Talk:Asiana Airlines Flight 214/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

A full autoland was not possible.

Time to move on....and don't start another thread to reply to something someone's said here — Lfdder (talk) 11:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"The purpose of ILS is to be able to land in IMC. Today's planes do not need it and can land themselves under zero zero conditions. That automation level was available to the pilots, but they chose not to use it." While stated with good intention, that is not accurate. No airliner can do a full autoland without a fully functioning and certified CAT III b/c system (or an equally capable MLS system) in operation at a specific runway. And, at SFO, they cannot have planes landing on both 28L & 28R at the same time, if any plane is doing a full autoland. ATC would have to be informed in advance (even if the wx is VMC) so they can ensure that planes on the ground are not too close to the ILS transmitters. Additionally, the plane itself has to be current, which means it has successfully conducted an autoland within the last 30 days, and the logbook has been signed off on that required periodic test. And finally, BOTH pilots must have been trained, tested and certified to conduct a full autoland operation, and that cannot be done until they have had a required amount of time in that plane, which means no "High Minimums" captains or first officers can conduct such an approach. EditorASC (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Where is that from? — Lfdder (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC) That was a statement by Apteva (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC), in the "Misc sources (CRM, hand-flying, automation, culture)" section, that was closed. The rules require that I reply in another section that is open. EditorASC (talk) 22:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Does a rule require you to respond? It sounds pointless. 75.208.112.227 (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC) The NTSB said that a variety of levels of automation were available, but that zippering in the flights to 28L and 28R was done because the runways are so close together. It is misleading to say that the plane "crashed while landing", because when it crashed it was attempting to execute a go around, and was not trying to land. The attempt to land was aborted, unsuccessfully. It is important to mention the 90 second evacuation delay and the victim being run over by a fire truck in the lead because those are both significant. Apteva (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC) "The NTSB said that a variety of levels of automation were available, but that zippering in the flights to 28L and 28R was done because the runways are so close together." That does not mean the plane was capable of a full autoland. It wasn't, for reasons stated above. No, there is no rule that says I am required to respond. However, I think it is very important to correct inaccurate information that is posted in Wikipedia, for obvious and logical reasons. EditorASC (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC) 'Crashed on final approach' perhaps? It is not clear whether either of those is significant at this stage. — Lfdder (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC) The pilot was trying to land until a very short time before the collision. How many seconds of "attempted go around" were there exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC) -- Clearly not nearly enough time, but perhaps 3 seconds. Saying "go around" into the microphone is not the same thing as pushing the TO/GA button and/or moving the throttles to take-off power. 75.208.112.227 (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Quite so. The vocal command was logged approx 1.5 seconds before impact. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC) 3 seconds by one crew member and 1.5 seconds by a different crew member. There were three people in the cockpit who could have said go around, but at least one was either the flying pilot or the PIC (or both), by process of elimination. Apteva (talk) 00:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Again, just 'cos they called out 'go around' doesn't mean they did go around. We know the engines spooled up at some point, but no one's yet confirmed they did actually attempt a go around (as far as I can tell). — Lfdder (talk) 00:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Go-around does not necessarily prevent landing. The two can be underway concurrently. It is still the captain's duty to land safely. 75.208.112.227 (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Wrong. It may not be in time to prevent a crash, but once the go-around command is given, any pilot would be insane to attempt to salvage a landing after the plane begins to climb back up with full TOGA power applied. They were supposed to begin the go-around right after they descended thru 500 ft. and the plane was not stabilized on the approach. That was Mandatory and if the PIC had commanded a GA at that time, it is highly likely that there would have been no crash. I have long since characterized those kind of accidents as "Testosterone Approaches." The PIC insists the landing be salvaged even though they are not stabilized on the approach and they were required to GA at 500 ft (visual appch) or 1,000 ft. (IFR appch), apparently because the PIC thinks it too humiliating to have to GA. Countless accidents caused that way with hordes of dead bodies and terrible injuries for those who were lucky enough to survive. EditorASC (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC) VISUAL APPROACH. A visual approach is an ATC authorization for an aircraft on an IFR flight plan to proceed visually to the airport ... Anyone who says that a visual approach is not an IFR approach does not have an instrument rating. 75.210.64.72 (talk) 09:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC) You are wrong. You need to stop telling other people that they are wrong with it is you who does not understand. 75.210.64.72 (talk) 09:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC) If rate of climb is negative, the plane is landing. Until a positive rate of is established, it is quite reasonable to say that landing and go-around are concurrent. You are pretty clueless if by climb back up you mean a positive rate of climb. Obviously, the plane won't land under that condition. However, it is quite possible for the plane to touch down on a go-around such as when the preceding plane did not timely clear the runway or there is a runway incursion. In such cases, the go-around might be initiated too late to arrest the descent before the wheels touch. But the plane must land on the runway safely. Landing short of the threshold during a go-around takes a special kind of incompetence. 75.210.64.72 (talk) 09:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC) You are wrong about the 500' because you have not proved that IFR was cancelled during the approach. Clearance for a visual approach is not an IFR cancellation. 75.210.64.72 (talk) 09:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC) Is that called the "decision altitude"? I suspect stuff like this will be in the NTSB final report. At 500 feet AGL, they were reasonably aligned with the runway, their speed was normal, they were slightly high on the PAPI glideslope, but the engines were on idle, and the speed was continuously dropping. That was about 20 seconds prior to impact. They came in high and fast and ended up low and slow because of the engines being on idle for 75 seconds (82 seconds out until 7 seconds out). We can not use this[1] because it is a blog, but it compares this flight with other 777's landing at SFO. Apteva (talk) 00:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC) There's no decision height for visual approaches. 500ft is the (lowest) recommended height at which to go around if not stabilised. This applies to any kind of approach. — Lfdder (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Correct, except for the word "recommended." The GA is MANDATORY if the apprch is not stabilized by that altitude. EditorASC (talk) 03:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Can't know that for sure without having seen their SOP. — Lfdder (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Can't know that for sure without having proof that they cancelled IFR. 75.210.64.72 (talk) 09:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC) IP probably confused touchdown with landing. — Lfdder (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Which sources, and which proposed or existing content does this discussion relate to? AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC) It doesnt it is just more random speculation while we wait for the NTSB to report. MilborneOne (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC) I don't see much speculation here, it's just mostly off-topic. — Lfdder (talk) 09:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

90 second evacuation delay

I would like to propose that the 90 second evacuation delay be included in the lead, as it certainly is a significant fact of the accident. Whether it was a brilliant decision that saved 304 lives or whether it was a decision that contributed to 3 deaths can not be speculated upon. Apteva (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Which sources state that it was significant? And come to that, which sources state that the delay was due to a 'decision'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

It is a factual description of the accident. We hit the ground, we waited 90 seconds to evacuate. A flight attendant instructed another to ask the pilot if they should evacuate, and were told no. A flight attendant noticed fire outside the cabin and asked again, and were told to evacuate the plane. That was 90 seconds later. It is just a basic fact. Whether it was important or not will be determined by the NTSB. If I was reading an article about an accident, I would assume that passengers were evacuated immediately upon the aircraft coming to a stop, unless I was alerted to a delay in the beginning of the article. This is not the sort of detail that anyone should have to read down into the article to learn. I was not using the word "significant" to mean "important" but to mean "a long time", as in more than 5 or 10 seconds. Apteva (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Without a source indicating that this was a key decision in the sequence of events, it seems overdetailed for the lede. VQuakr (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

As our article stands, it isn't that clear at what point the first question from the cabin crew came - the '90 seconds' was from when the plane came to rest. I don't have time to watch the source (the long NTSB briefing) right now - is there a transcript which might clarify this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Try this.[2] Apteva (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Apteva's source is a good one. Here are a couple more:

"The pilots are in the front of the airplane," she [Hersman] said. "They really don't have a good sense of what's going on behind them." [3] [4]

That is a highly significant piece of news, since NO evacuation should ever be delayed, even for just a few seconds, when a plane is damaged that badly. That it was delayed and the passengers were actually told to remain in their seats, is solid fact, supported by NTSB Hersman, and should be in the lead as suggested. EditorASC (talk) 05:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The cockpit told the flight attendants to delay evacuationCheckingfax (talk) 06:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be. Don't make assertions. Wait for the investigation. — Lfdder (talk) 09:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Just like the fire truck death, we initially put it in the lead, then when it was not certain it was a contributing factor we moved it out, (keeping it in the body), then when it was released that it was the cause of death we put it back into the lead. While we will not likely know for a year if the NTSB thinks that the delay was or was not a mistake, it certainly warrants being in the lead as being totally unexpected and quite unusual. I mean seriously, if you were the only person on a plane that crashed would you sit on the ground for 90 seconds before getting out of there (if you could)? Apteva (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Sensationalism?

Several passengers recalled noticing the plane's unusual proximity to the Bay on final approach,

Those passengers and other eyewitness accounts of aviation accidents are often, pardon my French, crap. They are biased and unreliable.

I once saw a passenger insist that the tail of a plane was broken but that was a normal gap when the rudder turns. The passenger saw the plane at a gate.

Accident investigations usually tabulate unreliable passenger assessments but rely on objective measures, like the altimeter. In reality, when the plane is over water, altitude is very difficult to judge from a passenger side window, particularly if they can't even see the runway.

We have to be cautious because readers with aviation experience will laugh at WP. Let's try to do a good job. Let's axe this sentence in italics. Auchansa (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Even if they were right? The only time the plane was low, though, was in the final seven seconds before impact, beginning just about the same time that the throttles were advanced. Apteva (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

News reports covered the passengers' reactions. (I'm waiting for the OP to tell us that not only were the passengers wrong, but that the plane didn't actually crash.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I think his point is that eyewitness testimony can be unreliable. It's not that the passengers are lying; but it's that human perceptions can miss things. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, it can be. Was it, in this case? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Typically they find out once the actual report is compiled by the NTSB WhisperToMe (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Inline citations should not occur in the lead?

I thought the MOS specifies that no inline citations should appear in the lead. The lead is to restate/sumarize the gist of the article, and the inline citations go in the body. --Mareklug ^talk 20:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

That's the standard procedure, yes. I think citations are sometimes included in the summary just to head off complaints about things being uncited. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the citations from the lead and put them where they belong. --Mareklug ^talk 23:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Kudos. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I think if something is controversial it should be cited, but if not, and it occurs elsewhere in the article, then the citation goes outside the lead WhisperToMe (talk) 04:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

To quote the MOS at WP:LEADCITE: "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." VQuakr (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Admin - Please Prevent Edit War re Image Caption for visually impaired

It appears that editor Jehochman is unhappy with some useful edits made by Mareklug and has reverted them. Unfortunately, Jehochman's initial edit was accompanied by needless snarky commentary while his edits both decreased the encyclopedic quality of the article and removed image captioning that assists the visually impaired and is helpful to others.

I would normally just revert Jehochman's latest re-revert but I don't want to set up a situation where "edit war" rules start to get imposed.

If Jehochman wants to argue about style, he can do so, civilly, on the Talk page.

Can some administrator take a look at this series of edits?

If senior admins find I have miscategorized the edits, so be it, I won't take further steps to remove Jehochman's unhelpful edits.

Thanks Ande B. (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, fully supportive of reviewing Jehochman's actions and his snarky edit remarks - it just isn't helpful to deal with issues like that. There are without a doubt many contributors who may not be as familiar with wp, and its markup, but acting like that is not constructive, especially because it is probably pretty safe to assume that most wp admins are not necessarily aviation experts, ATCOs or even type rated 777 pilots - thus, skills, expertise and knowledge should complement each other - what's going on here is plain ridiculous and doesn't help quality at all, I have seen knowledgeable contributions reverted by people due to stylistic issues, and plain wrong stuff being added, reviewed and approved just because it matches wp style, is that intended ? Please, think about it - or just lock the article and have 3-5 guys with a background in aviation act as reviewers, while others can take care of stylistic stuff and proper refs. Thank you --Parallelized (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing that. You guys are a bunch of really uncollegial editors, and I'm not going to waste time arguing with you at all. Jehochman ^Talk 20:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I specifically alerted you to these developments so that you could provide a little insight - unfortunately, you failed at that, big time I may add. Don't get me wrong, improvements are appreciated - but please don't touch contents that you don't understand, I am sure everybody will appreciate your stylistic contributions - to help those people who actually know a thing or two about aviation with using wp.--Parallelized (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Single Point Editor specifically discourages that exclusivity, IMHO. Checkingfax (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I've also had a problem with one of Jehochman's edits, which ignored discussion, and removed an edit and its cite, with the comment that the edit was uncited. Hopefully we don't have to waste time on these kinds of issues and can focus on improving the article. guanxi (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

report it to WP:AN/EW, or just WP:AN -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 21:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe someone could first try to talk to that dude, I mean he seems pretty accomplished over here, and even an admin - obviously not an aviation expert, but there should be an option to get him involved to help people who are not as familiar with wp, instead of having to report him outright? But reverting stuff like that is just crazy, and frankly, pretty discouraging.--Parallelized (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: I have now had to revert Jehochman's removal of descriptive cutline for the interior shot twice, and both edits of that Wikipedian came with snarky edit summaries. Also, now, that he has removed the reference in the text to oxygen masks being deployed on impact (survivor account), the cutline is the only textual manifestation of this, and of course, the NTSB-supplied picture is reliable source in this case. Ditto for the information about the seats remaining in place. The seats remaining in place is a crucial bit of information not mentioned anywhere else in the text, yet responsible for so few fatalities. Seat strengthening to withstand 16G acceleration is one of the hallmarks of improved survivability of modern passenger aircraft. Also, it is entirely within Wikipedia policy to restate pictorial/graphic information in text, precisely for the consumption of visually impaired, as Ande B. already mentioned, as well as readers employing textual browsing. I would hope Jehochman will not cause a need to revert this unjustified edit one more time. I would also like to ask for less snark in edit summaries. --Mareklug ^talk 00:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe find a citation for the seats remaining in place, otherwise this seems like original research. --Malerooster (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The NTSB-supplied picture is citation enough. After all, this is the cutline to go with it. --Mareklug ^talk 01:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

This is the essence of WP:OR. I am not seeing this "cutline", not sure what that is, not sure if that would matter, but can you link it? --Malerooster (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not original research. Information comes in many modalities. An officially released picture is one of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutline -- is a description of a photograph. You are looking at it. --Mareklug ^talk 01:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I mean all the seats didn't remain in place, but thats besides the point, since a photo is open to interpretation. Just find a RS and be done with this, why is that so hard? --Malerooster (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Industry experts said the Asiana plane, a Boeing BA +1.31% 777, had a significant advantage over older models: It was equipped with a new generation of seats, the majority of which stayed in place instead of breaking loose from their floor tracks or collapsing, which could have caused many more serious injuries. In 1988, the Federal Aviation Administration began requiring that seats on newly designed, newly certified planes must withstand inertial force equal to 16 times the force of gravity in static testing. Today, that is the world standard. The FAA declined to make a seat specialist available for an interview. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324694904578598041567963334.html Will you revert your removal now? --Mareklug ^talk 01:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

This supportts my edit. A number of the seats did NOT stay in place, this has been reliable sourced in multiple places and in the photo. --Malerooster (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The three that were ejected with the flight attendants in them did not stay in place, but no information has been released about any other seats not remaining in place. Apteva (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: Malerooster removed the information pertaining to the seats remaining in place 3 times now in close succession, without waiting for community input. I appeal to other editors to address this. --Mareklug ^talk 01:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment: Mareklug added the information pertaining to the seats remaining in place 3 times now in close succession, without waiting for community input. I appeal to other editors to address this.--Malerooster (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

  You do realize that that you are being POINTy, as well as uncooperative. Your  Comment: came after I quoted a textual RS you called for. Also, in WP:MOSCAPTION, which you directed me to in your last revert's edit summary, it is stated: Captions for technical images should fully describe all the elements of the image, and the image's significance. --Mareklug ^talk 02:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

This is NOT a technical image and why not use alt text? Also, I still haven't seen the "cutline" you referred to earlier. I went to the twitter picture and didn't see it, but might have missed it. Also, the photo shows that some of the seats did not remain in place, but again, that would be original research to say that in the text. Still waiting for a RS that covers this, rather than a stand alone photo. --Malerooster (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can say whether the seats did or didn't remain in place, or whether they remained in place, but the tracking or floor itself was displaced. 92.235.125.151 (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The NTSB did. The floor burned out later. Apteva (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Chinese passengers

Here in the article states that "Almost half of the flight's passengers were Chinese because of Seoul's status as a major connecting point between China and North America; as of July 2013 Asiana Airlines operates between Seoul and 21 cities in mainland China. There had been a lack of direct flights between many Chinese cities and the United States, and low prices and territorial disputes between Japan and China have caused many Chinese to transit via Seoul."
I removed these. In this case, there is no need to analyze Chinese passengers' tendency and put these disputed reasons in the article, since more than 90 of the flight's Chinese passengers actually departed from Shanghai taking OZ362 (Xinhua News Agency, in Chinese), where there are multiple choices to fly to SFO, including several direct flights and both Japan Airlines' and All Nippon Airways' flights. The Japanese flights take too long, but the duration of OZ362->OZ214 is considerably short, this may play a more important role than the low price or Anti-Japanese sentiment. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 06:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Tom, one crucial aspect of Wikipedia is WP:V, meaning that verifiability and not truth is the criterion for inclusion. So that has a consequence with point number one.

1. "The Japanese flights take too long, but the duration of OZ362->OZ214 is considerably short, this may play a more important role than the low price or Anti-Japanese sentiment. " - Do you have a reliable source saying that the flight length is more important than the price or the anti-Japanese sentiment?

2. "where there are multiple choices to fly to SFO, including several direct flights and both Japan Airlines' and All Nippon Airways' flights." - While it is true that there are multiple options out of Shanghai, the WSJ article also mentioned the price factor (as in Seoul connecting flights were fairly inexpensive), and that doesn't account for the other Chinese passengers on the flight who may have originated from smaller Chinese cities.

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I was fully aware of WP:V but I also found that the WSJ article is from WP:NEWSBLOG which may be acceptable if the author is professional, but should be used with caution. Here I want to cite two news articles in Chinese: China Economic Net's news article, which was republished by Xinhua, Sina and many other websites (Chinese media have legal right and like to simply copy and republish news articles written by other media), compares the price of Asiana Airlines' connecting flight with the price of China Eastern Airlines' non-stop flight like the WSJ blog author, and suggests that the low price is the main factor. But it is very disputed in Chinese forums and microblogs, because by consulting online flight booking websites, in most cases, one may easily find flights cheaper than Asiana Airlines'. {That was what Yangcheng Evening News' journalist did. According to this news article, on Shanghai-based travel agency Ctrip's website, the journalist found an Air China's flight with one stop cheaper than Asiana Airlines'. In this news article, some experts agree that Asiana Airlines' tickets are mostly cheap but not always, "a responsible person of a large flight ticket agency website" claimed that Chinese flights might be more expensive than non-Chinese ones several years ago, but not now; connecting flights may be always cheaper than non-stop flights; Chinese airliners operate both non-stop flights and connecting flights, and people should always compare non-stop flights with non-stop flights, or connecting flights with connecting flights (which is exactly the opposite of what WSJ blog author and the China Economic Net author did). According to the news article, other factors that may make Asiana Airlines more competitive than Chinese or other airlines, include quality of service, airline brand influence, country's visa-free policy, and even psychological factors (Chinese may want to take foreign airlines' flight to have a different experience).} However, I find it not necessary to analyze those complex things and dig it too deep in an article named "Asiana Airlines Flight 214", not "Airlines' marketing strategy towards Chinese passengers", "Aviation market share in China" or something. The current revision of the article is just fine, why insist on adding all those debates in it? --Tomchen1989 (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

We can use a source if a journalist uses, say, the WSJ's argument and directly contradicts it. If a journalist researches the claims and publishes a news article on it, then it's absolutely fair game and should be considered. In regards to using criticism on self-published microblogs and/or Wikipedians consulting flight schedules on their own it may be considered original research to a degree (how does an individual challenge the claims by the WSJ?). I do agree that there should not be too much focus on that aspect, but the reason why I would like to add some of it is because it helps readers understand the significance of the flight, on why so many Chinese were on board. I added similar information to China Airlines Flight 611 (TPE-HKG known as the "Golden Route") and Swissair Flight 111 (UN shuttle, and clientele of diplomats and politicians) as well as Sosoliso Airlines Flight 1145 (Nigerian schoolchildren originating from Port Harcourt used it to fly from Abuja from their boarding school because the roads were too dangerous) WhisperToMe (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

No that's beyond "an individual challenge the claims by the WSJ". That, in my previous post, is a Yangcheng Evening News news article (which is written after interviewing local pros and experts) versus a WSJ blog article (see WP:NEWSBLOG). To make it more clear, I now use braces "{}" to indicate those raised by Yangcheng Evening News in my previous post.

Now our article says "Seoul Incheon serves as a major connecting point between China and North America", that is good, that's a simple fact, very objective. But if we play that "fair game" like you said, adding a lot of contradictory, subjective points of view, like price, flight length, quality of service, airline brand influence, country's visa-free policy, and even psychological factors (the anti-Japanese sentiment as the WSJ blog says, or the preference of choosing foreign airline to have a different experience as one of the Yangcheng Evening News' interviewees, a Chinese airline's marketing manager said), we need to add lots of these as well as to discuss whether they are main factors or whether they are valid factors, we may be immersed in that "fair game", and I just don't think it's necessary to play any game here. I also found no such game played in the articles China Airlines Flight 611, Swissair Flight 111, Sosoliso Airlines Flight 1145, "Golden Route", "UN shuttle", dangerous roads, they are all simple, objective, non-disputed facts, just like "Incheon is a major connecting point".--Tomchen1989 (talk) 05:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said above " I do agree that there should not be too much focus on that aspect" so if there is a better place for the discussion perhaps it can go in the Seoul Incheon article and that would work. :) - Since many contradictions were published by the Yangcheng Evening News, that makes the issue complicated, and the complexities can be discussed in another article. I don't make a distinction between a "NEWSBLOG" and a regular news article since a "NEWSBLOG" is just a presentation of a newspaper article, as the NEWSBLOG section states. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Victims list

Is there any reason why the three victims' names are not mentioned? I am just curious. Many articles I see list the names of the fatalities. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

We dont normally list names of victims for aircraft accidents unless they are otherwise notable before the accident, normally indicated by them having a wikipedia article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I assumed that EN Wikipedia might have some kind of privacy policies to protect the teen victims when I found the lack of their names. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

No, just notability. All three names are publicly available. Apteva (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Personally both the presence and the lack of the victims' names are OK for me. But if the privacy is not we concern about, then I see no reason to prevent adding victims' names. WP:Notability doesn't apply here, since notability guidelines do not limit content within an article. Also, counter-examples can be found, one of the victims' names appears in Atlantic Southeast Airlines Flight 529; among the Swissair Flight 111#Notable victims, there are also someone whose notability may be questioned, like a daughter of an entrepreneur, two university professors. I think if there are too much victims in an accident, then the names should be reasonably limited in our article. But if the victims are very few, their names can be reasonably mentioned. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason not to list their names and other info. There would not likely be justification for creating separate articles about them, as that's when the notability rule would come into play. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• All passengers and most of the crew are victims. The reason not to list the deceased victims is because it clutters the article. What about people who suffered permanent injuries? How about people who commit suicide afterward? What if someone is left in a permanent vegetative state, but did not die? There has to be some consistency: Are you going to list the name of every deceased victim when there are hundreds or thousands? Notability is the criterion we have. If we make another criterion, like 5 or fewer deaths of passengers and crew, then it needs to be applied across other disasters and accidents. 75.208.16.211 (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Cause of death

Saying they died after being run over by the fire truck does not in any way indicate that the fire truck caused the death, as was stated by the coroner. After could mean 75 years after, and have nothing to do with the fire truck incident. After could mean that after being run over by the fire truck they were still alive, but succumbed to injuries due to the crash, and not due to injuries due to being run over. From is a better word than after. From is also better to use for the other death as well. The crash was not an illness that anyone died "of", it was a trauma that someone died "from". Just as a guess, I would think that they died while they were being run over, but "from being run over" is fine. Apteva (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

"From" is correct. "After" is an imprecise colloquialism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the girl hit by the truck had sustained injuries that might have proved fatal with or without the collision, and so was deliberately being imprecise. But I went back and reread the article about the firetruck, and the coroner did say she died because she was hit by the truck. So after-> from is fine. Disagree that "died of" is only used in cases of disease, but won't argue the point further. PRRfan (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• If you did argue the point, you would be correct. The distinction between "injury" or "disease" is not important. In English grammar it is quite appropriate to state that someone died of an injury. 75.210.152.163 (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Speculation: Pilots unskilled at hand flying? (was: Brace yourselves for an avalanche of edits...)

more speculating
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
http://jalopnik.com/report-says-asiana-airlines-korean-pilots-lack-manual-800266263 Not sure this is within the scope of the article, or even constitutes encyclopedic information, but you may want to keep an eye on increased edits injecting/removing this info. --Mareklug talk 18:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC) (see the thread before last?) Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC) We have far to much trivia and speculation in the article already and really we dont need anything more added until we get an official report, it may be time then to prune or cut back a lot of the page. MilborneOne (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Agreed, also the bloomberg article should be considered more authoritative than this "blog". Still, there's an increasing amount of media coverage related to hand-flying and automation in general. --Parallelized (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC) I would want to wait for a statement from the NTSB that it was a factor. Apteva (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC) The word manual means "manually manipulating the controls", not "reading the manual to find out what to do". At this point this sort of arm chair speculation belongs in blogs and people magazine, not in an encyclopedia. FYI, no pilot ever takes off or lands without referring to a printed checklist, just to make certain that nothing is missed. Apteva (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC) This "trivia" does support the assertion by ALPA that the ILS was critical to the pilots, that is, namely were not able to fly a visual approach to landing. 75.208.105.97 (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC) I think it becomes relevant either when an Asiana pilot makes this claim, Asiana concedes the point, or the NTSB makes it an official finding from its inquiry. 75.208.16.211 (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Investigation on this page

Can we agree to archive and stop speculation and amateur investigation on this page, it is getting full of nonesense, wikipedia is not here to investigate accidents and only comments should be addressed at article improvement not every newsstory and blog speculation around, plenty of blogs around if editors want to speculate, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

This page is actually getting worse - please note blogs are available for speculation and trivia, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Who needs to read blogs? We have a press release full of nonsense from ALPA to fuel lots of speculation faulting the aircraft and the FAA. 75.210.138.66 (talk) 09:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism of an editor's post on the talk page.

Move on, please. Article talk pages are not for discussion of editor behavior.

I removed an insert by another editor, that changed my post on the talk page. It made it looked like I had said the words that he inserted in the middle of my post. It was quite proper for me to remove it, since it was MY post and not his. Wiki rules do not permit any editor to alter the posts of another editor, so I had every right to remove it. Incredibly, anther editor reverted my removal and put back that false, misleading, unethical and downright deceptive altering of my post, by his insertion of HIS words, in my post so as to make it look like it was part of what I had intended to post. In short, you have aided and abetted a vandalism of my post. That cannot be allowed to stand. I will continue to remove words put in the middle of my posts, by other editors, without my permission. If you don't like it, then take it to Admin and try to justify why another editor should be allowed to alter the posts of other editors. I would love to see your argument for allowing that fraudulent state of affairs. EditorASC (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC) New line, bulleted and signed. They didn't 'vandalise' your post; they've just put their response in the wrong place. The decent thing to do would be to move it down. — Lfdder (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC) As I noted on your talkpage, it wasn't vandalism, merely a misplaced comment. Please reconsider your approach to interactions with other editors. Acroterion (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC) Yeah. 1: Vandalism has a pretty specific meaning involving malintent. Not all unhelpful or erroneous edits are vandalism. 2: It may have been more helpful to just move the comment for the user instead of putting it right back where it was. 3: The comment has now been moved to a more suitable place, so this should be settled now. Happy editing, Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC) It isn't settled as far as I am concerned. a) TO: Lfdder (talk): "They didn't 'vandalise' your post; they've just put their response in the wrong place." (Lfdder) It wasn't "they." It was ONE particular editor (which you obviously knew, since you insisted on putting his illegal posts, smack dab back in the middle of mine again, TWO DIFFERENT TIMES! You seem to imply it was just an innocent action on his part, yet you did the very same thing to me, quite deliberately, TWICE!. If that isn't valid evidence of YOUR malintent, then it is impossible to understand what does constitute deliberate vandalism. You did it deliberately and knowingly. I call that vandalism on your part, as well as vindictive and vengeful editing, too. You have the gall to say that the "decent" thing would have been for me to simply move his illegitimate post to another place, instead of just deleting it from the middle of my post. Yet, you didn't seem to feel compelled to be "decent" yourself. Nope, you just used your editing powers to reinforce and repeat the attack on me by that editor. Despicable, willful and vengeful conduct on your part. I have a duty to be "decent," but you don't? b) Prior to that editor willfully altering my posts, he used insulting language, which I think adds to the evidence of his malintent: "it is you who does not understand," (this, after he said it was wrong to say that someone else is wrong, but then he goes on to say I am wrong--the old double-standard gambit). "You are pretty clueless," "You are wrong about the 500' because you have not proved that IFR was cancelled during the approach." (combination of his ignorance and vindictive response, to my accurate statements.) "Anyone who says that a visual approach is not an IFR approach does not have an instrument rating." (an insulting way to make a statement of astounding ignorance) He altered my posts twice, in two different sections. And, the second time he altered the indent of my posts, so as to make it look more like I had actually said the words that he inserted. I am the ONLY one that he has used these kinds of illegal tactics on, and he did it TWICE. You don't think that constitutes evidence of malintent, combined with his insults? c) TO: Acroterion (talk): "As I noted on your talk page, it wasn't vandalism, merely a misplaced comment. Please reconsider your approach to interactions with other editors." Yes, I have noted that you have reprimanded me, who is the victim of attacks by both 75.210.64.72 (talk) and Lfdder (talk). But you have said nothing about insults I have received, as well of the DELIBERATE VANDALISM by Lfdder (talk). Even if you are sincere that you don't think 75.210.64.72 (talk) was engaging in deliberate vandalism of my posts (I think it was deliberate), how on earth can you ignore Lfdder (talk) putting it back in the middle of my posts (TWICE, in two different sections), AFTER he had admitted that they were put in the wrong place (in the middle of my posts)? He gets a pass for his two cases of DELIBERATE VANDALISM of my posts, while I deserve a reprimand? You are the one who needs to do some reconsidering here; specifically about the way you are abusing and misusing your ADMIN powers in a highly discriminatory way. I had every right to remove those alterations of my posts, and Lfdder (talk) had no right to repeat that vandalism of my posts, TWICE, in two different sections. Please explain to me why I have a duty to be "decent" and considerate, but those two do not? EditorASC (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC) I used they as a gender-neutral pronoun. No, I don't know them. There was no 'malintent' from my part nor am I convinced there was any malintent from IP. I assumed good faith. You probably should too. — Lfdder (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC) I do doubt that there was any mistake as to authorship of my remarks. I certainly meant no harm or offense. Please accept my humble apology. I thought EditorASC was doing fine work overall on the article. I am glad to work with him wishing only that he will be more gentle. I think that the easiest fix would have been for EditorASC to paste his sig above above my comments which were indented and signed. The second easiest fix would have been to ask me to relocate my replies. 75.210.75.165 (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC) I think the fairly simple explanation is that EditorASC and I have very different styles for replying that are mutually incompatible. He tends to quote others in his replies. I try to to co-locate my replies with the original statement. Now I am aware to watch out for this. But if I forget, please be gentle. I don't know just how this works, because my response in this thread appears after EditorASC's list of offenses which is timestamped 3 minutes after mine. 75.210.75.165 (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC) Is it possible that I fixed the indent level on his post to make it line up for clarity? Yes, that's possible. The edit log will show it. Did I try to make it look like my words were his? No way! Did I target EditorASC? There is not a chance. I targeted statements with which I disagreed. Does Lfdder know me or have any bias in my favor? I haven't seen any evidence of that.75.210.75.165 (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC) I don't agree with the "fix" as it is at the moment as my replies now appear out of context, but that really isn't important to me. Because my neutrality could be questioned, I'm staying out of it. What is important is what goes into the article. 75.210.75.165 (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC) What matters is that we all agree that IFR was not canceled, that a visual approach is an IFR procedure in VMC, and that the flight was not under VFR. 75.210.75.165 (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC) I'd suggest that what matters more, to most editors at this Talk Page, anon ip, is that you adopt a more conciliatory and collaborative tone. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC) p.s. how many Verizon Wireless anon ip editors do we have contributing here, exactly? Would it not be beneficial to create a named account? I am the only 75.2??.*.* editor that I have seen here so far. I accept responsibility for my words. I do believe that the "clueless" remark could be misleading when shown out of its original context. 75.210.75.165 (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Boeing Customer Code

I don't know why do you reset my edit as Boeing 777-28E(ER) or Boeing 777-28EER in the infobox, especially that is to identify the operator or the one who owns the aircraft. If I use Boeing 777-200ER, it would be in general or for the aircraft only not with the operator. Don't mind if i will change the infobox with the details you have resetted and that is not necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinas Central (talk • contribs) 09:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The customer code doesn't identify the operator (nor necessarily the owner), but the original customer. If Asiana were to lease their 777s from ILFC that ILFC bought first-hand from Boeing, the customer code would be ILFC's, but the operator would be Asiana. If Asiana were to buy ILFC's 777s, the customer code would, again, remain ILFC's. If the fact that Asiana bought this plane straight from Boeing is worth mentioning, then we should just say it. There's no need for fancy-pants codes. — Lfdder (talk) 10:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, it has already been agreed on not to add the customer code.--FoxyOrange (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

That discussion was archived too quickly. There should be a style page which sets forth this standard and its rationale to make it easier to share with new editors. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Criticism of NTSB by ALPA

Proposal: Delete entire subsection Criticism of NTSB by ALPA from section Investigation.

Extended content

Text to be deleted: The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) criticized the NTSB for releasing "incomplete, out-of-context information" that "fueled rampant speculation about the cause of the accident" and created an impression that pilot error was entirely to blame.((ref NYT-Autothrottle))((ALPA Asks for Answers to Key Questions in Accident Investigation)) NTSB Chair Hersman responded: "The information we’re providing is consistent with our procedures and processes ... One of the hallmarks of the NTSB is our transparency.(ref atwonline214) We work for the traveling public. There are a lot of organizations and groups that have advocates. We are the advocate for the traveling public. We believe it’s important to show our work and tell people what we are doing."((In Probing the Asiana Crash, NTSB Gets Busy on Twitter)) Answering ALPA's criticism, NTSB spokeswoman Kelly Nantel also said the agency routinely provided factual updates during investigations. "For the public to have confidence in the investigative process, transparency and accuracy are critical," Nantel said.((Pilots union says probe of Asiana crash revealed too much, too fast)) ---end of text to be deleted. 75.208.16.211 (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Support by proposer. Reasons to delete: ALPA initially supported the Korean pilots and complained about NTSB. This is ordinary business and not noteworthy. Every question that ALPA raised to attempt to shift blame from the pilots was answered. ALPA was engaging in exactly the kind of speculation that we try to keep out of this article. NTSB was shown to be following standard and professional procedures and not releasing misleading information. The public expected timely information. ALPA objected only because the information pointed to the pilots as the root cause of the crash. ALPA put its tail between its legs and retreated from all criticism. Therefore, the section should be removed for lack of support showing that the criticism still exists. Otherwise, this section misleads the reader by citing early speculation and giving credence to it. It is not important enough to an understanding of the topic to be worth mentioning in the article about the crash. -- 75.210.27.62 (talk) 06:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC) When did they issue a public retraction of their statements? The justifiability or veracity of the criticism may not be the whole point. But more the fact that they very quickly supported the pilots? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC) p.s. I was responding to an earlier post, not the one above dated 06.18, 23 July 2013. Thanks. They went away quietly. Why would they admit that they were jumping the gun? It is the proper role of pilots unions to support the pilots immediately - such is not noteworthy at all. Have you seen where (1) ALPA continues to press for changes or (2) where the NTSB made any changes in response to ALPA's criticism? If the criticism is unjustified, then it has less relevance than the fake names of the pilots. If you think it is important, you can put it on the ALPA page under "Relationship with NTSB". 75.210.76.122 (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Even Asiana quickly ruled out mechanical failure as the cause of the crash, so the criticism really should never have been directed at the NTSB in particular. 75.208.16.211 (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC) If the ALPA has since backed off, then the section should be updated, not deleted. VQuakr (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Why retain it? Please state what you think the encyclopedic value is of a complaint that was made early on that the NTSB was releasing information to the public too quickly? How do you feel that this is relevant to the crash or to the quality of the investigation? ALPA's complaint was not the the information was wrong; rather, ALPA wanted exculpatory information released too. The problem is that the exculpatory information hasn't materialized the way they hoped. 75.208.16.211 (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC) The scope of the article includes responses to the event. ALPA's response is both significant and germane to an understanding of the broader reactions to the accident. It also drew attention from third-party sources. So it is editorially favorable to include their response in our comprehensive coverage of the event. The article should, of course, make it clear that this was ALPA's reaction as opposed to a broadly accepted theory. VQuakr (talk) 04:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC) I disagree in that the article should not include overreactions. For example, some argued that the fake pilot names (a/k/a racism!) was notable. It was voted out. ALPA's overreaction must have some relevance. All the issues like failure of the auto throttles that could be raised rationally will be covered by lawsuits (along with more irrational claims, no doubt). ALPA's response is the same as one would expect from it for any airline crash were a pilot was implicated. How specifically does ALPA's reaction aid in understanding broader reactions? Of course ALPA's ridiculous accusations attracted attention from third-parties. The fake pilot names were reported around the world too. Just because they were reported by third parties does not make them notable. What is favorable editorially about the overreaction of a union of pilot unions? You can put it on the ALPA page under "Relationship with NTSB". Assuming that you oppose deleting this text, how would you make it clear that this was ALPA's overreaction as opposed to a broadly accepted theory? If ALPA had raised the issue that Korean pilots were not trained to hand-fly aircraft, should that be included in the article? Why isn't it notable that Asiana threatened to sue over the fake names? -- 75.210.27.62 (talk) 06:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC) I agree with VQuakr, if the ALPA has since backed off, then the section should be updated, not deleted. I see no good reason for it to be deleted wholesale. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Then I ask of you same questions, particularly, why is it notable and how would you make it clear that this was ALPA's overreaction as opposed to a broadly accepted theory? Because ALPA raised the issue that autoland was not possible, should that be included in the article? The only support that you give for having it in the article is that it is already there. Had I managed to keep this nonsense out in the first place, no one would be clamoring to add it now. So, suppose that it was not in the article already. Make your case for why it should be added. The good reason to delete it is because it should not have been added in the first place. 75.210.138.66 (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC) You appear to be the only person who thinks it's "nonsense". It seems perfectly relevant to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC) That is completely subjective. Can you give any substantive reason why ALPA's criticism of the NTSB has encyclopedic value? Are you saying that you believe that the NTSB was speculating or releasing information too fast? 75.210.201.53 (talk) 11:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Any official statment, by a relevant labour representative organisation, following an industrial/commercial accident, whether accurate or not, and whether later retracted or not, is relevant to the chronology objectively recorded in an article. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC) ALPA does not represent the pilots involved; what makes them relevant? Please cite the source of such a policy that makes ALPA's rampant speculation automatically relevant to an encyclopaedia. 75.210.167.48 (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Presumably since it believes the accident equally relevant to the "59,000 pilots of 39 U.S. and Canadian airlines" that it does represent. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC) You're right of course, ALPA's questions were answered....with a boilerplate response about the NTSB's hallmarks and such other bullshit. You've shown us no evidence that ALPA retracted their criticism. This is their latest press release on Asiana (from July 11): "ALPA again warns about the dangers of speculation based on incomplete data" — Lfdder (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC) That "latest" release is from July 11. It does not caution the NTSB against speculating. There is no evidence that the NTSB is overlooking anything. This "latest" release is already 12 days old. Not a word in it accuses the NTSB of anything nor asks the NTSB to do anything any differently. ALPA clearly has retreated from criticizing the NTSB for releasing data too fast and accusing the NTSB fueling rampant speculation to a general appeal to people (not the NTSB) not to speculate. What exactly do you think is the valid criticism of the NTSB that was raised by ALPA which has encyclopedic value? The only criticism stated is that ALPA criticized the NTSB for releasing "incomplete, out-of-context information". That criticism is absent from any subsequent press release. In fact, it is ALPA that is fueling speculation. ALPA asks: What about a laser? Well, what about a laser. Neither pilot said anything about any laser. The pilot who saw the bright light did not tell the other pilots that he was blinded. That is pilot error. What about the autothrottles? Okay, let's assume that the autothrottles failed in the worst way possible. Does this relieve the pilots of any duty to notice that the plane is descending more than 1000 fpm, that the PAPI shows three or four red lights, that the airspeed is well below Vref, or to move the throttles manually? That's pilot error. Even the pilot in the jump seat called out "sink rate" in ample time to have detected the error. What were the effect of the ongoing construction on and around Runway 28L? Did the construction distract the pilots from noticing that the plane was getting too low? Whose fault is that? Thousands of other pilots managed to land safely during construction. Why couldn't these pilots do it? If there were construction underway on the runway, they would not have been landing on it. Availability of multiple accurate vertical guidance cues, particularly when landing at an airport with which a pilot may not be familiar, is critical to pilots. Apparently such is not critical to tens of thousands of pilots. The absence of this capability must be further evaluated, as should the availability of other external cues. The pilots saw four red lights on the PAPI. What other "cues" might they have needed? NTSB will examine this thoroughly. If it were a serious problem, the runway would still be closed. ALPA did not call for the runway to be closed. It wouldn't make sense to withhold releasing other information until finding out why these pilots could not fly a visual approach on a clear day. -- 75.210.201.53 (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC) We've only got the first week's findings to go by, but here you are, putting the blame squarely on the pilots. Maybe this is what ALPA meant? — Lfdder (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Yes, indeed. It is off-the-wall questions like these that ALPA asked which have fueled rampant speculation about the cause of the accident and which seem to have no answer except that the pilots made multiple errors' couldn't land a plane without an instrument approach and autoland, and neglected reporting being blinded by a laser - something that would need to be reported to all pilots in the area immediately. 75.210.167.48 (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC) The laser seems to be a red herring. Although why the pilot first reported it is still an interesting question. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Let us be clear that the pilot did not timely report the light (per "All aircrews are requested to immediately report incidents of unauthorized laser illumination by radio to the appropriate ATC controlling facility.") nor tell his instructor to take control or take evasive action. He brought it up only during the investigation. Rather than speculate that it was glare, ALPA speculated that it was a laser, something which is not supported by the facts. ALPA's other questions about the ILS outage, runway construction, and failure of autothrottles are red herrings too. But raise red herrings is what special-interest advocates do. 75.210.167.48 (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Oh, I see. So the pilot reported being blinded by "a bright light", later speculated to be a laser by ALPA, but he was wrong for not "timely reporting" a laser? Maybe he's a "special-interest advocate" as well? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC) (If it was likely a laser illumination as ALPA speculated, the pilot who saw the light had a duty to the dues-paying pilots in the string of aircraft behind him to report the event.) If a required crew member becomes incapacitated at any time, he must notify the captain as soon as possible. If it is the captain, he must notify the pilot in the adjacent seat and hand over control at least to the extent that he cannot perform his duties effectively. So yes, the pilot was wrong for failing to timely report it if he was blinded. It seems most likely that he was candidly relaying the sequence of events in great detail. ALPA attached undue weight to this insignificant detail and transformed it into a laser strike. 75.210.167.48 (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Do we know exactly what Captain Lee Kang-kook said? The FAA link you have given is specifically for laser light. Who's speculating? ALP, you or both? And why is it ok for Hersman to mention investigation of ongoing construction in her press briefing, but for it to become a "red herring" when raised by ALPA? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC) ALPA is the source of wild speculation that the light was a laser. By publicly acknowledging the published facts of the ILS being out of service and construction in the vicinity of the runway, Hersman was responding to ALPA. Of course the NTSB will look into this. But there is nothing to criticize, nothing being overlooked, nothing misleading, and nothing notable about any of these issues. The only issue that appears to stand a chance at relevance is that the autothrottles are too complicated to arm - but that will not excuse either pilot for failing to notice and correct the low airspeed / high sink rate. But none of this is criticism of the NTSB. 75.208.105.97 (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Also voting against removing this paragraph, the ALPA criticism has also been extensively covered by various media, not just online - and the NTSB was specifically asked to respond to the ALPA criticism TWICE during the media briefings, so I really cannot come up with a single reason to simply ignore what happened here? Bottom line being, we would definitely be urged to keep and update the section if ALPA's criticism had turned out to be valid, and the information provided by the NTSB premature/invalid, alas that's not been the case so far, which supports the NTSB standpoint. Obviously, feel free to revisit/update the paragraph after the preliminary/final reports have been published by the NTSB.--Parallelized (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC) As I see it, this subsection should be removed as speculative until such time as there is actual evidence that it is valid. As I see it, ALPA is fueling the rampant speculation, not the NTSB. I'm sure the NTSB was asked more than once about the fake names for the pilots. 75.208.105.97 (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC) @OP: Thanks for the heads-up, but as previously stated, I'm not sure if we are in a position to determine currently if this is really all that irrelevant or not. So I am not overly concerned from a quality standpoint - just imagine for a second that the final NTSB report said something along the lines of "after evaluation of all FDR parameters, pitot tubes were not working properly ... and IAS readings were thus inaccurate during approach" - all of a sudden, the ALPA/NTSB criticism would indeed have a lot of weight, and be very valid. --Parallelized (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Thank you.  Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Sure, there is a lot of speculation that could turn out to be true. It could turn out that the pilots had very little experience hand-flying an aircraft or that they did not know how correctly to arm the autothrottles. But so far, we have kept such speculation out of the article. As for the pitot tubes being blocked, that still would not excuse either pilot from failing to command TO/GA thrust upon seeing the third red light on the PAPI or upon seeing the visual aiming point moving up the windshield. There are plenty of external visual cues when a plane is going to land short. The pilots knew that they were too low, so it is really hard to blame any malfunctioning instrument inside when the eyeballs see the wrong picture outside. 75.208.105.97 (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Almost sounds as if you've decided, quite categorically, who was to blame. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC) That isn't the case. But considering each possibility raised by ALPA on its own merits, I find that each points to pilot error. We expect pilots to fly the plane when the automation fails. Even if the autothrottles broke, the pitot tube and static ports were blocked, GPS was unreliable, there were construction workers on the runway, the charts were wrong, and the pilots had never been to any US airport before, we still expect the pilots not to crash the plane. 75.208.105.97 (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC) "From what is known, the crew just turned in a truly lousy job of flying. Some would apparently like for this not to be known for a couple of years, when the accident will be all but forgotten." (Richard Collins is a well-known, well-respected, and widely published aviation expert.) 75.208.105.97 (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC) "I think that speculation is good because it gives things to think about when the event is fresh in mind and a lot is being said about it. Now it is, and should be, a number one topic of conversation." Good job he doesn't edit Wikipedia, eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Yes, speculation is good as a mental exercise for those who like to ponder mysteries, and we probably need more people who do that. But he is saying that it is good for conversation. In particular, his audience of pilots should be thinking about how they can avoid having an incident such as OZ 214. I would like also to leave to discussion ALPA's speculation about the crash. What doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia is speculation about the crash being caused by a laser illumination, construction on the runway, pilot not knowing how to fly a visual approach without critical vertical guidance, the PAPI not working right, or erroneous readings from the instruments. Some of these issues were voted out elsewhere on this talk page. But because ALPA raised these issues, somehow that makes them noteworthy according to some undocumented policy. 75.208.105.97 (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Neither are ALPA Wikipedia editors. They're a international labour organisation whose comments need to be reported and scrutinized. If they said the crash was caused by wrongly-inflated-bearded-gremlins, that would also deserve a mention. Possibly more so. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC) So we are back to this: What policy or rule makes the comments of an international labour organisation so notable? Or what makes their comments so obviously important? 75.208.105.97 (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC) None to my knowledge, but those are not the critia used to determine if the content should be in the article. It is an editorial decision to be made by consensus on the talk page. There appears to be a pretty strong consensus to keep the comments in some form, including adequate context to indicate that they are not statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice. VQuakr (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC) The talk page opining is less than half of the consensus equation. See Wikipedia Consensus Checkingfax (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Yes, I have read that policy. Can you please be more specific? I do not see where the policy discusses a "consensus equation." VQuakr (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC) ALPA have a specific role and purpose which is directly related to aviation and aviation accidents, thus their comments are more relevant to the scope of the investigation than most other organizations' (including public media) - otherwise, the NTSB folks surely wouldn't have bothered to respond to the criticism TWICE. The original ALPA statement wasn't speculative at all, it merely said that we're still lacking information and that certain data shouldn't have been released that early. In fact, I have been wondering if we should keep the "...without critizing the NTSB..." part in the paragraph at all?--Parallelized (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC) Is anyone interested in a defense to any of this? ALPA alleged that there was "factual material that has been excluded from public releases but must be considered in determining not only what happened, but why. For example: Why was the Instrument Landing System (ILS), a critical aid to pilots, out of service?" Many pilots were aware of the relocation of the runway threshold and the obvious fact that this requires relocating the glideslope transmitter array. To say that the information was withheld is arguably untrue. The NTSB had not addressed it most likely because it didn't appear relevant to the crash because the ILS is not critical to pilots. Whether ALPA's own questions about pilot training and such fueled speculation is anyone's guess. 75.210.75.165 (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC) In the second (that is mentioned) press release from ALPA (ALPA Reaffirms Commitment to Finding All Factors in Crash of Asiana Flight 214), there is no criticism of NTSB. This probably wouldn't be notable except that the section header is Criticism of NTSB by ALPA. How about we re-title this section to be "ALPA urges against speculation", "ALPA commits to finding all factors in crash", or something broader than what it is now? Is ALPA implying that the NTSB might do less than a thorough investigation, just blame the foreign pilots, and write the final report? 75.210.75.165 (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC) Since ALPA is not a very well known name, a better section heading would simply be "Air Line Pilots Association". It is true that everyone needs to avoid speculation, and ALPA pointing that out is fine. While their job is to protect pilots, it is true that a large percentage of crashes have been traced to pilot error, and when the final or even preliminary report comes out this may be what the NTSB says, but it is true that speculating that it is pilot error is premature. Apteva (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC) I am happy with the retitled heading. ALPA's criticism of the NTSB was ill-conceived and as I see it, raised speculation about immaterial matters. Most people want to keep this section, though it is not clear that it present another point-of-view. ALPA saying that runway construction needs to be considered is hardly a different view point. I find the NTSB's view point to be one of let the facts speak for themselves. It does not seem biased. No one has actually shown how the NTSB fueled any speculation. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

 Closed. Result: 'Keep' but change title to Air Line Pilots Association. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

A visual approach is NOT an IFR procedure

Discussion not really related to improving the article

"What matters is that we all agree that IFR was not canceled, that a visual approach is an IFR procedure in VMC, and that the flight was not under VFR. 75.210.75.165 (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2013" "7-4-1. VISUAL APPROACH "A visual approach is an ATC authorization for an aircraft on an IFR flight plan to proceed visually to the airport of intended landing; it is not an instrument approach procedure. Also, there is no missed approach segment. An aircraft unable to complete a visual approach must be handled as any go-around and appropriate separation must be provided." [5] "A ceiling 500' above minimum vectoring altitude or minimum instrument altitude allows the controller to vector for a visual approach so long as visibility is three miles. Once the airport is in sight and reported so to ATC you can get a visual approach clearance. At larger airports you must report a specific runway before being able to get your clearance.... By doing so you relieve ATC of any avoidance accountability. A visual approach is not an IFR procedure even when on an IFR flight plan." [6] EditorASC (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC) Are you agreeing that IFR was not canceled and that the flight was being conducted under IFR in VMC? 75.210.75.165 (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC) Just wait for the report. MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC) The disclaimer for PilotFriend states: "The information provided through this site should not be used in place of an OFFICIAL source." (emphasis in original). The article uses several non-American spellings from which one might conclude that not only is the article out-of-date, but it was not even written by an American pilot. The article contains other errors. It is not a reliable source. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC) My source is the official FAA AIM: “ 5-4-23. Visual Approach a. A visual approach is conducted on an IFR flight plan and authorizes a pilot to proceed visually and clear of clouds to the airport. The pilot must have either the airport or the preceding identified aircraft in sight. This approach must be authorized and controlled by the appropriate air traffic control facility. Reported weather at the airport must have a ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and visibility 3 miles or greater. ATC may authorize this type approach when it will be operationally beneficial. Visual approaches are an IFR procedure conducted under IFR in visual meteorological conditions. Cloud clearance requirements of 14 CFR Section 91.155 are not applicable, unless required by operation specifications. ” (emphasis mine.) 75.210.75.165 (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Injuries (non-fatal)

I see that the count of injuries in the infobox has been through some revisions including whether to use serious or critical (or the dangling adverb form critically). Let's talk about it. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence says simply "The total number of people injured in the accident/incident. Add in brackets if any of this number were people other than crew or passengers, or if it was everyone involved (e.g. "123 (4 on ground)", "123 (all)").". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Serious does not work, because that is not the word that was used by the hospitals. One reported 10 critical, another "about 3". Apteva (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Critical may be phrase used at the time but after a few weeks one would suspect if they were still alive they are no longer critical, we are not a news service so lets just keep it simple in the infobox and just list the total per the guideline, MilborneOne (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

None or one are still listed as critical. Apteva (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Are the initially reported paralyzed injured still paralyzed? --Mareklug ^talk 22:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Probably, I have not heard otherwise. Apteva (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether they now are listed as serious condition is irrelevant. The relevant fact is how seriously injured they were as a result of the crash. I don't know where the line should be drawn to say which injuries are serious or not. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand the desire to split out count of persons who sustained serious injuries from those who merely sprained an ankle or got a brush burn in the escape. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. But the word serious never was used. The word used was "critical", meaning they could die from those injuries. Apteva (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there anyone who has a problem with Injuries (non-fatal): 181 (13 critical)? 71.60.50.60 (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I do. Because, what will you do about noting the ones that became vegetables or (partially) lost the ability to move limbs, that might be returned to them after some incredible surgical work with stem cells years from now? It's best to avoid doing triage in this infobox parameter, and just report the number of injured. Everything else will be original research or synthesis. --Mareklug ^talk 11:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes just list the total anything else can be explained in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If someone has a problem with Injuries (non-fatal): 181, please discuss it here. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

About

The word about is sprinkled through the article for a reason – that is what the sources said. They did not say the altitude was 1600 feet or that there were three critically injured passengers admitted to Stanford Hospital. They said "about 1600 feet", and "about 3". Removing the word about changes the article to saying things that we do not know. I have no problem with changing "about 3 seconds" to "3 seconds", because how far off can it be, but changing about 3 people to 3 people is misleading. The fact is that what we are dealing with is an event that we have very little factual information, and most of our sources give that information to us preceded with the word "about". For us to remove the word about is not correct. Apteva (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Support. I favor using "about" on figures which sound precise but are not. The altitudes in the graph and in the text are 100' too high because they are pressure altitudes (not corrected for the local barometric pressure (29.82" Hg) which was lower than standard (29.92) at the time of the crash). 71.60.50.60 (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

However, I oppose saying "about three people". 71.60.50.60 (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Restored, but left some of them out that were not important, like how long the airport was closed. But no, the altitudes given are definitely not "pressure altitudes", which are only used above 18,000 feet in the United States, according to our article on Flight levels, but they could have been measured with an altimeter which measures pressure and converts it to indicate altitude. Pilots enter the local pressure, such as 29.82, so that the altimeter will provide useful information. Apteva (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You keep saying that same silly thing, but educate yourself about FDRs and transponders and so forth. They record pressure altitudes. They do not record what is shown on the altimeter. So please stop saying that. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

A pressure altitude of 100 feet at 29.82 is 6 feet above sea level, 7 feet below the runway. I do not believe the NTSB was saying that the aircraft was 6 feet above the waves when they said it was at an altitude of 100 feet and the pilots first noticed the aircraft speed was low. I believe they were saying just what they did say, that the plane was at an altitude of 100 feet. Now what the FDR said is immaterial, because if the FDR provided pressure altitude, the NTSB certainly knows how to convert pressure altitude, in this case, 194 feet, to altitude, when they said the plane was at 100 feet altitude. Apteva (talk) 06:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

This article has multiple issues

It should be obvious. This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

•  Done This article's lead section may not adequately summarize key points of its contents. It's a very short lede for such a long detailed article.

The lede is too short again. Checkingfax (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience.
• This article may be too technical for most readers to understand.
• The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints. A small cabal of Editors are riding roughshod and not allowing a holistic editing environment.
• Don't slay the messenger.

Checkingfax (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

"The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints"? What 'significant viewpoints' are being excluded? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

What cabal, pray tell? The most engaged editors are tearing at each other's throats edits, seems to me. I don't perceive a cabal at work. Are you jesting? --Mareklug ^talk 06:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The article seems pretty complete, and has a lot of editors working on it (139 are watching). I would recommend that it be proposed for GA or FA though. The two issues that are keeping it from B class, neither of which I am seeing, are "Coverage and accuracy", and "Supporting materials". Currently I do not see any citation needed or similar tags. Apteva (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Two editors have contributed 100 edits, eight 50 edits, and twenty have done over 20 edits. A total of 405 different editors have contributed, with over half making only one edit.[7] Apteva (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd personally steer very well clear of any FA or GA nomination until the final investigation report has been published (not always a very swift process). I'd reply in more detail, but am obviously suffering from a torn-out throat at the moment. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

What would the purpose be for nominating the article for GA or FA? To get more editors involved? To resolve the multiple issues? Shouldn't the issues be resolved before nominating the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The claim that a cabal is editing the article is not helpful. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Not only is the accusation of ' "cabal" absurd, it seems to be a potshot at the editors who have been trying to keep the article technically accurate. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

exactly! we'll have none of your LA crime conspiracies here, thanks!! Martinevans123 (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it has to be appreciated that the sometimes random addition of facts as they become known will get ripped out and re-worked to be more coherent once the final report is published, after that it may be worth going for some sort of review but not before. While we wait if User:Checkingfax has more specific concerns that can be looked at then perhaps they can be listed and worked through. MilborneOne (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Any article that is relatively new and evolving is likely to have "issues" that can be worked out if the editors collaborate. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with details which of of interest only a specific audience? Most articles have such details. This isn't merely a human-interest story or a single-vehicle crash by a driver on a foggy night. The causes are technical and complex. Most readers won't understand how two experienced airline captains could crash a perfectly good plane onto a large runway at a very modern airport in great weather. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

There's part of the problem on display right there, when you say "The causes are technical and complex." You don't know that! And articles like this have to be readable by the general public. This is the article that will be read by people from all over the world with no knowledge of even how an aircraft stays in the air, and it's not the right place to even begin to educate them. Material of a technical nature that is of interest only to aviation aficionados should be kept to other specialist articles and linked to from here, or just left out altogether. If you include it here most readers won't understand it and the article will lose much of its value. HiLo48 (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

While we definitely need to stay away from speculation on causes, all of our articles serve a dual purpose, a simple explanation to the non-technical, and technical details for those who are technically versed. Those dual purposes need to be balanced, and integrated in a manner that still serves both purposes. Apteva (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Without intending any humor or sarcasm, could I suggest putting effort into making http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214 perfectly understandable to anyone without technical savvy? Simple English does not imply merely simplified syntax. --Mareklug ^talk 22:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

"The causes are technical and complex." We don't know that until the NTSB determines the causes. That statement is likely true, but not yet known. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The autothrottles had various modes and were not armed. I do not see how you think that this won't be a contributing factor. Any explanation of autothrottles will necessarily be technical and complex. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 02:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

And the official cause may well be "failure to maintain airspeed". The accident fits our definition of controlled flight into terrain, whatever the underlying causes, but Apteva will not let it be noted as such in the infobox field "Summary". --Mareklug ^talk 00:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Surely "Under investigation" means just that? Until a report is published. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

But "| summary = Controlled flight into terrain; cause under investigation" is better and more informative, as summaries go, and does not prejudice the causes. It just informs as to the facts, stated at some song and dance, and technically at that, in the article. I believe it goes a long way towards adressing the complaint that ordinary people can't understand the article. --Mareklug ^talk 00:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

CFIT is jargon that's fallen into disuse. Also, this isn't a CFIT. — Lfdder (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Even if you were to be correct on both counts, a Summary value of "Crash landing short of the runway threshold, impacting seawall; causes under investigation" would go a long way to making the article valuably transparent to casual reader. After all, it is a summary in the infobox. --Mareklug ^talk 00:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added a proper summary. Causes in the infobox summary is usually a bad idea. — Lfdder (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Now the lead is too long, and is also misleading. "The engines had been at flight-idle for about 72 seconds, prior to impact" implies that the engines were idle for all 72 seconds prior to impact, when, by my math, they were not on idle for the 7 seconds prior to impact, but were on idle for 82-7=75 seconds. (corrected) Much of that time was legit, but they should have been reved up long before 7 seconds out. Where did 72 seconds come from? As to the summary, I have seen articles longshorter than that summary. What is wrong with waiting for the NTSB preliminary report? Apteva (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I fixed the wording to put the time of 72 s in the correct place in the chronology. As for the time, I suppose that 72 s is the lower bound that the throttles were at idle. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Where did 72 seconds come from? I can suppose that 2 s is the lower bound, but the only times we have is the time they were set to idle, 82 seconds, and the time the throttles were advanced, 7 seconds, giving 75 seconds. Apteva (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I would expect articles to be longer than that summary, yes. The summary is a summary of material already in the article. What for do we have to wait for the report? — Lfdder (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason that the NTSB has not released a report is so that everything can be considered. Why would we have a lower standard? <Typo, meant to say the summary was longer than some articles I have seen.> Apteva (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The summary just briefly describes what happened to the aircraft irrespective of causes or contributing factora. Is any part of it disputed? — Lfdder (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The summary we use is normally far, far shorter than this, and normally just says "Under investigation" until we know what parts are important. See 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013. This one borders on humor. Apteva (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, summaries before 2013 were rubbish. Thankfully I'm here now. — Lfdder (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think some of the summary is disputed. If it weren't, there would be no argument about the timing. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 02:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

No mention of time in the infobox summary. — Lfdder (talk) 02:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I am guessing the word "timing" refers to waiting for the NTSB preliminary report. Apteva (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You guessed incorrectly. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 03:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

As to the go around being summarized as "but it was too late" that may have been true but is speculation. A go-around can be initiated successfully after the aircraft has crossed the runway threshold under normal conditions, but both are way way later than normal, and way, way below the normal decision altitude. This report says that Asiana has done six to eight times as many go-arounds at SFO than other airlines, the last one being July 19, but that really does not mean much.[8] Apteva (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That the go-around was initiated too late seems self-evident in that it was too late to prevent the crash. What other possibility might exist? 71.60.50.60 (talk) 03:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Not for us to determine, nor is it proper to report on anyone's speculations. Apteva (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not for anyone to determine. It is not speculation. The crash occurred; ergo, any action to prevent it occurred too late. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 03:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Where did "engines accelerating" come from? The information we have is that the engines were at full thrust at impact, not that the engines were spooling up (accelerating). Apteva (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It was added in the revision as of 23:09, 28 July 2013 by EditorASC. What you are really asking is whether the engines got from 50% power to 100+% power within 7 seconds. It is possible. Were the N1 and N2 values disclosed? It could be settled. Perhaps EditorASC has a source. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 04:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

We probably do not have details about the thrust at impact, but witnesses described it as full thrust ("it appeared and sounded as if they had applied maximum thrust"). About 3 or 4 seconds earlier it was at 50%, and another 3 or 4 seconds before that at idle. "Engines accelerating" does not seem like a reasonable lay translation for "spooling up". Apteva (talk) 06:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I want to see the N1 and N2 graph that confirms what you state (e.g., that the engines were at idle rather than at flight idle of 50%). What the witness said is probably correct, but more accurate information should be available. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with leaving "spooling up" untranslated. Its meaning is easily inferred or researched. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I have huge problems with it. Have you learnt nothing from the comments of more experienced editors here? Why write an article that forces 99% of its readers to guess or look elsewhere for translation. This is NOT an aviation journal. If you cannot provide a simple translation here for the bulk of our readers, you should probably not be contributing or, if you must, ask others to help you make your contributions comprehensible to the majority of our readers. HiLo48 (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could work on Decerebration or any of thousands of other technical articles. You can provide a translation at the expense of important details. So far it is been so poorly translated that it is technically wrong. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

So fix it. In normal idiomatic English. Can you accept that technical jargon is a problem for most of our readers? HiLo48 (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Why would you want to use idiomatic English? Idioms are another form of jargon. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 13:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Can we combine the second and third paragraphs of the lead and ax half of it? They contain way too much detail now

Neither the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) nor the South Korean Aviation and Railway Accident Investigation Board has issued a preliminary report. Both have held multiple press briefings, to provide updates on confirmed factual data with concomitant explanations. The aircraft's autopilot was turned off at an altitude of about 1,600 feet (490 m), and the remainder of the final approach was flown manually. The pilots thought the autothrottles would control the speed at the target approach speed of 137 knots, but that didn't happen. NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman said one pilot expressed concern about the low airspeed, approximately seven seconds prior to impact by which time all engines had been at flight-idle for about 72 seconds. The stick shaker (stall warning device) activated 4 seconds before impact, and one of the pilots called for a go-around 1.5 seconds before impact, but it was too late.

The lowest pre-crash speed recorded by the FDR was 103 knots. At impact, speed had increased to 106 knots with the engines accelerating with takeoff power.

--Apteva (talk) 04:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you put strikethrough or other markup on the part that you propose to elide? 71.60.50.60 (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Like this?

Neither the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) nor the South Korean Aviation and Railway Accident Investigation Board has issued a preliminary report, but both held multiple press briefings to provide factual data. The aircraft's autopilot was turned off at an altitude of about 1,600 feet (490 m), and the engines reduced to idle. Both pilots thought that the autothrottle would limit the aircraft speed to the normal approach speed, of 137 knots. Seven seconds before impact the pilots realized they were too low and too slow, and applied power, but the aircraft continued to slow while the engines spooled up, reaching a low of 103 knots. About 3 seconds and 1.5 seconds before impact crew members were recorded calling for a go-around.

--Apteva (talk) 06:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah! So you are the guy with the severe case of aboutness. Could you do Wikipedia a favor and self-censor all the "about" you put in in infuriating places? As if it made any sense to write "about 3 seconds" instead of "3 seconds" or "about 1600 feet" instead of "1600 feet". Please see WP:WEASEL --Mareklug ^talk 06:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

In this case our source says "Plane's altitude is about 1,600 feet." The one at 3 seconds, though, can be removed, although it also is a direct quote from NTSB Chair Hersman, who does not use the word about for the 1.5 second time. Apteva (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Someone keeps putting "the" in front of every noun and "of" after "both" and generally making the article unnecessarily wordy. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Where? Apteva (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that you simplified so much that it is wrong. The altitude was about 1500'. The pressure altitude recorded by the FDR was 1600' (rounded). I hope that the engines were not at idle, but rather at flight idle. If there were at idle, that is a huge failure right there. Of course, there are two engines and thus two throttles, you know, a plural noun. The pilots thought that the speed would be maintained, not limited. The pilots realized that they were low and slow much further out than 7 seconds - they just didn't do anything about it. I could go on, but dumbing it down makes it sound stupid to anyone with technical knowledge. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The aircraft was descending at about 15 feet per second. The NTSB said "about 1600 feet". The reference we cite said "about 1600 feet". Why would we change that to 1500 feet, or make up that it was a pressure altitude? Altitude is often measured by the air pressure, using an altimeter, that correctly reads AGL by setting the instrument to the local atmospheric pressure. Pressure altitude is a term for what the altimeter reads if the pressure is set to 29.92 inHg, which is only done at higher altitude. See Pressure altitude and Flight level#Transition altitude. Aircraft have other means of measuring altitude, though, and this aircraft recorded some 14,000 parameters in the FDR. Pilots cross check instrument readings by referring to other instruments and regularly train with one or more covered or inoperational. Adding "flight idle" instead of "idle" is an unimportant distinction in the lead. To say that the pilots realized they were too slow at 103 knots is incorrect, as it was shortly after they were at 112 knots that they applied power because they saw they were too low and too slow (speed was first mentioned at 100 feet AGL, but sink rate was mentioned by the observing first officer in the cabin, multiple times). Due to the engines being at idle (whether that is called idle or flight idle, it is still at idle), it took 4 seconds for the engines to spool up to 50% power, and the aircraft speed continued to slow, reaching a low of 103 knots, and then increasing to 106 knots at impact. Apteva (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The FDR records pressure altitude. Please educate yourself. It is not something I "made up". It is fact. I agree that the pilots noticed that they were too slow long before the airspeed decayed to 112 kt. That's the point. The wording has been dumbed down so far that it is wrong. At what % power were the engine 4 seconds before they were at 50% power? And more importantly, where did you get these data? 71.60.50.60 (talk) 02:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The FDR records 14,000 parameters, including what the altimeter said and what the pressure was set to at the time. When someone says "altitude" they mean above sea level. When they say "pressure altitude" they are referring to something completely different. Pressure altitude is not used on approach or landing, because you would be looking for the airport hundreds of feet higher or lower than where it was. Apteva (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Correction, 1400 parameters. Early flight recorders only recorded 5 parameters, and only recorded pressure altitude, making the data difficult to interpret. Apteva (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You will eventually find out that the numbers you are using from ATC and from the FDR are uncorrected pressure altitudes and that your graph is misleading. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 05:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I am rewatching the briefings, and at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVQ-F9mcHrM&feature=player_detailpage&t=1184 (19:44) Hersman says the landing clearance was issued when the aircraft was about one and one half miles away. That seems right, but somehow miles got changed to minutes in another briefing, which is incorrect. And yes they used the word "about". Apteva (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course they used "about". Someone removed every "about" from the article. It make it precisely wrong. If you restore the abouts, you have my support! 71.60.50.60 (talk) 02:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Questions from Wiki Editors, this section:

"The engines had been at flight-idle for about 72 seconds, prior to impact" implies that the engines were idle for all 72 seconds prior to impact, when, by my math, they were not on idle for the 7 seconds prior to impact, but were on idle for 82-7=75 seconds. (corrected) Much of that time was legit, but they should have been reved up long before 7 seconds out. Where did 72 seconds come from?"

"I fixed the wording to put the time of 72 s in the correct place in the chronology. As for the time, I suppose that 72 s is the lower bound that the throttles were at idle."

"Where did 72 seconds come from? I can suppose that 2 s is the lower bound, but the only times we have is the time they were set to idle, 82 seconds, and the time the throttles were advanced, 7 seconds, giving 75 seconds."

Response: It is based on DH's comments, at her 2nd Press briefing. It is likely that the autothrottles were reduced to in-flight idle thrust (which puts them into "Hold Mode," even though they are still "armed,") about the same approximate time as when the AP was disconnected, but I refrained from saying that, since DH did not say that. In other words, to keep the accusations of "speculation" to a minimum, I said it as close to the way she said it, as possible, including using her frequent terms of "about," and "approximately," for which some have conveyed a tone of contempt/disdain.

[2nd DH News Brief, 130708]

"At about 1,600 ft., the autopilot was disengaged...[22:30] and this was about 82 seconds prior to impact. At about 1,400 ft., their airspeed was approximately 170 kts. [22:46] This was 73 sec prior to impact. At about 1,000 ft., the AS was approximately 149 kts. And this was about 54 seconds prior to impact. [23:04] At about 500 ft., the AS was approximately 134 kts. And this was 34 sec prior to impact. At 200 ft., the AS was approx 118 kts. and this was about 16 sec prior to impact. [23:30] At about 125 ft., the throttles started moving forward. And the AS was approximately 112 kts. This was 8 sec prior to impact. [23:53] At about 3 sec prior to impact, the FDR recorded its lowest speed, at 103 kts. [24:06] At this time, the engs were at about 50% power, and eng power was increasing. At impact, the AS was approximately 106 kts." [24:25]

EditorASC (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The 72 seconds falls into the category of WP:OR. Clearly the throttle settings were changed, because the plane slowed from above 180 to 170 to 149 to 134 to 118 to 112 knots. At this point the instructor called for more power and reached for the throttles but found they had already been advanced, so the flying pilot may have noticed the speed before the instructor, but not until it was at 112 knots. 125 feet above the bay and 900 feet away from the seawall is not a particularly good place to be to notice that you are losing speed and already 22 knots too slow (change the last entry from 13 to zero if those altitudes are AGL instead of above sea level). Apteva (talk) 23:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

No, "Clearly the throttle settings were changed" is false. Clearly what happened is the the flying pilot kept pulling back further on the yoke which reduces airspeed. Pitch controls airspeed. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not something that affects the article, and does not need to be discussed. We can not use our own personal knowledge. Mine is that on approach a pilot sets flaps and attitude and controls descent with the throttle. But it is my guess that while the plane was at a stable 180 to 200 knots the power setting was different from when the speed dropped to 170 knots, on a convex curve instead of a concave curve. Apteva (talk) 03:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The speed versus altitude curve is consistent with the pilot increasing pitch leaving power at flight idle during the 70+ seconds indicated. Power controls descent rate (more power → slower descent rate). Had the pilot not pulled back, speed would have remained higher. 71.60.50.60 (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Statements from Second Briefing
Time to impact	Speed	Altitude	Comments
82		1600	Autopilot disengaged
73	170	1400
54	149	1000
34	134	500
16	118	200
8	112	125	Throttles started moving forward
7			Pilot said speed was slow
4			Stick shaker activated
3	103		50% power and increasing
1.5			Called for go-around
0	106	13

While the above could be added to the article, plus any other data points available from any of the other briefings, a picture is worth a thousand words, and the descent profile is much more useful. There is also one for the final 3 nautical miles that can be used, but the symbols used need to be cleaned up. Apteva (talk) 02:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)