Jump to content

Talk:Asiana Airlines Flight 214/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Pics

Pics at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jkhoo - need category. On mobile, so can't do more. Sorry. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Also http://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/tedivm Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I added one of these. There's probably not more room for other photos, but this one was particularly interesting since it was seen from another plane on the tarmac. Steven Walling • talk 01:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that's my photo. I was in another plane that had just departed from Terminal 1. We were forced to return to the gate and deplane instead of taking off. Jkhoo (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I am changing image to crop2 of same original picture as it shows more context. The present picture is cropped too close and could be any smokey fire. 08:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Video, too: http://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Asiana_Flight_214_plane_fire_at_SFO_2013-07-06.webm Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 06:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I uploaded most of the so-far-supplied NTSB photos at commons:Category:Asiana Airlines Flight 214 in case anyone wants to use them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any of the NTSB photos there. Oktal (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Might need to refresh or something, or put a "?" at the end of the URL to avoid the cache, that sort of thing. File:NTSBAsiana214Interior2.jpg, File:NTSBAsiana214Fuselage.jpg, File:NTSBAsiana214Fuselage2.jpg, etc. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Photos of the fuselage being removed from SFO: Asiana 214 Wreckage Removal at SFO.JPG Asiana 214 Wreckage Removal at SFO (2).JPG BDS2006 (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Map image

The map showing the location of wreckage is incorrect. Multiple errors. For eg ; The fuselage came to rest in between the two runways, The image shows the fuselage on the left edge of the left runway

That's because it is to the left of the left runway; see this photo (among many others). The fuselage is between the left runway and the left taxiway; I think one of the engines ended up between the two runways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

In mobile view, all the dots are off the runway, in the sea to the right. I suspect this is a generic bug, rather than a local problem here. I'll raise it elsewhere. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Drug testing

I have just reverted this edit [1] as the source [2] appeared not to say anything about what was required by 'foreign regulations', and as poorly worded - this is an international encyclopaedia, and contrasting the US with unnamed 'foreigners' is clearly inappropriate. I think we should cretainly mention the (lack of) drug testing issue somewhere - but it would be preferable to do so citing a source that actually makes clear what the relevant regulations are, as far as Korean nationals flying a commercial aircraft into US destinations. Has anyone seen a source which covers this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for the initial wording. So far I haven't found anything saying what the specific regs are regarding drug testing after accidents. Rojas.jorge96 (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


Also see:

--Parallelized (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Flight 214 "is" or "was"?

Often a flight route that has a tragic incident gets renamed if still flown subsequent to the incident. According to a cited statement in the article, Asiana still flies this route (at this time) as 214. Yet the article starts: Asiana Airlines Flight 214 was... Grammatically speaking, this really ought to be changed to either "Asiana Airlines Flight 214 is..." or "The crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 was..." to be accurate, no? Echoedmyron (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I think was is correct at it is talking about a singular instance of the flight not all of them. MilborneOne (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The way it is written implies that it is singular: "Asiana Airlines Flight 214 was a scheduled transpacific passenger flight from Incheon International Airport, South Korea, that crashed during an attempted go-around at its destination, San Francisco International Airport, United States, on July 6, 2013." Makes it sound like there was only one flight ever called this and it crashed. Grammatically speaking, that is. Echoedmyron (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, yes, and that's right. Think about it this way: we don't have articles on Wikipedia about every topic under the Sun. In this instance, we don't have articles on every Asiana Airlines Flight 214; we only have an article on the July 6 flight because of this crash. If there were to be a crash on tomorrow's Asiana Flight 214, this article would need to be moved to something like Asiana Airlines Flight 214 (July 6, 2013) and the other would need to be Asiana Airlines Flight 214 (July 14, 2013). However, unless something like that happens, there's only one Asiana Flight 214 that's sufficiently notable for an article: the one that occurred on July 6, 2013. -- tariqabjotu 19:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) See WP:AVIMOS#Accidents as well as the related discussion at Talk:Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214/Archive_1#Still operated. Basically, these articles are supposed to be about this specific instance of Asiana Airlines Flight 214. So long as the opening sentence indicates that it's this particular instance of the flight (and it does), we're fine. -- tariqabjotu 19:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes - the article is clearly referring to a particular 'flight 214'. The issue of changing numbers after an incident is a red herring anyway - there have been multiple 'flight 214s' before the incident, and there is no ambiguity as to which one was meant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
This was discussed earlier ( [3] ) and there was consensus that the language introduced here: [4], crafted to deal with Asiana's continuing use of "214" as a flight number, is appropriate. There has been some word-smithing since then, but as others have pointed out, the text remains unambiguous. NameIsRon (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I had missed the archived discussion (surprised to see an archive so soon on such a new article, but anyway...). Looking at the MOS on this, I can see what is prescribed is what indeed the article shows, even though IMO it flies in the face of grammar, but so be it. FWIW the Emirates incident mentioned in the archived discussion doesn't follow that MOS, and for my money is far more accurate. But with consensus preferring the alternative I'll leave it be. Echoedmyron (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
It does seem kind of counterintuitive, but the precedent helps. See Flight 191, for example. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Descent profile graphic "Approach to SFO.png" key symbol does not match graph line

Can the image creator please check the key symbols for the Jul 6 graph lines against the actual symbols used? It appears that the bowtie symbol was used on the red line for both airspeed and altitude lines on the graphs, but the key shows an "*" asterisk symbol for one and bowtie for the other, so they do not match. The graphic is still usable since you can interpolate the grouping of lines from the other graph lines, but it is confusing on first glance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmarshal (talk • contribs) 02:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I question the utility of the graph as it stands anyway, as the salient portion of the data is only at its very tail end. It is rather irrelevant how the various flights made their early approaches, as they all dovetail. The accident hinges on the crash pilot's setting of throttles to off late in the late stages of the approach, and not moving them from there until too late (on the mistaken presumption that a third system, the autothrottle, had been properly employed). --Mareklug talk 04:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Good catch. Fixed. There are two and three nmi versions available, and I am working on adding the PAPI slope to the three nmi one. Question, should this be just the middle line (2.85°), or two lines showing the range between four red and four white? I believe those would be 2.35° and 3.35°, but am working on confirming that. All of the data points are above or close to the 2.85° line, except for the very last one on July 6. I am checking that against the report that the pilot saw three red and one white. Apteva (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Adding the range. The data and PAPI slope does not match what the pilot reported seeing at 500 feet altitude. Apteva (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Asiana Airlines releases

ENGLISH

KOREAN

CHINESE

Also: ENGLISH TWITTER:

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Notam Ref [22] Not Static

Maybe a better reference would be the NOTAM for SFO from: DUAT Weather Archive prior to the incident available for at least 10 days — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.229.101 (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2013‎ (UTC)

Flight controls

I added a reference to an annotated image of the 777 controls that explains the operation of each. It seems to say that the speed window is blanked if it is not used, and says that only one flight director has to be on for it to be operational. These are controls, not indicators. The purpose of the flight director is to provide inputs, not display, so shutting it off has no affect on the main instrument displays.[5] Apteva (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend caution in using a page like that to explain the function of controls, in Wikipedia, if you do not thoroughly understand how those systems work. I found one explanation that was wrong: "During climb, [the IAS/MACH window on the MCP on the glareshield] automatically changes from MACH to IAS, at 0.83 MACH." That is bass akwards. During climb it changes automatically from IAS to MACH, at 0.83 MACH. EditorASC (talk) 08:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Also, I would appreciate some additional explanation of what you meant by "and says that only one flight director has to be on for it to be operational." What is the "it" that will be operational? I couldn't find an explanation for that on the page you linked to. EditorASC (talk) 08:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The flight director. Both need to be turned off for the flight director to not operate, but from the description of the on off switches only one has to be on.
It has the description correct on descent. In writing it they may have copy and pasted and forgotten to reverse them, as both say from MACH to IAS. A link to an image of the flight director would be helpful. Apteva (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The NTSB will be reviewing the operation of the auto throttle. As I see it, one switch has to be on turning on the flight director (one out of two), the auto-throttle has to be armed and engaged (two switches, one for each engine, to arm, one button to engage). There is a light indicating that it is engaged, but making the display flash if not engaged would be a better indicator. Otherwise it is easy to see that a pilot could be staring at a display that said 137 and wondering why the plane's speed was dropping to below that. If it was flashing that would be a clear indicator that it was the setting that would be used after being engaged, but right now was doing nothing. There is a lot of standardization in aircraft instrumentation, but also a lot of differences. Apteva (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
It is correct that only one switch has to be in the "on" position, for the Flight Director to operate. However, the statement of "so shutting it off has no affect on the main instrument displays" is not accurate. If one pilot has his switch in the "off" position, his FD command bars will NOT appear on his PFD. And, the auto-throttles will remain in the "armed" (not on) mode. The NTSB said the Left seat pilot, who was flying the plane manually, had his FD turned off, which means he would not have had the benefit of FD command bars to tell him how much pitch and roll to use, to keep the plane on a profile that they might have entered into the FMC via LNAV and VNAV, as a substitute for the inoperative ILS approach.
I also am not sure what you mean by "These are controls, not indicators. The purpose of the flight director is to provide inputs, not display." What "controls?" I can assure you that the purpose of the FD IS to provide command bar DISPLAYS on each pilot's PFD, which makes it a lot easier for the pilot to know how much bank and pitch inputs are necessary, to keep the plane on profile.
I don't believe a flashing display would improve anything. As it is, the PFD shows the target appch (Vref) speed and compares it to actual speed. If the pilot is scanning his basic flight instruments, as he is required to do, he will see immediately if the actual speed starts going below the target Vref speed (and falls out of the 5-Kt spread box) and should respond accordingly, to get the plane back on its target profile. There is a helpful display at [6] EditorASC (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The difference between a control and an indicator is if you change the control it is supposed to change something while an indicator responds only to what the airplane is actually doing. Since the pilot enters the desired speed, while it is nice to see the bars displayed, no pilot should ignore the fact that speed dropped 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 kts below the intended speed, and as to 34 kts? Well before that they did recognize the drop and had applied power, something they needed to do way back at 5 and 10 kts not where they did. The aircraft was slowing from the 180 kts (which they had been exceeding) at 5 nmi out to the 137 kts approach speed. They were expecting the autothrottle to kick in at 137 kts, but when it did not, they should have noticed that certainly by the time the speed dropped to 135 kts at the very slowest. I do not know how sophisticated the autothrottle is or the intercept curve it follows, but an experienced pilot, even with only simulator experience, is going to be aware of an anomaly and be prepared to take corrective action. For example, I would expect the engines to start spooling up at 140 kts or even more, instead of staying at idle right until 137, which would inevitably lead to a significant drop in speed below the target speed while the engines spooled up. For the other flights plotted, none dropped even 1 kts below the target speed (in the data available), but all of them did increase speed slightly after the target speed was intercepted. When a pilot turns on automation (or thinks they have it turned on) and does not find that it is doing what it was expected to do, they do not have the option of sitting there and ignoring that. Apteva (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the last two NTSB media briefings were pretty clear about it and specifically mentioned the A/T and the FD state, the reason being that the 777 A/T operating mode may also depend on the active FD mode: "The pilot flying the plane had turned off his flight director, while the training captain had his flight director on", Hersman said. The flight director computes and displays the proper pitch and bank angles required in order for the aircraft to follow a selected path.[1] --Parallelized (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
All true. But having the FD off does not shut off the speed display, and does not eliminate the responsibility to fly the plane at the proper speed. With the instructor's FD on, that would display the target speed, but does the target speed display with the auto throttle not engaged? Whether it does or not, the instructor should have noticed an IAS below 137 when that occurred. Pilots do a visual scan, and can not be looking at everything all at the same time, but coming back to the IAS often is paramount on landing approaches. Most pilots are not reading comic books on landing approach. Apteva (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
My response wasn't intended to distract from IAS readings or scanning in general, it was just meant to show that even during the last NTSB briefings, the relationship between A/T state and FD mode was explicitly highlighted, which isn't to suggest that anything failed - but rather that "human factors" seem to have been an issue here, like you say - that still doesn't explain how 3 pilots managed not to monitor airspeed sufficiently, unless instrument readings were way off, which we have no reason to believe ATM, however this is something that was explicitly mentioned as a possibility by ALPA, and the NTSB still didn't evaluate 2/3 of the FDR parameters: <<Investigators found that in the 2-1/2 minutes before the crash, multiple auto-throttle modes and multiple auto-pilot modes had been set. "What was the final mode the airplane was in?" Hersman asked. "We still need to validate the data. We need to make sure how the devices were set and what the pilots understood the modes to be.">>[2]
* B777 FCTM
* B777 FCOM
--Parallelized (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that in Korea they have one agency for air and rail accidents but in the US one for air, rail, bicycle, pedestrian, motorcycle, and automobile accidents, and it seems that the NTSB would be better equipped to investigate air accidents if that was all that they investigated. For example, has Chair Deborah Hersman spent even one hour learning to fly? "One anomaly was that the trainee pilot, who was flying the airplane, was sitting in the left seat while usually the instructor pilot, the pilot in command, would be in that seat, she said." All students sit in the left seat unless they are learning to be an instructor or first officer (co-pilot), so that they will learn to fly in the seat they will be sitting in when they have learned. Students learning to be an instructor sit in the right seat so that they can learn what it is like to sit in that seat as an instructor. All instructors are the "pilot in command", but the student also gets to log time as PIC, under some circumstances. So yes, it is an anomaly that the pilot was a student, but not an anomaly that the student was in the left seat. Apteva (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
"All students sit in the left seat unless they are learning to be an instructor or first officer (co-pilot), so that they will learn to fly in the seat they will be sitting in when they have learned. Students learning to be an instructor sit in the right seat so that they can learn what it is like to sit in that seat as an instructor."

Instructor Pilots, which are always the Captain in Command, sit in the Left seat if they are giving IOE to First Officers. If the IOE is for a new Captain on that plane, then they sit in the right seat. EditorASC (talk) 04:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

"With the instructor's FD on, that would display the target speed, but does the target speed display with the auto throttle not engaged?"

Yes it is displayed on both PFDs, as soon as the landing flaps is entered into the FMC. Turning the FDs, on or off, will not affect the target Vref speed on the PFDs, that is calculated by the FMC.

From the B-777 flight manual:
"The autothrottle automatically engages:
  • For climb - Engages in THR mode; the thrust limit is CLB thrust
  • For descent - Engages in THR mode, followed by HOLD if the
thrust levers reach idle.
''Caution'': If the thrust levers are moved more than 8° while in
the THR mode the ATS mode will change to HOLD. The only way to reengage the ATS is to capture an altitude, push the thrust levers to the green N1 limit on the EICAS or approach stall limit protection." EditorASC (talk) 06:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Failure to initiate go-around

The text in the lead should concur with the text in the body ("... just as the crew attempted to abort the landing and execute a go-around"). The crash did not really occur during a go-around, at least not in a way that is relevant to the crash. The crash was preceded by failure of both pilots to initiate a timely go-around following an unstabilised approach. The pilots knew that they were off-course (lateral deviation), too low (vertical deviation), too slow, and one claimed to have been blinded by a bright light. Any one of these factors was sufficient cause to initiate a go-around immediately without further discussion. But 30 seconds passed until just seconds before impact the pilots agreed to go around. At that point, it was too late to prevent the crash (and might have made it worse). 75.210.68.151 (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

In the CVR two separate crew members called for a go-around, one at 3 seconds and one at 1.5 seconds, and the nose was lifted to initiate the go-around (and as indicated may have made it worse). The lateral deviation was normal and not a factor. Had power been applied to maintain a speed of 137 kts, no go-around would have been needed. It is not normal for a pilot to decide to make a go around 3 seconds before landing, as that is far beyond the point of no return. At 82 seconds before impact, they shut off the auto pilot, at 27 seconds before impact they were at 134 kts ground speed (adding wind speed makes that closer to 140 kts air speed) at 400 feet altitude and descending at 900 feet per minute, at 16 seconds 123 kts, at 300 feet and descending at 840 fpm, and at 5 seconds, 109 kts, 100 feet (all plus or minus 100) and descending at 1140 fpm. Those 11 seconds between 134 kts and 123 kts were the critical ones. Apteva (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
3 seconds before impact was just too late to say that they crashed while attempting a go-around. They crashed when they came up short on the approach to land. The time to press the TO/GA button was 30 seconds earlier when the approach was not stabilised. All three pilots knew that the plane was too low and slow. Not executing a go-around immediately under those conditions will almost surely prove to be a culpable error. 75.210.224.57 (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't saying that the lateral deviation was a factor in the crash. I am saying that remarkable lateral deviation was an element indicating that the approach was not stabilised and should have been aborted. 75.210.224.57 (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I note that the text in the lead was deleted shortly after I pointed out the error. 75.210.224.57 (talk)

"All three pilots knew that the plane was too low and slow. Not executing a go-around immediately under those conditions will almost surely prove to be a culpable error."

I agree with most of what you said, but not sure we have enough info at this point to say for sure they knew they were low & slow much earlier in the approach. I think the knowledge question (what did they know, and when did they know it?) is very important, as to the degree of culpability, if any. If they simply failed to properly monitor their A/S and sink rate, until it was too late, then they were guilty of dereliction of duty. But, if they knew much earlier, yet did nothing to correct the situation, then we are talking about willful misconduct, which would be a much more serious finding. Too early to come to a conclusion now. EditorASC (talk) 03:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

We will know more when the CVR transcript is released, especially if it identifies who said "sink rate" and when, and which two crew members said go around, and when. So far there are no reports that the TO/GA button was pressed, but we do know they had initiated a go-around before impact. At destination is fine in the lead, but before it said during go-around it said during landing, and at impact the pilots were not attempting to land but were attempting to go around and indicated that they were surprised that the aircraft contacted the ground. There were no announcements that passengers should brace for impact, which would have been done if the pilots thought the aircraft was going to contact the ground. Apteva (talk) 03:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • All three pilots knew that the aircraft was too low by their own admissions. The third pilot stated that he called out "sink rate". The other two acknowledged seeing four red lights on the PAPI. They admitted to knowing that they were too low when the plane descended through 500'. I suspect that the instructor was giving the captain some extra leeway to correct the approach; but he was caught off-guard when his student did not arrest the descent so the instructor didn't decisively take the controls. Apparently both failed to notice that engines were not producing the necessary power. 75.210.222.70 (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The pilots were way behind the plane. By the time they decided to go around to avert a crash, there was no time to make any announcement to the cabin. Yes, it is obvious that they did not realize that they were going to crash. But when the PAPI lights are all red and moving up the windscreen, that does mean that you are going to crash if you don't do something about it. Perhaps they were betting on good luck or that they wouldn't completely exhaust the margin of safety. 75.210.222.70 (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Aftermath: Korean news coverage (legit or not?)

This is currently discussed by various online media and online forums, it's hard to say if it's legit or just another prank - please see:

(Also see the reader's English comments at the end of the article) --Parallelized (talk) 11:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, the one in English just reads like a typical blog of a wide range of unsurprising views. As a blog it's of no relevance here. HiLo48 (talk) 12:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
What should we be looking at? — Lfdder (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Landing clearance

The statement: Hersman said the flight crew "received their final landing clearance 90 seconds prior to impact" does not agree with the information the NTSB has released, showing that landing clearance was given at 11:27:10, approximately 40 seconds before first impact.[7] Apteva (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

(I had thought 90 seconds was late, but 40 seconds seems very late indeed.) Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Not optimal, but not late, even at less than 40 seconds out. They had been cleared for the landing approach at 11:21:59, over five minutes earlier,[8] which allows them to descend all the way to but not onto the runway. Long before that, control is handed off to the control tower, which happened at 11:25:35. Tower frequencies can be busy, and the crew contacted the tower at 11:26:00 and at 11:26:56.[9] Apteva (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The report will attach any significance to the timing, whether late or not. So until we see that, or maybe a preliminary, I guess it's just WP:OR to debate. But is 40 the correct value? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Based on the initial impact being at 11:27:50. Does anyone have a more accurate time of first impact? Apteva (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hit by a firetruck

There is now news that one of the casulties was killed by being hit by a firetruck heading to the scene (and not by the crash itself), if that is they case then are they still considered a direct casulty of the plane crash — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B106:36EA:0:0:0:103 (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there a source which states that this has been confirmed - the article already says that this is being investigated as a possibility. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
If they were hit by the fire truck and killed, that is definitely not a fatality of the flight (and is a pedestrian accident), any more than if anyone from the flight hospitalized contracts a disease while in the hospital and dies is a fatality of the flight. The coroner is planning to wait two or three weeks to release the causes of death so that a full investigation can be completed. I was going to put that into the article but changed it to has not released in case the time frame changed (this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper). Admittedly, not wishing to release the autopsy results was an indicator that there was something wrong. Apteva (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
If not for the crash, she wouldn't have been run over. We'll see what the news sources have to say about it. Unless there's something new this morning, all they've said so far is "may have been". The coroner has to determine if she was run over, and if so, whether she was still alive at the time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Apparently, the police have confirmed that she was hit by the truck - after being covered by foam. [10]. This doesn't of course tell us whether she was already dead, or whether the truck (or even the foam) killed her. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
If it's true she was hit by a vehicle and that the coroner is still checking things out, that could be worth a sentence. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The coroner is waiting to release results but that does not indicate that the coroner is doing any further work on the case. We can do nothing but wait for the report, unless the fire or police departments release further information. Apteva (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Just reiterating: sources that I've seen state that she was hit by the truck, not necessarily killed by it. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Read the final report when it comes out and see how the NTSB classifies their deaths. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

One of the fatalities was not found by rescuers for 14 minutes. (obviously all three victims were alive when they exited the aircraft, though one injured was paralyzed and was carried out)[11] This says that not even one ambulance showed up until 40 minutes after the accident.[12] Do airports even have ambulances on site? I think the general modus operendus is you either walk out alive or a fire truck puts out the flames, and there is no assumption of injuries, which seems pretty strange. Race tracks have ambulances on site, why not airports? Are accidents so rare that when they do happen we just let people die? I see some more changes to come because of this incident. Like, keep passengers together after exiting the aircraft, and help with on site triage, and keep medical personnel on duty at airports. And watch out where you are driving the fire trucks. Oh well, have to wait and see. Apteva (talk) 06:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
"Are accidents so rare that when they do happen we just let people die?" Speaking bluntly, yes, just as we don't keep ambulances at railway stations in anticipation of a train crash. Even if there is on-site ambulance provision, it's not of a scale to be able to manage more than a few casualties, handling a major air crash is going to take the full capability of local, if not regional, fire, police and medical provision working in an integrated disaster plan. Fatal accidents involving scheduled flights run significantly less than 1 per million departures (0.34/million as a 10 year average according to http://www.boeing.com/news/techissues/pdf/statsum.pdf), many of these far from the airport. Flight International (who do a yearly survey) recorded 34 fatal accidents in 2011, 21 in 2012, and that's worldwide, including airlines who aren't allowed into Western airspace due to their safety records or poor national oversight - see http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-why-2012-was-exceptionally-good-for-airline-safety-380679/. 92.235.125.151 (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
"obviously all three victims were alive when they exited the aircraft". Um, no reliable source supports this conjecture. I have adjusted the article accordingly. It is entirely plausible that both fatalities (I am excluding the child that died on 12 July in San Francisco General) occurred the instant the aircraft hit the seawall. Let's not write anything that we don't have relibable sourcing for. --Mareklug talk 15:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, obviously. The crew made certain that everyone exited the aircraft. One person was carried out because they were paralyzed, but there were categorically no dead persons on the aircraft. Everyone survived the crash, and 12 were critically injured. Two of the critically injured died outside the aircraft, at the scene, one of them possibly because of being run over by a fire truck. We will find that out at some point. There is only one other fatality that is at question, and they were not the passenger who was carried out paralyzed. Passengers in 911 calls described trying to keep people alive, but that would have applied to all 12 of the critically injured. So yes we know from reliable sources that no one died upon impact. It is totally unnecessary to pretend that some of the passengers might have been killed on impact when we know for certain that is not the case. Apteva (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
What I am saying all this time is that you are making the unwarranted assumption that the 2 deceased girls were still aboard when the evacuation took place. Their bodies may have been thrown from the tailless aircraft, one near the seawall, the other later, perhaps during the "cartwheel". This account: Both Wang Linjia, 16, and Ye Mengyuan, 17, were found dead on the tarmac at San Francisco International Airport, their bodies at least a mile apart, after a Boeing 777 crashed short of the runway Saturday. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/chinese-girls-asiana-wreck-lived-died-best-pals-article-1.1393478 Ergo, they could well have died on impact, or later on site. --Mareklug talk 04:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
It was more like a bit over 2,000 feet from the seawall to the aircraft where it came to rest. "One found on each side of the plane"[13] In this report, Hersman corrects the number of flight attendants who were ejected from two to three, but does not say, and one passenger. Apteva (talk) 07:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
In the fourth NTSB briefing, at 24:19 corrects information from the previous day to say that three flight attendants in their seats were ejected from the aircraft, and at 24:44 twice says that no passenger seats were ejected from the aircraft.[14] Apteva (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
We knew for a long while that no passenger seats were ejected. Again, you have not produced any NTSB briefing evidence to the effect that no passengers were ejected. Rather, this has been not addressed at all in the NTSB briefings. You are implying, which is pure synthesis, that no mention of ejected passengers means none were. Furthermore, the newly added San Jose Mercury source, "SFO crash: Three flight attendants ejected from plane strapped in their seats". Mercurynews.com. 2013-07-08. Retrieved 2013-07-14., contains the revealing eyewitness account of the Chinese passenger who sat with her two deceased friends in Row 41. Please reread it! Her account clearly implies that the two were simply gone after the tail was gone and the plane came to rest. She says she assumed they got off the plane -- but that is what it is, an assumption. They were likely both thrown off the plane, which explains why they were found 2 thousand feet apart, if not a full mile. Ergo, they could have well died on impact. At no time did you admit that your edits suppressing this information is not supported by sources, and if anything, is contradicted. You have performed synthesis, I am afraid to say. At this times I would also like to ask you to clean up the refs, after you corrected the number of ejected flight attendants to three. At least one if not more sources used in the Investigation section refer to two in their titles, if not accounts. --Mareklug talk 02:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
"she assumed" "were likely" "which explains" "they could have" None of this sort of conjecture belongs in the article, and none of it qualifies as "information". Stick to the facts and wait for the NTSB final report. Apteva (talk) 03:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Ambulances are kept on site at airports. I would not trust that 40 minutes number.99.7.168.160 (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
even if they were not, SFFD ambulances would not take 40 minutes to respond to the airport. this isn't Detroit -- Aunva6talk - contribs 18:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I resent the gratuitous Detroit snark. What's up with that? Do you have any evidence that it would take 40 minutes for DFD to arrive at the international airport there, or are you manifesting your prejudices? --Mareklug talk 21:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
whoah there! I wasn't trying to mean anything by it, it's just that DFD is notoriously understaffed, and I was more or less making a comparison. also, maybe it's not 40 minutes, but still pretty long. I have the utmost respect for all first responders, and the detroit situation isn't really germane to the article. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 02:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously this is very much a "grey area", if you remember in "Japan Airlines Flight 123" (the deadliest single airline crash) that it is believed that many of the passangers survived the crash but died of overnight exposure to the elements but all casulties are listed as victims of the crash (although in that case they could never determine who actually died in the crash and who died afterwords). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained numbers and simplistic categorisations can never fully explain what happened. That's what the rest of the article is for. No need to stress about what category to put people in. Just pick one that's reasonable (if not absolutely precise and agreed upon by all), annotate it, and point readers to the detail within the article. HiLo48 (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Misc sources (CRM, hand-flying, automation, culture)

Whole lot of speculation and accusation and general obnoxiousness — Lfdder (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

See:

--Parallelized (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to the article. Your post contains no discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I think both articles are quite relevant and could be added. The Huff report is perhaps the better one, especially with its quote from Prof David Strayer. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
This is speculation. There's clear consensus above against speculation. — Lfdder (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Maybe it's just relevant speculation. Although the relevance is lessened by the fact a pilot here was under tuition, and not an experienced pilot more used to relying on automation. Even so, if a safety expert has commented directly on an incident, I believe it may be worth including. Ironically, it seems also that the lack of the ILS here may have been a contributory cause. But that's just my speculation. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the sources, Parallelized, but what are you proposing is added and why? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I am not proposing anything, I am encouraging a discussion - to ensure that I won't end up again adding stuff that will be reverted by folks who disagree, but happen to have more time get involved in edit-warring... However, even if you remove the relevant speculation, there are various relevant references to increased automation and it effects, including Korean flight safety history, especially referring to the 90s - The ILS certainly was contributory in that it's another instrument to help reduce workload, which would have made certain issues blatantly obvious, i.e. being off-profile, and groundspeed not matching the glideslope/vertical speed requirement. However, as previously mentioned elsewhere on the page, the lack of ILS clearly isn't the single reason - regardless of the NTSB findings, pilots do train landing without any precision approach aid, and a modern airliner like the 777 is capable of using additional avionics to help with flying the profile, including an "artificial glidepath" emulated through the FMS. Hundreds of airliners have successfully landed on 28L without any ILS whatsoever, so they were not affected - even though the NTSB did state that they're looking into all approach data since the ILS has been INOP to check if there have been more GAs or different approaches.--Parallelized (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The presence or absence of ILS had nothing to do with the landing. All it means is that different landing aids were used, nothing else. If Asiana thought their pilots were not capable of landing without ILS they would not have sent them to SFO, where the ILS had been out since June 1. All the other AAR214 flights before and after landed successfully without ILS. Apteva (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Which "different landing aids" were they? Surely the instructor pilot would have been supported better, had a lower workload and greater SA if ILS had been working? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
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. They appear to have chosen to use auto throttle, and appear to be surprised that it was not properly engaged, or work. The NTSB has said that it is the pilots responsibility to monitor the landing profile and the approach speed. 3 seconds before landing is way, way too late to try a go around with a plane that is descending at 1000 feet per minute and at just above stall speed. Apteva (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
You're saying that ILS is of no benefit to anyone in VMC? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm saying that you are trolling. The discussion about ILS is irrelevant to this accident. The crew decided that the captain would fly a visual approach by hand and not use an instrument approach. 75.210.222.70 (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
If you seriously think I am "trolling", anon ip, you should take me to to ANI. Was it the crew's decison that ILS was not used? I think not. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I've not removed anything, thanks, or edit warred. But a proposal for discussion would be much more useful than us just having a forum chat? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
be assured, I wasn't referring to you at all. Discussion-wise, I am thinking in terms of adding media news coverage to the aftermath section, especially the effects the incident had on flight safety discussion in the public media and potential issues identified by various aviation experts.--Parallelized (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Will you take the time to go through what's already there this time or will you just be adding stuff blindly to the top like you did with the Investigation section (that now someone's gonna have to rewrite cos it's an absolute bloody mess)? — Lfdder (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
that's probably worse that a virtual bloody mess... Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
You don't say. — Lfdder (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Look Ladies, like I mentioned previously, I do appreciate all stylistic contributions and improvements, but please don't expect me to put up with this sort of bitching as long as some of you guys keep indicating that you have zero interest in going through "5 hrs of NTSB transcripts" to get the info in the first place. Thus, maybe we shouldn't be crying about the degree of revamping going on currently, but rather about premature copy-editing in the first place, given the lack of info, and quality thereof ? Honestly, the most informed edits that I have seen here were by EditorASC and 2-3 other guys and they were also repeatedly questioned by you guys, or even directly reverted. You know, anarchy doesn't work too well when it comes to QA. I do apologize for any stylistic regressions my contributions may have caused, but please just recognize that it just isn't helpful to deal like that with people who are actually willing to fill in all the missing info, and correct things that are blatantly wrong, i.e contribute their own expertise and time. I'd rather have correct and complete information than incorrect and incomplete information that just happens to match wp style. And yeah, please feel free to alert an admin again, to make me shut up - it's appreciated, it's been a hilarious experience.--Parallelized (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Mankind will be eternally grateful for your contributions. — Lfdder (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
you know, that's not at all the point - but hey, thanks so much for the compliment, your appreciation is tremendously appreciated and I can foresee that we'll be exceptionally good friends from now on.--Parallelized (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
um, when was I asked to go through "5 hrs of NTSB transcripts"? When did I "repeatedly question" anyone? When did I "alert an admin"?! I thanked you for your sources? But glad to see that at least you've made friends with Lfdder. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm 5 hrs of NTSB transcripts, but not sure who everybody else is. — Lfdder (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
sorry, fair enough - so for the sake of completeness, so that you can relate to my insinuations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lfdder#Asiana_214_-_not_supported_by_any_.3F — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parallelized (talk • contribs) 17:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
... I'll skip on relating to any insinuations, if that's ok with you. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

B class?

according to an assessment made by someone from the aviation project, this article meets B criteria for them in all but 2 area: supporting materials, and coverage/accuracy. Does anyone see any deficiencies in these areas currently? if so, please list them, if not, we can assign a B class rating.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Preliminary Findings

I've created a new sub-section under the Investigation section for Preliminary Findings, the rationale being:

  • it makes it easier to read (though some may find this debatable)
  • it emphasizes the fact that the official reports to date are preliminary;
  • it allows for a separation of preliminary and final reports when the final report is made public

This sub-section could (and probably should) be further divided by the various types of preliminary information. As it stands, the information is just clumped together in giant paragraphs, and further sub-sectioning may be one way to mitigate this. Please post here if you feel I've made a grave error. — 67.180.24.57 (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a good change to me. — Lfdder (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

No explosion

In the Crash section:

"Eyewitnesses described a short-lived fireball, then a second large explosion minutes after the impact, with a dark plume of smoke rising from the fuselage."

I cannot find evidence of any explosions. The loud sound that was heard on the "Oh, My God" tape, was from the initial impact when the landing gear and tail were ripped off. An overhead view of the wreckage shows the wings still intact, so no fuel tank explosions. Damage to the fuselage is from fire, not explosions.

I would like to rewrite that sentence this way, if no one objects:

"Eyewitnesses described a short-lived fireball, then a second larger fire minutes after the impact, with a dark plume of smoke rising from the fuselage." EditorASC (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The eyewitness observed smoke that appeared from his perspective to be rising from the fuselage. I favor the edit that you propose. But I think that it should be supplanted by more authoritative or factual information about sources of smoke. 75.208.154.156 (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Good point. I have removed both the references to an explosion and the eyewitness reports of two fires, since I was unable to find any RS for those statements. Right now, what I left has RS documentation from the NTSB briefings. If anyone can find more RS sources to support two fires, or more details about the fire, then by all means add it to the narrative, but only if properly cited. Thanks much, EditorASC (talk) 05:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Red X Not fixed. The statement was still in the Crash section. I changed "fuselage" to "wreckage", but it is still misleading and suggests that the smoke started as soon as the aircraft came to a stop. 75.208.112.227 (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The ILS was out-of-service because the recently relocated runway threshold necessitates moving the GS antennae 300' west. That the ILS was out of service is not material to the crash -- unless you think the NTSB will say that the clear weather that prevailed at the time was contributing factors in the crash. The pilots would have chosen to hand-fly a visual approach even if the ILS had been available. 75.208.112.227 (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

South Korea flag image broken

Resolved

This line of code is broken:
|{{flag|South Korea}}||77||14||91
The flag image does not show up; only the image size does Checkingfax (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight on passengers from a school

Thirty of the students and teachers were from Shanxi, and the others were from Zhejiang.[28] Five of the teachers and 29 of the students were from Jiangshan High School in Zhejiang; they were traveling together.[48] Thirty-five of the students were to attend a West Valley Christian School summer camp. The Shanxi students originated from Taiyuan,[49] with 22 students and teachers from the Taiyuan Number Five Secondary School and 14 students and teachers from the Taiyuan Foreign Language School.[50] One teacher received minor injuries, and all three passengers who died were in the West Valley camp group.[28][49][51]

Undue weight about trivia? There was a CEO who was scheduled to fly but changed at the last moment to a United flight. That would also be trivia.

Instead, a brief mention of some school kids would not be undue weight. Auchansa (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The three people who died were schoolchildren and the schoolchildren themselves made a large portion of the plane's passengers (70 out of 291, 24% of the passengers). The summer camp supposed to host them posted a press release about the accident. As for "There was a CEO who was scheduled to fly but changed at the last moment to a United flight. That would also be trivia." I do know that in cases of 100% fatal crashes that would not be trivia. And if it didn't get covered in reliable sources, it's like the fact never existed (see WP:V). Since the news coverage focused heavily on the schoolchildren and not on the CEO's, covering the schoolkids is indeed within due weight. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The picture of the one who was killed by the fire truck is on the front page today.[15] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Also I found an explanation on why so many Chinese were on board this flight. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Asiana Airlines releases

ENGLISH

KOREAN

CHINESE

Also: ENGLISH TWITTER:

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

KTVU pranked

The KTVU article is that a way

This sure sounds like WP vandalism. :P --Gmaxwell (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Not worth checking and likely there are other jokesters in the world than those who vandalize wp pages. Apteva (talk) 01:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Is KTVU still a Reliable Source, with "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? :) guanxi (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think they merit excluding for one Casual Friday's worth of pranking. I am leaning to supporting the conspiracy theory that everyone at the station was in on the prank, including the anchorwoman now unfairly maligned by the millions as an idiot. Poor judgment, perhaps. A hilarious riot of a prank, though, a veritable SNL skit come to life. --Mareklug talk 15:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't serious; it was just a joking point about the presumption of "fact-checking and accuracy" by "Reliable Sources". guanxi (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
See KTVU#Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214_prank Checkingfax (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Um, I totally beg to differ. The story of Flight 214 is how checks and safeties built into the system had failed with tragic consequences. The KTVU aspect of the Flight 214 story is how even more checks can fail. The anchor, while reading those names, did not have the awareness that she was being pranked and she failed to make an immediate real-time correction. This fits the theme of how very experienced pilots can be flying so low and slow and fail to recognize their situation in time to make a correction that would have prevented the crash. Similar to how half of the crash-day deaths got run over by the fire truck. Flight 214 is the story of human failures, followed by more human failures, followed by even more human failures. But at least no one died because of KTVU's screwup. =Dustin Dewynne (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Have any valid sources connected those dots? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I think the best place to put the prank is only in the KTVU article. It is really not about the accident, and there is no need to put every inappropriate joke that anyone makes in this article. Apteva (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
@Baseball Bugs, the connection between those three dots (plane crash, fire truck, news report) is Flight 214. And this is an article about Flight 214. Every article on the KTVU flub connects that dot back to the crash dot. To leave it in Wikipedia as an insulated dot, with not so much as a link from this article mentioning KTVU, then this crash article does not tell the complete story of human error surrounding Flt 214. =Dustin Dewynne (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
@Apteva, no one is suggesting to use a very serious Wikipedia article as a platform for telling jokes. This article is about telling a complete story about this fatal Asiana crash. The KTVU flub is part of that story. And as I've emphasized above, I see it to be an important part. =Dustin Dewynne (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't. HiLo48 (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not a part of the real story unless it develops "legs" and is not just a here-today-gone-tomorrow bit of trivia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
That's it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Exclude; it merits inclusion in an article about the TV station, probably, but is not important enough to an understanding of the topic to be worth mentioning in the article about the crash. VQuakr (talk) 07:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
They're talking lawsuit now.[16] So it's almost a story. Given the possibility of pilot error, there could be any number of suits flying around before this is over. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
A story for the station, but not relevant to this article. Apteva (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed - this doesn't belong in the article. I'll remove it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
so, I have a tendency to completely disagree with exclusion... It is directly related and sourced to the Asiana flight. Not arguing seriousness, rather fact... If Peter Jennings got astronaut information incorrect during the reprortig of the Challenger tragedy would it have been included in the Wikipedia article? I hope it would be linked... That is what is was trying to do by transcluding it... That way this article wouldn't have it without the reference to the TV station.... I disagree with censoring this information out... Specifically with he Asiana talk of lawsuit. TRL (talk) 02:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
To answer your question, no, it would not be included unless Jennings was fired and ended up hanging himself or such. Why not wait and see if this turns into anything more than a Howard Sternesque type of prank. --Malerooster (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
unless someone dies it is not worth inclusion, or in this case transclusion in the article? Pretty high standards, and I'd recommend you start working toward speedy deletion of most Wikipedia content....TRL (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
It just is not relevant, and has a good home, in the station article. Did the prank cause the crash? Did the prank cause any of the fatalities? Does the prank help understand the subject matter? No, no, and no. That is why it is not included. Apteva (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

This needs to be covered in the article under a section about Racism. It's all over the news. We shouldn't ignore it. Jehochman Talk 14:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Source: [18] Jehochman Talk 14:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
We should. — Lfdder (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
It could be countered with documented commentary about (1) the precedent of cultural "deference" playing into a bad landing; and (2) the irony of an airline which has just killed several passengers filing suit over name-calling (which may tie into point 1). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
This is not a story about the accident, it is a story about the station, and that article is where all that belongs. Apteva (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
It's also about the accident, as the accident is the reason that TV station incident occurred. Whether it merits more than one sentence in the article remains to be seen. I wouldn't necessarily put it in a "racism" section, though, but in a "legal actions" section - as the airline itself is liable to be hammered with lawsuits, if they haven't been already. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
If it absolutely needs to be included this sounds best to me. — Lfdder (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Has no relevance to the accident and should not be included here at all. MilborneOne (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Should be included (via transclusion) so that the text stays in sync with the KTVU info. It is directly related to the accident, but hasn't progressed beyond talk of legal actions. IF the criticism of NTSB info remains, this KTVU info should be included... otherwise remove both? TRL (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Transclusion is absurd. For example, if we decide to include "one television station was sued by the airline for incorrectly reporting the names of the pilots in a racist joke that was pulled by station staff on an on air co-anchor", why would we get that from the KTVU article by transclusion? Each article has separate needs, and that can not be met by using a transclusion. But I see no reason to make any mention of the incident in this article. Punking a co-anchor can be done about any subject, and the story is about the station that does it, not about the subject that was used. If the Ed Sullivan show introduced the Beatles as "the Beetles", that would be worth mentioning in the Beatles article, but not if Shea Stadium printed "the Beetles" on their tickets. Apteva (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
This is not 'directly related to the accident'. It is tangential, and only relevant to our article on KTVU if it deserves mention at all. This article isn't a collection of everything and anything that resulted from media coverage of the event - we cite the media as a source in this article, and that is the limit of their significance here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
It is a direct consequence of the accident. And it's still front-page on cnn.com.[19] Whether it remains that way, remains to be seen. I don't see the point in transcluding it either. It's really a minor thing until, or if, something "real" comes of it. One story I read somewhere today said that the NTSB intern was fired. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
A 'direct consequence'? The plane crashing at San Francisco International caused the 'prank' did it? Absurd... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Without the crash, there is no prank. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Without the crash they could have used any automobile accident involving Asians. Apteva (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Did they? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

No info about this in the article. Glaring omission. I can understand how some want a clean, sanitized article but this is clearly notable and subject of many articles including lawsuits and firing of a female intern— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.38.230 (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2013‎ (UTC)

It's not about wanting a clean or sanitised article, it's about wanting an article that is relevant to its subject - the crash. The story is notable, and covered as such, on the article about the TV station where it is relevant. At the very most this article would have a single line noting that KTVU got into trouble over their coverage of the crash, but even that is pushing it. Thryduulf (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
FYI: The intern has been removed: http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Official-Intern-no-longer-at-NTSB-after-name-flap-4667084.php

--Parallelized (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

As has been the lawsuit threat. So this is now officially a non-story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Not KTVU pranked, but fictitious crew names released by NTSB and reported internationally

Wikipedia is not news. Therefore, a story or non-story does not matter. What matters is that an encyclopedic fact is being omitted from the article. In contrast, some personal commentary has been in the article for days. One example is that the Boeing 777 is safe. What is this, the Consumer Re-Education version of Wikipedia? (No, this is English Wikipedia).
Furthermore, inclusion (but in a very encyclopedic and tasteful way) is a useful addition. It could be fit under the lawsuit section as Asiana threatened to sue the NTSB.
I learned something yesterday. The names were not just some comical names but actually a dialogue and story telling. I did not know that there is a sequence. It is...

1. Something's wrong? (Captain Sum Ting Wong)
2. We're too low! (Wi Tu Lo)
3. Holy Fuck! (Ho Lee Fuk)
4. Bang/Smash/Dign/Ouch! (Bang Ding Ow)

As far as news, this was labeled as "breaking news" and was also covered by reliable sources more than anything else for a day.
One possible way to write it would be: In the aftermath of the crash, an employee of the NTSB, contrary to the board's usual practice, release the pilots names but released incorrect names that were part of a hoax. This led to Asiana announcing impending lawsuits against the NTSB and American station KTVU. (to discuss the final sentence) The fictitious names were Captain Sum Ting Wong (Something Wrong), Wi Tu Lo (We Too Low), Ho Lee Fuk (Holy Fuck), and Bang Ding Ow (Bang, Ding, Ouch). Auchansa (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Could we just drop this silliness? It has nothing at all to do with the accident or the investigation. The NTSB did not release those names. It was a prank. Someone suckered a low-level intern into confirming the obviously fictitious names. There was no racism whatsoever. The whole matter does not deserve to be glorified with even a mention anywhere in WP. 75.247.48.165 (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Citation? The NTSB employee did release the names.[citation needed] She was fired. She was not intentionally part of the hoax (didn't know the names were false). Auchansa (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I cannot cite a non-existent release. In order for the NTSB to have released the names, they would have had to originate within in the NTSB. The NTSB does not release names. 75.210.64.72 (talk) 09:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
It is probably among the top 200 facts of the event. Certainly, it is not the top 2 facts. The top two facts are probably the airline name and date. WP culture doesn't like to prioritize things but that would make sense. If things are prioritized, we'd compare facts and either include all of them or delete the lower priority ones.
I know listing the names makes some people uncomfortable as they want WP to be formal. However, even the BBC listed the hoax names. Many other reputable sources do. Since many reputable sources do, WP should at the very least include this fact of the hoax, even if we censor the actual names (like Capt Lo, Pilot Fuk). The NTSB employee did release the names to KTVU and others. She got fired. Auchansa (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
No. It would be perpetuating a BLP violation. If someone really, really wants to know, they can find that stuff elsewhere. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
This 'hoax' has nothing to do with the subject of this article. We are describing an incident where an aircraft crashed. This isn't an article about racism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
This is covered at KTVU doesnt need further discussion here. MilborneOne (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

What are check pilot and VMC? Are Wiki readers really that ignorant?

Problem areas of text have been resolved without assessing the knowledge of the readers.

"OK, VMC is linked, but it's a certainty that 99% of our readers won't know what is it and will have to follow the link to find out. And... most of our readers won't have a clue what a check pilot is. HiLo48 (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)"

"...it's a certainty that 99% of our readers won't know..."

I would be most interested in knowing what yardstick you used to come up with that certainty of 99% figure. How large was the sample of ignorant Wiki readers, when you measured only one out of a hundred would be able to understand what was written? Do you really think our readers are that dumb? Surely, you didn't just make up that "certainty" figure? EditorASC (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Who's said they're dumb? Not everyone's an expert in everything there's ever been. 1 in a hundred sounds like a fairly generous estimate for VMC to me. — Lfdder (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I've followed aviation-related topics for years and I didn't know what VMC represented until I looked it up. As the manual of style notes, one must always spell out an acronym on its first use, then you can use the acronym afterwards. This is an encyclopedia for a general audience that isn't necessarily familiar with technical jargon, and VMC is jargon. 17:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
In other words, you see nothing wrong with using a word like "certainty" when it really is nothing more than a wild claim that hasn't a shred of science or logic to support it? Very interesting.
And, what is wrong with ANY reader looking up the meaning of words or phrases, with which they are not familiar? Anyone who wants to keep learning new things in life will be glad to do that. It is so damn easy to do it too; all you have to do is type the word into Google, and lo and behold the reader isn't anywhere near as ignorant as some wiki editors like to claim. EditorASC (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
What's wrong with explaining words or phrases, so the reader won't need to look them up? Per WP:Manual of Style "When an abbreviation is to be used in an article, give the expression in full at first, followed immediately by the abbreviation in parentheses (round brackets). In the rest of the article the abbreviation can then be used by itself". This seems clear enough to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
As Andy says, this is an encyclopedia for the general audience, and the Manual of Style says to spell out an acronym the first time it is used. That is clear. In fact, in US Government technical publications, which are written for engineers and specialized personnel, an acronym must be spelled out the first time it is used, and must also be listed in an acronym table. The implication that a reader should be expected to look up an acronym is contrary to the policy of documents that are primarily read by people who do know the acronyms. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Any reference to "certainty" is a wild claim, as is any percentage that is not backed by a reliable source. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Please stop defending the failure to define acronyms. Please stop making wild estimates. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

"The implication that a reader should be expected to look up an acronym is contrary to the policy of documents that are primarily read by people who do know the acronyms."

I made no such implication; that is your unwarranted inference. Nowhere have I ever suggested that the MOS rule (to explain the meaning when the acronym is first used) should not be adhered to.

What I am protesting is the constant demand by ones like HiLow48, that we dumb down the nomenclature so that the entire article is worded like his so-called "man-on-the-street" person thinks/speaks.

Aviation accident investigations do have a very specific and precise nomenclature that should not be discarded, because that is how the NTSB and ICAO reports from other nations are worded. There is a great danger that if we move from the specifically defined terms, to broad and vague terms, which can have multiple meanings, which is more in line with "average Joe Blow" levels of communication, then the risk of getting it wrong increases significantly, IMHO.

We already had one such edit in the article (which has since been removed) that the third pilot in the cockpit was a Flight Engineer. One of the constant problems of the MSM, especially right after an accident, is that they get it wrong so much of the time. And, it doesn't require too much reading of their stories to realize they don't know the difference between an aileron and a trim tab, so they just try to use "common" words which can be taken several different ways.

In the UAL 585 accident, the MSM constantly used the word "explosion," when talking about the crater left in the ground. There never was any explosion, yet some of our editors (one who was a Wiki Admin) picked up from those so-called RS sources and inserted the same word in that article. I think I had to remove it two or three times, to get the story back to some semblance of accuracy. Explain to the average reader what so called "jargon" words mean; I have no objection to that. But, we should be very careful that we are not changing the actual findings/meanings of the NTSB, when we do so. EditorASC (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

im an editor with a fondness for acronyms. id never heard this one. Im guessing its Visual meteorological conditions, right? its not in the article now, dont know why. silly debate, of course it needs to be spelled out on first use, as its a term used only in a specialized field, which most people are not familiar with enough to recognize. end of discussion.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
IMC or VMC has been replaced with VFR, which appears only as the word "visual" (cleared for a visual approach), and there is a link from the VFR article to VMC, instead of using the term directly in this article. Apteva (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done. Thanks for pointing that out. VMC and VFR are both incorrect as applied to approach to the crash. It was an IFR approach, not VFR. VMC applies to the prevailing weather at the time, not to the approach. 75.208.154.156 (talk) 02:43, 17 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 ... A visual approach is an IFR approach - the most flexible, but still IFR in VMC. 75.210.64.72 (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
You are correct about the meaning of VMC. However, it was a visual approach, NOT an IFR approach. That is what "Cleared for the visual, 28 left," means. SFO approach control frequently clears all planes for "the visual," when the weather is that good, simply because it enables them to get more planes in per hour, than when the wx requires IFR rules only.
With that clearance, Pilots are free to make use of their VNAV, AP & FD, and ILS if it is operative, but when cleared for the visual, the rules for an IFR approach do not apply. They are also free to fly it manually, using nothing other than both hands on the yoke and thrust levers, if they desire. One of the most significant of the differences in IFR and visual rules is that the plane has to be stabilized by 500 ft. AGL, when doing a visual approach, but with IFR rules, it has to be stabilized by 1,000 ft. AGL, and if not, a go-around is mandatory at that time. EditorASC (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • You have confused making an instrument approach with flying under IFR. An instrument approach is necessary in IMC, of course. But IFR flights are made in VMC too; they do not switch to VFR just because the controller clears them to make a visual approach. 75.210.64.72 (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Unless you have the approach controller stating "IFR cancellation received", then it was an IFR approach and you are wrong. Yes, they can use navaids or their normal human vision. But the rules which apply are IFR. The stabilised approach was mandatory and someone messed up. 75.210.64.72 (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
the percentage is immaterial. Regardless, my opinion is that we should spell out technical acronyms (at a minimum, the first time they are used). Peace, MPS (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I can't speak for Wiki readers in general, but I can say with certainty (having been there) that most of the engineers who actually developed the 777 FBW system would have needed VMC explaining. You can very easily be an aerospace professional with a deep knowledge of system specifics without needing to understand flight terminology, and clearly the man in the street is going to have even less knowledge. Equally I have considerable sympathy for EditorASC's point that we need to be exceptionally careful not to change meaning when trying to translate aviation terminology into everyday language (c.f. several previous discussions). There is a balance to be found, and that needs to be found by the people who understand aviation finding common ground with the people who don't, because that meeting in the middle represents precisely the (lack of) complexity of language we should be aiming for. 92.235.125.151 (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

information Reply chain in this section was rearranged on 24 July 2013

  1. ^ http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/07/ntsb_pilots_of_asiana_flight_214_relied_on_automatic_speed_control.html
  2. ^ http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-asiana-pilot-blinded-crash-20130711,0,4824429.story
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214/Archive_3&oldid=1143708481"