the most precise title, fine by me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I would support a move to 2015 Indonesian Air Force Lockheed C-130 Hercules crash as most descriptive and in accordance with normal nomenclature for these types of articles. - Ahunt (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Moved to "2015 Indonesian Air Force Lockheed C-130 Hercules crash" MilborneOne (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Tail number

Is the tail number known? If so, it should be added to the article and an entry made at the List of aircraft by tail number. Mjroots (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Per here, the tail number was A-1310, and it was built in 1964. If that is true then per this it was a KC-130B, though that page has a 1961 date on the original delivery. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

'Ammunition'?

The article currently reads "all of the ammunition and two engines from the aircraft were successfully removed from the crash site" - citing this source [6]. Can someone who can read the original confirm exactly what it says? C-130s are normally unarmed, and accordingly the presence of ammunition seems unlikely to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

maybe the personal ammo the soldiers in the plane were carrying? 67.204.153.57 (talk) 05:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

illegal towers

would love a better translation or explanation of what that means 67.204.153.57 (talk) 05:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Means a cellphone tower (mobile phone tower in British English) erected without permit, as often happens in developing countries where there are many cellphone companies and obtaining permits for towers is difficult, expensive and/or time-consuming. In this case the tower was presumably on top of a building. A slight confusion in the article where the word 'tower' is also used for the airport's control tower, a very different kind of tower! Stanning (talk) 09:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

"Flameout"?

The infobox currently states: "Flameout on no. 4 engine". Is this terminology correct? AFAIK a "flamout" is something that only applies to a jet engine, not a turboprop. I'm not sure for certain though - is anyone able to confirm? Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 07:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

A turboprop is really a jet engine so it does apply. MilborneOne (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Ack - thanks for the explanation. Anotherclown (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)