Jump to content

Talk:American Airlines Flight 965

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fixing up

[edit]

I just came across this article. I noticed it is sorely lacking in reliable sources (only had 1 AOPA link when I found it) and was incredibly missing the NTSB/Aeronautica Civil report. I added the AC report, with some links, categories etc. The first part of the article can still stand some major wikification. The lead-in should be a short summary. Then should come background/history section, then maybe the AC/NTSB probable cause reports, then maybe the lawsuits etc. This is just a suggestion, but some reasonable structure is needed, as well as a lot more sourcing/links to a lot of free flowing 'facts'. Please review other major accident articles for ideas. Thanks, Crum375 21:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of FMS sorting by 'nearest waypoint'

[edit]

I reverted this edit as I could not see any source for it in relation to this accident. First, the edit summary says 'from NTSB report', whereas there is no NSTB report for this accident (that I could find), only AC. Second, having re-read the detailed report from AC, I could only find the 'sorting by biggest' that is mentioned in the article, and not 'sorting by nearest' that the anon IP claims. Hence I had to revert the edit. If anyone can find (and specify) the exact page/paragraph that supports a different claim than what is currently in the article, go ahead and make the change. Crum375 22:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TV shows

[edit]

I have reverted much of the material apparently sourced to a TV show, as it does not meet WP:V, and seems to violate WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Secondary sources are needed for any interpretations or conclusions. Crum375 (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please reference the particular part of WP:V or WP:RS that precludes using a TV documentary as a source. I couldn't find anything in either article discussing the matter one way or another..thanks.Excimer3.141597 (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what WP:V says:

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[4] Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

If you can point me to published reliable secondary sources that make the statements that I removed, they could be re-inserted. Crum375 (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, could you please identify specifically where in that excerpt TV Documentaries are precluded. As far as I know they qualify as reliable, third-party published sources.Excimer3.141597 (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not said that a good TV documentary is automatically excluded as a source. So if the doc said "X", WP could say the doc said "X". But the material I removed was much more. It said: "doc said X, but we Wikipedians claim that was wrong, because according to another source Y, the truth was Z." (paraphrasing). First, we don't have the doc's transcript to even verify it said "X". Second, per WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, we may not interpret or analyze sources, only summarize and present them. So clearly the removed material was in violation of multiple policies. Crum375 (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand your point regarding NOR and SYNTH as it relates to the original paragraph. However, the revised paragraph does not claim either source was wrong but only states that their is a discrepancy between the two. Regarding verifiability, from what I have seen there are many sources on Wikipedia that are not directly verifiable...ie citations from hardcopy published works...so assuming the Mayday documentary is an acceptable source...would it be OK to simply say Mayday said X and the CVR said Y?Excimer3.141597 (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetically, it it were some mundane matter (e.g. Mr. X was on board), and if there weren't a conflict, then possibly yes. But in this case it has to do with specific issues related to the cause of the accident, and there is a stated conflict. You have one published and highly reliable source, and another source, for which we currently don't even have a transcript (i.e. hearsay by Wikipedians for now), which may possibly be in conflict. In such a case, we wait to get a better source, or leave it out if we can't. Crum375 (talk) 02:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blood alcohol statement removal

[edit]

I removed that edit for the following reasons:

  • It does not belong in the "final report" section, which is a summary of the conclusions, not individual tidbits reported by media.
  • It is inaccurate: the source did not say "that no alcohol existed in the bodies of the flight crew members" — it only talked about the captain, and in fact confirmed that alcohol was found in his body.
  • Like many similar cases, the alcohol found in the captain's body was determined to be caused by post-mortem fermentation, not by ingestion of alcohol prior to or during flight.

Bottom line is that we need to be careful when we make statements to follow what the sources tell us, and in this particular case, had alcohol played a role in the accident, the AC would have mentioned it in its final report. Crum375 (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dog

[edit]

Who's dog was it that survived? And what happened to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.159.186 (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths

[edit]

How were there 155 passengers and 159 deaths with still 4 survivors?

Flight crew of 2 and cabin crew of 6 are not considered "passengers". All the crew died, while 4 passengers survived. See table on page 5 of official crash report here: Aeronautica Civil (de Colombia) crash report --Kenatipo (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cuantas personas murieron 186.11.77.131 (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Radar

[edit]

The ACI documetary mentions that no radar was in use at the time because it had been destroyed by rebels. Does the final accident report make any mention of this? After all, had there been radar, I figure that work for ATC would have been much easier and they would have noticed early on that the flight went off course and they could have warned them, right? So non-operating radar might also be considered a contributing factor to the crash and might be worth mentioning in the article.--Proofreader (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appendices B-F

[edit]

File index: http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/GRAFIK/ComAndRep/Cali/Cali.tar.zip - http://www.webcitation.org/6MnovTHAO

Page

Appendix B: CVR transcript

Appendix C:

Appendix D: from American Airlines 757/767 Operating Manual AILERON AND SPOILER CONTROLS Flight Controls, Chapter 12, page 11, dated 5/10/89 http://archive.is/3HZUk

Appendix E: Photographs of Wreckage (E-2) http://archive.is/5NjVI

Appendix F: Route Pages prior to impact Reconstructed from the Accident Flight Management Computer

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on American Airlines Flight 965. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on American Airlines Flight 965. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Airlines Flight 965. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic chat

[edit]
Off-topic chat

Question

How many nations were on-board? 73.87.74.115 (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, passenger planes transport people, not nations. Shelbystripes (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean how many people were from different countries?73.87.74.115 (talk) 12:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the IP's talk page. - SummerPhDv2.0 20:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Investigative Documentary Sourcing

[edit]

A paragraph is dedicated to an alt theory to the official report based on a movie. The sources are the movies website and various review sites. Should this paragraph be removed or significantly slimmed without more independent sources? Salmon4Fish (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seating diagram?

[edit]

Could a diagram of where the survivors were sitting be included please? Thank you! Bucky winter soldier (talk) 12:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crash paragraph elevations

[edit]

I cannot find sources that agree on the height of the mountain El Diluvio, and I don't know the proper wikipedia codes for conversion, but two elevations given here don't use the same conversion codes, resulting in this line: "the aircraft struck trees at about 2,720 metres (8,920 ft) above mean sea level on the east side of the 2,700-meter-tall (9,000 ft) mountain"

8920 feet should not convert to 20 more meters than 9000 feet does. 9000 feet is approx 2043 meters WasANerd (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Airlines_Flight_965&oldid=1224422642"