Talk:2021 Philippine Air Force C-130 crash

Location

There is a quarry at the end of the runway, but it is not in "Barangay Bangkal in the nearby town of Patikul" as currently stated in the article. By looking at videos posted on Youtube, (such as this one) it looks like the plane crashed not too far past the end of the runway, a bit to the south of the line of the runway, and not as far as the hills in the background. This puts it in either Gandasuli Barangay, Patikul, or San Raymundo Barangay, Jolo. Does anybody have some new sources on the location? Abductive (reasoning) 21:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you basing the barangays (village) on Google Maps? I'm not confident that the area shape for barangays in Google Map is accurate for a remote and insurgency prone area such as Sulu. More precise WP:RS all say the crash happened in Bangkal, Patikul. While some sources just simplify to Jolo, Sulu (presumably treating Patikul as a suburb of Jolo). So I say it would be apt to follow what the reliable sources would say. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

It was the military which said it happened in Bangkal. And is reasonable to say that they have more accurate information on the actual boundaries of barangays in the area. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I did not use Google to determine the boundaries. We may need to wait for more information. Abductive (reasoning) 08:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The images here from Reuters suggest the crash site was a wooded area and not a quarry? It says: "Pictures from the scene showed flames and smoke pouring from wreckage strewn among coconut palms as men in combat uniform milled around, while a column of thick black smoke rose into the sky." and "The plane had attempted to land at Jolo airport, but overshot the runway without touching down. It failed to regain enough power and height and crashed at nearby Patikul." There is no mention of any quarry. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The given cites apparently removed mention of a quarry being the crash site. I removed any mention of the site being a quarry. This is a developing story and I expect there will be more conflicting info.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

That's fine. There is a rock removal operation at the end of the runway to allow for the runway to be extended, this is probably what was referred to as a quarry. But I think the plane made it past that area. Abductive (reasoning) 19:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Summary of the accident

Greetings, I'd like to point out that what happened to the Philippine Air Force C-130 accident is not a runway overshoot. Multiple sources have claimed that the aircraft tried to climb back in altitude, in which, the pilot failed to maintain the proper speed and altitude while executing the maneuver (see report here), which is likely because of loss of control. Based off from my knowledge in aviation, this act by the pilot is a go-around, where the pilot initiated an aborted landing, however, since the go-around attempt failed (resulting in crash), the proper description for the plane crash's summary would be: "Failed go-around attempt, resulting in loss of control; under investigation." Once the investigation have came to a conclusion, we can change the caption afterwards.

– VertaxApolinariax (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Deadliest or third deadliest? et al

The lead section says: "...the third deadliest in the Philippines overall, behind Air Philippines Flight 541 in 2000 and Cebu Pacific Flight 387 in 1998." But the main text says: "The crash is the Philippine Air Force's deadliest aviation accident in history, surpassing the 1971 Douglas C-47 Skytrain crash in Floridablanca, Pampanga which killed 40 people."? Which is correct? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

If I'm reading this correctly, the first line mentions about the deadliest aviation crashes in the Philippines overall, which includes fatal passenger/civilian and military aircraft accidents, while the second line mentions about being the deadliest aviation accident in Philippine Air Force alone, which only includes military aircraft accidents. I don't see any problem here, since both of these lines are correct, but I do think that these lines would confuse average readers. – VertaxApolinariax (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for explaining. It certainly confused me. So maybe there is a slight problem. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

We tend not to include these sort of scoreboard statements in these accident articles anymore. MilborneOne (talk) 10:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree it should not be given lead section prominence. It's kind of "See also" information. Perhaps it could all be consolidated/explained there somehow? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, Philippine military history (which starts "before 1000 BC") does not contain the word "accident" and has only one instance of the word "aircraft". Just sayin' Martinevans123 (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Re: 2021 Philippine Air Force C-130 crash, you stated a quote in your edit summary "Another soldier who was among those wounded from the C-130 crash in Sulu last Sunday has passed away, bringing the death toll among government troops to 50, Philippine military chief Gen. Cirilito Sobejana said Tuesday." If 9 people were killed (3 soldiers, 3 sailors, and 3 civilians), and another civilian died, saying "Another wounded civilian died..." wouldn't make them all civilians. The same would go for "Another wounded sailor died..." or "Another wounded soldier died...". Sticking with "military personnel" allows some flexibility without specifying every defining characteristic of the dead; that can be done elsewhere in the article. Buffs (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The article currently says: "50 of the personnel came from the Philippine Army's 4th Infantry Division training unit of Malaybalay, Bukidnon. Maybe the number 50, both for the 4th Infantry and the total number of fatalities, is the cause of some confusion. In your edit summary here you say "the pilot was also killed"? The article also says there were three pilots? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

So I've clarified by adding "Fifty military personnel on board, including the pilot in command". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Number of fatalities

How many soldiers have died? This source says 50. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The infobox has two separate sections - one for "Aircraft" which should show 50 fatalities and one for "Ground casualties" which should show 3 fatalities. The total is 53. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Added notes in the infobox for clarity. Buffs (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I thought having two headed sections was clear enough. Evidently not. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello. As of Wednesday, military officials made it clear that there was a "miscounting" and there are actually 49 servicemen deaths, not 50. [1] [2] Genilrio (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for the "miscount"? According to this article, there were 47 military deaths. I tried looking for a citation to support the number of military deaths at 49 but could not find any sources. Jurisdicta (talk) 07:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Not sure where the 47 military death is coming from but since the miscounting, another serviceman died rendering the prior "miscount" (1 death) irrelevant.

See this cite (already in the article): "Another soldier in C-130 crash in Sulu has died, says AFP". GMA News. 16 July 2021. Retrieved 16 July 2021. The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) on Friday said another critically wounded soldier in the C-130 crash in Sulu has died, bringing the death toll to 53, including 50 soldiers and three civilians.

Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

English for academic professional purpose

C-130 plane crash 111.90.199.112 (talk) 04:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)