Talk:Germanwings Flight 9525/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

BBC online report

The BBC has a map of the projected flight route, along with some other other preliminary data: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32030270 Ceannlann gorm (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Improving the article

It's good that editors have been referencing info stated. However, can we please shift references from the infobox and lede into the body of the text. Both are meant to give a brief overview of the article. The main details should be repeated in the body of the article and referenced there. Mjroots (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Pprune is not a WP:RS, but it is a good source of RSs, the discussion thread is here. Mjroots (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Tête de l'Estrop/Pra Loup

According to [1] the plane crashed into the Trois-Evêchés massif, and ended up on Tête de l'Estrop mountain -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

We have a Three Bishoprics (Trois-Évêchés), a historical province of France... -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The BBC is showing a map with Pra Loup and Tête de l'Estrop highlighted -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Redirects

4U 9525 , GWI 9525 , GWI9525 , GWI-9525 , 4U-9525 , GERMANWINGS 9525 should redirect here -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Be bold and go ahead. Wikipedia:How to make a redirect --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Took the liberty of creating the redirects for all but the first requested name (was already in place by the time I got to it). Ceannlann gorm (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I've created more: Germanwings Flight 4U-9525, Germanwings Flight 4U 9525, Germanwings Flight 4U9525, Germanwings 4U9525, Germanwings 4U-9525, & Germanwings 4U 9525. AHeneen (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Daily Telegraph live stream

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11491587/Airbus-A320-crashes-in-French-Alps-with-148-people-on-board-live.html

May come in handy. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, should we put a mention of share related woes in the article, or hold off for the moment?: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/11491653/Shares-in-Lufthansa-and-Airbus-fall-following-Alps-plane-crash.html Ceannlann gorm (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Nationalities

Reported on British National are onboard

Announcement that British National are also onboard. GJZHA (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide a source?Cantab12 (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

2 American citizens and 1 Quebec Canadian has been identified

2 American Citizens from Dallas and 1 Quebec Canadian from Quebec City was identified less than a minute ago.GJZHA (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It is usual practice to include a table of passengers by nationality. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The airline should release a passenger manifest after they have notified the families of everyone on boards. At that point, we will include a list of passengers' nationalities. AHeneen (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Swedish is now included

Swedish has been identified.GJZHA (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to keep doing this, in separate sections. We will no doubt have a table of passenger/crew nationalities in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source for the nationalities, please add it, as currently there is no support in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring on info box

There seems to be edit warring occurring in the info box on whether to state that all (or most) of the passengers and crew were killed in this accident, or to state "unknown", presumably until an official announcement is made. LongHairedFop (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Map

Can someone please change the map of Europe, to a more 'zoomed in' map: using Template:Location map Western Europe in stead of Template:Location map Europe. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 14:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done (was able to do it myself, with another map template) Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 14:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I did, but reverted because the locations aren't correct. See this revision. AHeneen (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I created a map of the flight path. It is not a very good quality map because I did not have time to make a quality map. Hopefully, I will have time during the next 2-3 days to create a better map, like File:QZ8501 flight path.png (Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501) and File:MH370 flight path with English labels.png (Malaysia Airlines Flight 370). AHeneen (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Importance rating

I've changed the importance rating of the article to WikiProjects France, Germany, and Spain from high to low. Most articles are low importance. It doesn't mean that this event is unimportant, but we're supposed to take the long view here. Imagine a good, 400-600 page book about France, Germany, or Spain. How much coverage would be dedicated to this crash? Likely it wouldn't be mentioned at all. Ultimately this is a decision for the individual WikiProjects, so I will defer to them if any of them want this article rated higher. --BDD (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Europe 1 sources

Twitter says aircraft found in one piece https://twitter.com/Europe1/status/580330987235704832 and bodies sighted near crash site http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2kftci_vidalies-le-survol-a-permis-de-voir-la-carcasse-de-l-avion-et-quelques-corps-autour_news# 81.147.191.195 (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This has been discredited already. Debris field shows nothing bigger 'than a car' [[2]] 88.128.80.139 (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Number of passengers from Turkey

I found this turkish artcle, which quote the Foreign minister of Turkey, who say that only 1 person from Turkey was onboard. A 50 year old man living in Germany, but who was originally from Turkey. Since I am from Denmark, I will rather not add to this article. So if this is usefull, then please go ahead. --IvarT (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a problem with the current source for the fatalities table which says explicitly "In its statement, the ministry denied the report of a Catalan news outlet which earlier claimed that there were 39 Turkish passengers in the plane." So I have changed the number from 39 to 1. Unfortunately, the numbers do not now tally with the total. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we should take the table away until the official announcement is made. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

That might cause fewer unnecessary and frustrating edits. I'm surprised this has not been officially announced. This information should instantly available for international flights. Martinevans123 (talk)

It is pretty much instantly available to the airlines. They have deliberately held back on releasing the names/nationalities. Either way, we shouldn't be referencing a "1" with a source that says "39". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The source says 1. It refutes an earlier claim of 39? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Fine, but the title of the ref still had 39 in it. Worth fixing both at the same time next time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

We can't expect people to actually read the sources, can we? "Next time"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Near misses

Note: Originally posted at User talk:The Rambling Man

Re: [3], but how many were notable enough to rate an AFP news article about their missed flight? (I'm saying as someone that isn't a football fan...) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

As I said, there are dozens of people who could have made it onto that aircraft. It's not encyclopedic. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

But where are the references talking about those other hypothetical dozens of people? In this case, there's a clear, reliable reference that these people were planning on catching the flight and changed at the last minute, so it makes sense to note it in the article. Thanks, Mike Peel (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, if you like trivia being added, that's fine, but I don't. We should focus on the event and the things that actually happened. Perhaps you cold add a note to the team's article saying how lucky they were, but right now it's just niff-naff to add that kind of cruft to a crash article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Please continue this at the article talk page, I have made my position clear, you may wish to solicit other opinions in your quest. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems notable from what I can see, particularly since AFP covered it. Maybe it will be trivia in the long run, though. But it is sufficiently verifiable to justify its inclusion in the article. Thanks, Mike Peel (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Just support what TRM has said, I did remove it from the article as it was clearly not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's "clearly not notable". I think it's marginal. Especially as the football club is notable in it's own right, i.e. it has a wikipedia article. It's got to depend on the level of press coverage, I guess. It seems to be getting quite a bit in the European press, e.g. Le Huff Po: [4]. etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia and not a tabloid, nearly every accident somebody notable comes forward as probably or possible could have been on that flight but that doesnt make it notable to the accident, because Joe Famous decided to stay at home it has zero notability to the accident, so I stand by my clearly not notable (to the accident). MilborneOne (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Concur with the above. It's human interest fluff and we're not anywhere close to the amount of RS coverage that would outweigh that. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it depends on the sources and the breadth of those sources. Near-miss non-deaths are rather trivial compared to real aircraft transportation deaths. But there is no need to start inventing these "thousands of people could have been on the flight" kind of straw man arguments. There's a hierarchy here - people who had tickets and cancelled, famous people who has tickets and cancelled, people who boarded but got put off the flight for whatever reason, etc. etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and I didn't make that argument. Wrong argument, right conclusion. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit notification

One thing that happens after every major aircraft accident is that a huge "Response" section is created listing every important person's remarks about the incident (expressions of sympathy from Obama, the Pope, etc aren't relevant). Can the edit page notification be modified to caution users from adding WP:Speculation and adding responses. Suggested text:

Please do not add:

• Possible causes or speculative information, unless such information is mentioned by authoritative figures in the incident (eg. BEA or other investigators, Germanwings, air transport authorities)
• Responses from officials with no connection to the incident

I'm not the best with words, so the suggested text may need to be adjusted. AHeneen (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Also, the purpose of the infobox is to summarise key points of the article. Do not simply update the infobox; and do not place references in the infobox. Alakzi (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

References in the infobox end up happening if there is conflicting information in reports that are mentioned on the page. They can all be taken out after 24 hours. -- Aronzak (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys, i have made a request for an edit notice here: Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Germanwings Flight 9525 Hybirdd (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done notice has been added and can be reviewed here Hybirdd (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox caption detail

"pictured here after take-off from Barcelona"

@Alakzi: Relevance? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Trimmed. Alakzi (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

TY. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Coords adjusted

FYI, I replaced the unsourced crash site coordinates with those in the Aviation Herald report. This moved the location about 3 km. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

CVR or FDR?

The page says that the plane's "black box" has been found. An A320 (like most planes) has two black boxes, a Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and a Flight Data Recorder (FDR). According to the citation given the reference number [64] on the page, (the guardian article), what was found was the CVR. Should the page be updated to be clear that the CVR was recovered, as opposed to "the black box"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.25.156 (talk) 04:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Oops, never mind, you guys were way ahead of me. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.25.156 (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Archive of initial Germanwings company notice

http://www.webcitation.org/6XGkinRv3 is an archive of https://www.germanwings.com/pre_info.html, the initial company notice in German and English WhisperToMe (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Lufthansa also has a darksite about the same crash: http://www.lufthansa.com/darksite - http://www.webcitation.org/6XGmkN3fD WhisperToMe (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The Lufthansa darksite now has a Spanish notice: https://www.lufthansa.com/online/portal/dks?origin=/online/portal/lh/cn/homepage2011&l=de - http://www.webcitation.org/6XHqrFWzm - WhisperToMe (talk) 07:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Japanese victims

If/when it's confirmed that the Japanese (Satoshi Nagata and Junichi Sato) were on the flight, it may be good to say that they were resident in Dusseldorf (See Japanese community of Dusseldorf).

Source: Fantz, Ashley and Catherine E. Shoichet. "Germanwings crash: Who was on the plane?" (Archive). CNN. March 25, 2015. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Venezuelan and an additional Argentine victims.

Read on the paraguayan press . They were residents of Paraguay. Tragedia aérea: Dos de los fallecidos vivían en Paraguay Quantanew (talk) 11:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed the US citizens

They are correctly onboard.GJZHA (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

German students majority

Passenger section of article states majority of German passengers were students, only sixteen of the passengers from there were students. 139.190.230.234 (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Timeline

I don't see that this section adds anything that can't be covered by text. It is unreferenced and possibly WP:OR. IMHO, we don't need it. Mjroots (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This has now been reinserted for a fourth time. Alakzi (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Re this: the source refutes an earlier claim that the crew declared emergency; it does not say that French ATC issued a distress call. Alakzi (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jwkozak91: please read the source. Alakzi (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

* "it was the combination of the loss of radio contact and the aircraft's descent which led the controller to implement the distress phase" - ITV

* "but the German authorities later confirmed the mayday had been sounded by air traffic control when they lost contact with the plane" - BBC

* "It was air traffic controllers who sent out a distress call after radio contact with the plane was lost." - CNN

@Alakzi: I made the same mistake and got my edit reverted, so I reconfirm those quoted sources, and it appears to me that the current timeline item is correct. — Peterwhy 01:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Where do you see a time? Alakzi (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Oops from your commit message I (and probably others) thought you are complaining about the subject. Going to move your "not in citation given" tag to the event time. — Peterwhy 01:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I am removing the timeline. There are several reasons why. First, the information about "First known position on Flightradar24" is not important. Flightradar24 collects data that is broadcast by the aircraft's transponder, the "first known position" just means that someone turned on the transponder. Also, the last position from FR24 is affected by their coverage. I do not think that all aviation accidents need a timeline. Several recent accidents involved a long chain of events and a timeline was greatly beneficial to understanding those accidents. This accident only has a couple important events—takeoff, reached cruise altitude, began decent a minute later, crashed—and this can be made clear in prose. This is especially relevant because there are a lot of conflicting statements about the times of the events, so prose is best. The timezone is just 1 hour ahead of UTC, unlike some accidents that involve multiple time zones several hours before/after UTC, the addition of UTC times (besides noting the offset in leadk/infobox) isn't beneficial to a reader's understanding. AHeneen (talk) 07:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, AHeneen. Consensus is clearly against this section, so further additions can be reverted on sight. Mjroots (talk) 07:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I've requested an addition to the editnotice for this page (Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Germanwings Flight 9525). Suggested addition: "Do not add a timeline unless there is a clear consensus on the talk page for such an addition." AHeneen (talk) 07:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

There are important events which should be recorded in addition to time of cruise, speed etc. Anyone analysing the flight data will recognize an unexplained speed increase to 515 kts followed shortly thereafter by a minor course correction followed by the long steep straight-line descent to disaster. The fact that the aircraft did NOT deviate from course is very significant.

I've removed it again, per WP:CONSENSUS reached here. Mjroots (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

515 knots?

Where is the speed increase to 515 knots coming from? I cannot find evidence of this in the flightradar24/flighttracker plots. Shouldn't this value be sourced? vttoth (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I use Casper European flight radar and that was the highest speed recorded according to the data provided by it at 09:30:21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.172.97 (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Names of victims

Several non-notable names seem to be creeping in. IMHO, victims should only be named if they are notable enough to sustain an article on en-Wiki, or would be notable enough. At minimum, I would like to see that a named victim has an article on a Wiki in a foreign language at least. Can we please trim the non-notable names, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL? Mjroots (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree that is fairly standard for aircraft accident articles. MilborneOne (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Aircraft section

Can we please keep this section as the first one in the article, per many other aircrash articles? Mjroots (talk) 08:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

That would seem to be more logical and consistent. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Most aircraft crash articles have the accident section first, then search (if any), then aircraft, passengers/crew, and investigation section. Also, what value is there to have the aircraft section first? The subject of the article is the crash, so it makes sense to have the story of the crash first. AHeneen (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Before you can understand details of the crash, you need to know about the aircraft involved. Mjroots (talk) 10:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

As in this case, the aircraft doesn't always even exist after the accident. I'm surprised there's not some clear guideline about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Mjroots, please. Look at the very detailed content of the Aircraft section and tell me what part of that is essential (or even particularly helpful) in understanding the "details of the crash". You need to know it was an A320, and that's in the lead. I always defer to AHeneen on matters like this, as AFAIK he has the most experience with these articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mandruss:, AHeneen - OK, if consensus is against me, then I'll defer. Feel free to move the section. Mjroots (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm tempted by your offer, but you had to go and mention consensus. It looks like a 2-2 tie to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Martinevans123? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I also support moving it down, for the reasons above. Alakzi (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think putting the aircraft section first preserves the chronology better. I'd even be tempted to put "Passengers and crew" before the accident - they were all there before anything went wrong. In fact, they were still alive. They were not some kind of "product" of the accident, unlike the other later sections. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I was writing with BRD in mind. My move was challenged, so we discuss. In the event of a tie, R beats B. Mjroots (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Martinevans123 I moved it after seeing Alakzi's comment and before seeing your last. Sorry. Oh well it's not set in stone and still open to discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd also remind you that the article title is "Germanwings Flight 9525", and not "Germanwings Flight 9525 Accident" etc. But no strong views. Accuracy is more important than section order, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain? The article's topic is the accident. Alakzi (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The only reason we have this article is because of the accident, that's true. But "Germanwings Flight 9525" was a scheduled commercial flight, not an accident. The aircraft itself was an integral part of that flight, with or without any accident. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the article is not titled Germanwings Flight 9525 crash is per WP:CONCISE, and only that. The article is not about the scheduled flight. I was ok with "no strong views". ―Mandruss ☎ 21:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Well I guess WP:CONCISE is misleading, as it is with all aviation accidents that are titled that way. Too bad. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Ridiculous statement.

"The plane appears not to have deviated from its flight plan during its descent"

It may be a translation issue, but this statement is ridiculous. The "plan" was to collide with the ground ? I don't think so.Lathamibird (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

That's what the source says. I assume it means that it did not deviate from its planned horizontal flight path, but I think it would be considered original research to make that assumption in the article. Flight plan refers to altitude/flight level as well as horizontal route. I'm for removing the statement unless a better-worded source can be found. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I had assumed this meant its planned track did not change, just its altitude. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

All the more reason why we should sit back for awhile to let the dust settle before rushing to include statements which haven't been well-thought-out or properly researched by the News Media. A vast amount of information put out by the Media, shortly after accidents, ends up being wrong, partially wrong or just plain made up. That is a consistent and repeated pattern and I don't see why some Wiki editors seem oblivious to it. EditorASC (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Obviously they mean that it did not deviate from its course. The aircraft remained on the airway, as filed in the flight plan. Alakzi (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

44°16'50.86"N   6°26'21.48"E

—178.201.29.149 (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment - there are different GPS co-ordinates for the last recorded location and the crash site. -- Aronzak (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. The suggested coordinates are quite close to those given in the article, and we'd need a good source to make such a specific alteration. If a source becomes available, you are welcome to resubmit a request for emendation of the coordinates. Deor (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I dont think there is a source needed, because just looking at the video footage and the pictures published one can see that the soil is very dark grey, nearly black. The actual coordinates in the box are totallly wrong. The correct crash coordinates are 44° 16′ 54.56″ N 6° 26′ 24.79″ E, about 2,5 kms southwest of the actual coordinates in the box. The geo coordinates mentioned in the article (citation): "At 13:38 GMT (14:38 CET), a second larger area was added to cover a radius of 10 nautical miles (19 km; 12 mi) centered at 44°16′48″N 6°26′24″E from FL000 to FL100" (end of citation) come close or are even correct. Cruks (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Those are areas of flight restriction. No matter how intuitively obvious it may seem, I think it would be original research to derive crash site location from that information, especially given a respected source that disagrees with it. As noted elsewhere on this page, AvHerald is known for making corrections as more becomes known, and no one expects us (or should expect us) to get everything exactly right by Day 2. My opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is the picture which proves the site of the crash. It is No 6 of the series. Translate this picture to Google Maps and we have the exact coordinates of the crash site. Simple as that. Cruks (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Meaningless statements by politicians

The article is beginning to accumulate repetitive, useless statements from politicians who are not involved in the investigation or in policymaking. Abductive (reasoning) 13:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Expressions of grief and condolence are seen by many as "meaningless". Are you suggesting that inclusion should be limited to only statements by leading politicians of France, Germany and Spain? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying to keep it down to a dull roar. For example, if somebody has seen the crash site, their statement is far more worthy of inclusion. Abductive (reasoning) 23:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Location

None of the citations given indicate that the site is in the commune of Prads-Haute-Bléone. One of the citations states that it is near the commune. The Guardian reports that the site is in the commune of Méolans-Revel. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I changed the location to Méolans-Revel per the sources and temporarily removed the coordinates, as they appear to be inaccurate. I'm not sure how to use the GeoHack tool, so someone who knows how to use it should update the coordinates. --Biblioworm 18:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The location of the desaster belongs to the comune Prads-Haute-Bléone. Cruks (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The Independent source used in the infobox just says "near the small town of Barcelonnette in the Alpes-de-Hautes-Provences."? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

From the Aviation Herald: "The aircraft was found at approximate position N44.2979 E6.4670...French Police reported two helicopter spotted the remains of the aircraft on the ground at about 2700 meters elevation (8800 feet) between Prads-Haute-Bleone and Barcelonnette (France), about half way between the two cities there is a mountain ridge rising up to 8900 feet." AHeneen (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

So, what do we do if there is contradicting information? Some sources say Méolans-Revel, and others say Prads-Haute-Bleone. Is there updated information available? --Biblioworm 20:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

They don't really mean "cities" do they? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The Aviation Herald is a site known for fact-checking, and willingness to correct information when necessary. Simon Hradecky is an Austrian citizen, thus English is not his first language, so we can forgive him for using city where town is the correct word. Mjroots (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I updated the unsourced coords to reflect the AvHerald report. It may not be perfect, but it's a sight better than deducing our own coordinates from a prose description of the location. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the smallest unit of the government hierarchy in most of France is the commune (large urban areas are divided into arrondisments) and there are no gaps between the borders of communes. In rural (or in this case, mountainous) areas, that means that a small town may only be a few square kilometres in size, but the commune with the same name includes rural areas for several kilometres in all directions.

I am not familiar with government hierarchy in any other country except the US. The commune/town relation is not like most US states, where there is a county government and many incorporated communities (towns, villages, cities), but not all parts of the county are part of an incorporated community. The commune/town relation is similar to the way some US states divide counties into townships that cover every part of the county, but unlike US townships, there is no further sub-unit of government for towns.

So when it is reported that the crash site is in X, that probably means the commune. The crash site may be in X (commune), but the town of X can be several kilometers away and closer to another town. Some news sources may report one town as the site of the crash because they are relying on sources that use the name of the commune, but other news sources may use the name of a closer town. That may explain the confusion. As soon as the precise coordinates of the crash are given, a map can be checked to verify which commune the crash site is in. AHeneen (talk) 06:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The final accident report may specify the commune. The Turkish Airlines Flight 981 report states what commune that crash occurred in. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with the location and the crash site lies on the ground of municipality of Prads-Haute-Bléone. This municipality lies farer away than the closer municipality Le Vernet, from where all rescue operations start. From Le Vernet there is also the only "road" until "Col de Mariaud" (Google Maps) and from there rescuers have to walk 30-45 minutes until the crash site. Cruks (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"The Aviation Herald" have based their coordinates solely on an early tweet of the Gendarmerie Nationale. All images available show that this position is not correct. For example, the French Ministere de l'interieur have posted images of the crash site on Flickr. Compare this overview with aerial photographs from Google Maps und you know the real position. It is also indicated by the New York Times: Where the Germanwings Plane Crashed. There's no reason to choose the Aviation Herald, which is basically a single guy, over the NYT. --Sitacuisses (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for informing this page of your decision. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Silk Air Flight 185 Locked Out Cockpit Door

SilkAir Flight 185 Now that we know one pilot locked out the other from the cockpit door, this should make reference to another similar case where one theory is that one pilot locked the other door and made controlled dive into the ground. The "wild speculation" that was hidden above may have been a "correct speculation".

Germanwings plane crash: A320 pilot says co-pilot can be locked out of cockpit It is possible for one pilot of an Airbus A320 to lock the other pilot out of the cockpit to the extent that he cannot regain entry, even if the aircraft is in a fatal dive, says an Australian pilot of an A320. The New York Times has reported, citing an official involved in the Germanwings crash investigation, that the cockpit voice recorder shows one of the pilots had left the flight deck and could not regain entry. "You can hear he is trying to smash the [cockpit] door down," the official said. An Australian A320 pilot, who declined to be named, said the locked flight deck of the aircraft could be entered using an emergency code on a keypad. In the case of the pilot flying the aircraft being incapacitated, the door will automatically open after a set period of time if the correct code is entered. However, in the event a pilot flying the aircraft does not want the other pilot to enter the flight deck, the one in the cockpit has the ability to block entry if he reacts before the door would be opened automatically.

This is the Wikipedia section on the disputed conclusion that one pilot locked the other out and then set controls to fly into the ground:

The accident was investigated by the Indonesian NTSC, which was assisted by expert groups from the US, Singapore, and Australia, and the American NTSB.

Around 73% of the wreckage (by weight) was recovered, partially reconstructed, and examined. Both "black boxes" – the CVR and FDR – were successfully retrieved from the river and their data were extracted and analysed.

According to the Canadian television series Mayday, at 16:00, the CVR showed that Captain Tsu left the cockpit; five seconds later, the CVR stopped recording. Tests indicated that a click would clearly be heard on the CVR recording if the CVR circuit breaker had tripped normally, but not if it had been pulled out manually. As there was no click, Captain Tsu was speculated to have pulled out the CVR circuit breaker before leaving the cockpit. NTSC and NTSB investigators postulated that if Captain Tsu were responsible for the crash, he returned to his seat and then concocted a pretense for First Officer Ward to leave the cockpit before pulling the FDR circuit breaker which would have been noticed by Ward had he remained, as disconnection would have triggered warning lights on the console. Several minutes later, as recorded by Indonesian ground radar, the aircraft entered a rapid descent, disintegrated, and crashed into the Musi River.

On 14 December 2000, after three years of intensive investigation, the Indonesian NTSC issued its final report, in which it concluded that the evidence was inconclusive and that the cause of the accident could not be determined:

The NTSC has to conclude that the technical investigation has yielded no evidence as to the cause of the accident.

The US NTSB, which also participated in the investigation, concluded that the evidence was consistent with a deliberate manipulation of the flight controls, most likely by the captain.

In a letter to the NTSC dated 11 December 2000, the NTSB wrote:

The examination of all of the factual evidence is consistent with the conclusions that: 1) no airplane-related mechanical malfunctions or failures caused or contributed to the accident, and 2) the accident can be explained by intentional pilot action. Specifically, a) the accident airplane’s flight profile is consistent with sustained manual nose-down flight control inputs; b) the evidence suggests that the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) was intentionally disconnected; c) recovery of the airplane was possible but not attempted; and d) it is more likely that the nose-down flight control inputs were made by the captain than by the first officer.

Bachcell (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You are on the wrong page. This article is not about SilkAir Flight 185. If you wish to discuss this crash, please provide reliable, published secondary sources supporting your claims. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Photo of the wreckage

Would we be able to use a photo of the wreckage under fair use? Alakzi (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

good question. i know we have before, like on AA 331... 208.100.172.164 (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

We would, but any image would have to be of really good quality. Would suggest that one showing the section of the fuselage with the registration visible would be a good candidate. If used, the correct rationales will need to be added to the file page. Mjroots (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Opinions please on the suitability of this image. Mjroots (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Are these eligible for an upload to Commons?--Nubifer (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

No. There is a statement that images from the BEA site can be freely used in uses to promote a87.114.172.97 (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)viation safety, but that's not broad enough to be uploaded to commons. I can't find any page on the BEA website like "Legal", "Copyright", "About" that contains information about copyright. However, it is part of the Ministère de l'écologie, du développement durable et de l'énergie (link at bottom) and that website has a page about legal information ("Mentions légales") that says use of photos must be approved by the author, however some "official documents" can be freely reused and some content may be redistributed unaltered for non-commercial uses (since it's not relevant I don't feel like translating everything). AHeneen (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You might not have noticed but I count several bodies in that photo so suggest it isn't used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.172.97 (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@87.114.172.97: if you mean the image I suggested, then it can be cropped to remove them. Such cropping is in accordance with fair use rules anyway, because it reduces the percentage of the image used. Mjroots (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the one showing the aircraft registration number. I must admit I never noticed them the first time I saw that photo. 87.114.172.97 (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The image currently used will need to be uploaded to en-Wiki and a NFFUR applied. It is going to be deleted from Commons. Mjroots (talk) 06:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Some people owe Enchev an apology

Vist WP:ANI if you want to discuss admin conduct and/or unblocking

Enchev EG who is now blocked because he made a silly comment in his frustration, made a case for suicide which although slightly ranty in places was a fair comment. He was shot down in no uncertain terms for making such a ludicrous and preposterous suggestion...how dare he!! Now we know the terrible truth and that is that the co-pilot flew the aircraft into a mountain can we at least have some sort of apology from the member concerned as IT WAS SUICIDE? 87.114.172.97 (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Our task here is to accurately represent WP:RSs; our task is not to engage in prolix speculation, in the off-chance that some of it might turn out to have been correct. Also, it's still not been confirmed that it was suicide. Alakzi (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Enchev EG does not appear to have English as his first language (apologies if this is wrong) so allowances must be made in the way he put his case forward. One must remember that Wikipedia is not all about the academic. I propose Enchev EG is reinstated with a warning about his language. 87.114.172.97 (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Cause in infobox

How should we treat the cause in the infobox? Personally, I think it should remain as under investigation until the investigation is closed and include a hidden comment informing people not to change that (a prosecutor does not make decisions on causes and a manslaughter case has been opened). The question then becomes, at what point do we consider it no longer under investigation? Ryan Vesey 12:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

For the time being, I've added a hidden note pointing people to the discussion here. Ryan Vesey 12:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Deliberate sounds acceptable as this is now an official designation and highly unlikely to change. "Suicide" or "Murder-suicide" should not be used as this has not been officially determined by the investigation. Having "under investigation" in the infobox is also fine as far as I can see.--60.255.0.20 (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Support use of deliberate. Not sensationalist.Mattojgb (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

So basically writing "under investigation; suspected deliberate crash"? I think that sounds fine. The discussion should be allowed to go further before we change things, but I wouldn't be opposed to changing it to something like that if another editor comes by and changes it to something like "murder-suicide" despite the note. Ryan Vesey 12:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the cause should remain as "under investigation", until the official announcement is made as to the cause (by either the French authorities or Lufthansa/Germanwings), and that the hidden note is worthwhile. The case is no longer under investigation when the relevant court makes its findings. However, due to the high profile of the case, I expect that Germanwings and Lufthansa may complete their investigations and release sufficient findings before that point. EP111 (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Suggest use of the term 'suspected suicide' as that is what it is being called unless of course some feel flying an Airbus into a mountainside at over 400 kts was an accident? 87.114.172.97 (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Terrorist attack

I think despite some odd conspiracy theories found in the media stating that this "was not a terrorist attack", we can now be completely sure that it was one. The evidence is overwhelming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.245.117 (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you provide a source for this "overwhelming evidence"? A humble contributor (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Police at Lubitz's house

Police have apparently been stationed at the house of co-pilot Lubitz suspected of having crashed the plane. Should this be mentioned? Tkuvho (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I fail to see what it had to do with the flight. Yes, there is speculation about Lublitz (which is mentioned already), so it is prudent for the police to post someone there, less someone interfers with his family, property, or evidence as there may be. A humble contributor (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

We certainly had the searches of the houses of the aircrew for MH370? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Fatality ranking

"It was the third deadliest crash of an Airbus A320, behind Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501, with 162 fatalities, and TAM Airlines Flight 3054 with 187 fatalities on the aircraft, and a further 12 on the ground."

Is so much detail needed about other crashes in the opening section of the article? The other crashes aren't that relevant to this one. I could just say for example "It is the third deadilst crash involving the Airbus A320". Cantab12 (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me to put the crash into historical and geographical context. But if you don't like it, change it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

There is already a million and one articles and lists dedicated to that kind of thing on wikipedia + it's already discussed in the crash section anyway Cantab12 (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and the lead of an article is supposed to provide a good summary of the whole, and include the most pertinent points. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems a bit sensationlist to me. Also the reference to "deadliest of 2015 so far" and "deadliest since December 2014". Mattojgb (talk) 10:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the wording might seem a bit much, but it is factual so I don't really have a problem with it in it's current form. The removal of "deadliest of 2015 so far" was a good call I think. Gallivant84 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I propose not saying anything is the xth deadliest anything since anytime, anywhere on Wikipedia, anymore. Unless it's the deadliest or a close second. When everything's rank is noted in the lead, the whole idea of notable rankings gets watered down, and the truly deadliest's note loses its oomph. Even encyclopedias need a little oomph, where appropriate. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Intentional crashes etc

in the lede... I added EgyptAir990, someone else had Silk Air and someone else added LAN Mozambique... I realize now we need a way to reference all of them without mentioning any specifically, at least in the lede.

But upon hearing the news regarding the lock-out, i think we can't keep deleting every reference to suicide as "speculation," any more 208.100.172.164 (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

We know nothing about this besides the fact that someone was locked out. It could easily be a medical problem with the pilot remaining in the cockpit. At this point, it is completely irresponsible to make any connection whatsoever with deliberate crash events. That means don't mention them, period. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that the similar flights should not be mentioned. This seems now to be discussed a lot in flight magazines. So why shouldn't we mention it here? The similarities are objective. So they should be mentioned. Whether the cause is the same as in those cases is a different quesion. --rtc (talk) 03:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

We don't include content simply because it is discussed a lot in flight magazines. I already stated above why we shouldn't mention it here. The only "objective" similarity is a locked cockpit door. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

oh yes we do include that, that's called source-based editing. the locked cockpit door is not the only objective similarity, it was also kicked against and the plane started to descend. There is a lot of similarity there. If there weren't the flight magazines wouldn't discuss this so much.--rtc (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It would be a waste of time for the two of us to argue about it any further, so let's wait for other opinions (which may take a day or two). I have no problem yielding to consensus for including that content if you can get it, but I really don't think you will. In the meantime, per guidelines, please leave it out. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

heres CNN wire service saying suicide in the 2nd headline... so the RS is getting pretty mainstream at this point-- KTVZ.com wire service on Germanwings... 208.100.172.164 (talk) 06:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No read it more carefully. That article says "Theories range from medical emergency to suicide" and they key bit in the first para "according to media reports". They are not saying this happened, they are saying other bits of the media are saying this happened. Secretlady (talk) 07:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

not to mention, people will try and add it back anyways every time there is news... it will be fighting a losing battle to keep any mention of suicide out of the article 208.100.172.164 (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

We don't do the wrong thing simply because it would be easier. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

We don't fight the facts simply because it would be a challenge. --rtc (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

some random leak is not 'facts'. Secretlady (talk) 06:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

− :The NYT thing is a leak, and uncollaborated. We cannot presume it is 100% accurate, and therefore prejudge the cause. 87.83.31.234 (talk) 02:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Always somebody who has to insist editors can't state the obvious even when it is stated by mainstream news sources if there is any likelihood of terrorist suicide attacks. Nothing else is a simple, perfect explanation of the evidence. It will probably take a week for governments to admit the obvious, and see if there are any evidence that beyond a suicide the motive was terrorist in nature and not just personal issues, mental illness or an insurance scheme. Bachcell (talk) 03:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The media is reporting this as "the NYT said someone told them that.." we turned that into "this definately happened". We really know nothing at this stage. We can wait a week, seriously. We've not got 24 hours of a rolling news channel to fill. Secretlady (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a speculation by a reliable source, which make direct reference to LAM and SilkAir. Even conspiracy theories can be included if they are sourced by mainstream media. Sourced material from reliable news sources cannot be deleted: Financial review: The investigation into the crash remains ongoing and it is still unclear whether one of the pilots downed the plane in a deliberate act. Mr Bartsch said he would not want to pre-judge the outcome of the investigation but the pilot suicide theory was "not inconsistent with information we have had confirmed already", such as the flight path and the lack of responses to calls from air traffic control. "If the person is suicidal and did that they are probably not going to respond," he said. There are other cases of pilot suicide resulting in aircraft crashes, including the loss of Mozambique airline LAM's Flight 470 in 2013 in Namibia. In that case, the captain made inputs that directed the plane to the ground shortly after the first officer left the flight deck. All 33 people on board were killed. In 1997, Silkair Flight 185, a Boeing 737 en route from Jakarta to Singapore crashed in Indonesia following a rapid descent from cruising altitude. In that case, there was also speculation that the first officer had left the flight deck when the crash occurred.

The media routinely engages in speculation. It sells newspapers and attracts viewers. Wikipedia is not in that business, and RS reporting is never enough, by itself, to justify inclusion of anything in a Wikipedia article. RS reporting is only the first step in a multi-step filtering process. We don't include speculation, especially speculation about whether a man intentionally killed 149 people and himself. It is irresponsible editing. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yet another source that mentions LAM's Flight 470 in relation to this case. How many sources do you need to mention the striking similarities here? --rtc (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• This is unverifiable speculation from unreliable sources. Cease the disruption. Alakzi (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • This is an objective comparison by reliable flight magazines. You are the one who is disrupting by censoring the information, trying to suppress the undeniable fact that other flights with striking similarities do exist. You are reading into that statement you deleted a speculation that you make yourself, but isn't in there. Comparison is not speculation. Cooperate and take back your revert. --rtc (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    • No, it's not censorship. Wikipedia is just a bit slower that the news media. Anybody with half a brain guessed that this is yet another case of pilot suicide as soon as the steep descent was reported. Abductive (reasoning) 04:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

anyways I do agree we need to include some concept of suicide in the article, certainly we don't need to be definitive about things but yes, RS sources are talking about it so there's no reason we can't either. I agree it was my first thought if not when i heard about the decent, but when i heard about the lock-out 208.100.172.164 (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with those who counsel patience. It is way too early to put in possible suicidal pilot speculation. There are other possibilities too, but that is beside the point. We all know the rules about no OR, and right now that is what it would be if we add speculations about the cause. Wait until responsible investigation officials come to firm conclusions about the cause. It is and always should be Wiki policy for us to be slower and more deliberate than the typical News Media, especially right after an accident when so much of what the media publishes turns out later on to be in error. EditorASC (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about having a single brief report of the NYT coverage (there are currently 2 references). I am concerned about the emotive language being introduced that lends credence to the suicide theory. For example, why the constant reference to unauthorised in the crash section? It's not like crashes are authorised. Can't we just stick to the facts for now? Mattojgb (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS. This is an encyclopedia, it doesn't matter if data (breaking news) takes a few days, or weeks, to be reflected here. Remember there's the Wikinews project where wikipedians can dedicate their time, too. Oscar-HaP (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Now officially confirmed as an act of suicide. The official statement from the French authorities should be added to the article ASAP--119.4.95.8 (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I repeat, this is an encylopedia, not a newspaper. The guidelines doesn't say anywhere that info does need to be added ASAP -in fact, there are lots of important historical articles, many of events with a lot more of dead people, missing a lot of info due to lack of collaboration. Oscar-HaP (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Andreas Lubitz, 28, was the co pilot

Here are the name of the co pilot: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/26/us-france-crash-idUSKBN0MK2U020150326 --IvarT (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Latest reports point to suicide

hatting outlandish speculation Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"The Airbus A320 was the first commercial aircraft to incorporate full flight-envelope protection into its flight-control software." What is max cruising speed of A320-200 plane? "A320-200 - Max cruising speed 903km/h (487kt) at 28,000ft, economical cruising speed 840km/h (454kt) at 37,000ft." How Flight Envelope Protection and Max cruising speed is related to GWI 9525? To understand answer, first you must see this: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=365430633665467&set=pb.100005955991825.-2207520000.1427271126.&type=3&theater What is FLlGHT ENVELOPE PROTECTION? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHlrFJjQ0eQ Now to begin with detailed explanation. As clearly shown by the data after 05h28 EDT the flight 9525 start "OVERSPEED" economical cruising speed from 840km/h(454 kt). And after 2 minute 05h30 EDT the plane start abruptly DESCENT with CHANGE OF COURSE DIRECTION too - probably with IDLE ENGINES. From data between 05h30 to 05h34 is visible that DESCENT RATE is very unstable (-316,-1455,-3200,-3455,-2636,-3877,-4036). This is typical behavior of plane controlled by the HUMAN without assistant of flight computer. In 05h35 EDT the plane reach MAX CRUISING SPEED of 903 km/h(487kt). What happen when plane is with nose down, and it reach 903 km/h? FLlGHT ENVELOPE PROTECTION "ask" FLIGHT COMPUTER to catch CONTROL of the PLANE ignoring signals from the pilot. Flight computer trying to reduce the speed of the plane, first by reducing engine power but in this case ENGINES are in IDLE MODE and the only thing the system can be done to reduce speed is to RAISE THE NOSE of the plane. But since this is a dangerous maneuver at high speed FEP will do it GENTLY (-3818, -3750,-3273, -3242,-3188) as data shown. The truth is that A320-200 are very unpleasant plane for SUICIDE. This is what will happen if the PILOT TRY TO SUICIDE. Another explanation is what will happen if HIJACKER take control of the plane. Usually he will not be pilot, but self-educated man using FSX simulator. Problem with this type of "pilots" is that when they go in REAL PILOT SEAT they totally confused. Usually will trying to not put plane in STALL and for this reason will put nose in horizontal mode. But in this situation to maintain CONSTANT ALTITUDE you must do some fine adjustments. IF you do not do these adjustments plane will FALL exactly with about -4000ft/min. He just could not control the aircraft properly to the time in which the computer is completely took control over it. -2000 ft/min is GLIDING SPEED for A320 with TWO ENGINE FAILURE without losing SPEED! By the way - this mean. 38000-6800=31200 ft. 31200/2000=15.6 MINUTES. Lufthansa pilot will not make this 15.6 minutes to only 7. P.s. As no one media connect fact that LUFTHANS STRIKE ended two days before crash and this may be reason for SUICIDE BEHAVIOR of the MAIN PILOT. As I said, usually pilots(one after other) go to the toilet in exact time from the flight 2-3 minute after reaching of cruise altitude. Suitable time for SUICIDE or HIJACKING OF PLANE - when CABIN DOOR OPEN OR CLOSE FROM INSIDE. P.p.s. Do you see that they don't mention lot about the FACT that plane CHANGE OF COURSE DIRECTION from 43 Nort-east to 26 Nort-east exactly in moment when it start DESCENT - directing aircraft to the mountains not just trying to avoided them as must do in such situation!Enchev EG (talk) 10:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Your evidence for this is? See WP:REDFLAG. Mjroots (talk) 10:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Blah blah blah. Oscar-HaP (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Evidence - what evidence you want when someone change DIRECTION of the PLANE pointing it exactly to MOUNTAINS, not trying to avoided them?! Data I showed above are from flight radars, not make it myself. Enchev EG (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Go troll somewhere else. Wikipedia is not a forum. I'll not answer you again, don't have the time and I'm not a troll feeder. Cheers. Oscar-HaP (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Or, you know, that was their flight plan and that "someone" was LNAV. Alakzi (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC) So you in fact mean: IT WAS SUICIDE OR HIJACKING BECAUSE PILOTS BOTH WENT TO THE TOILET BECAUSE OF AN AIRLINE STRIKE! Great. Am intrigued as to where this flight data came from, when the FDR has yet to be found. If a source other than self-published Facebook can't be provided, quite soon, I suggest this entire thread is removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC) http://fr.flightaware.com/live/flight/GWI9525/history/20150324/0835Z/LEBL/EDDL/tracklog "Suitable time for SUICIDE or HIJACKING OF PLANE - when CABIN DOOR OPEN OR CLOSE FROM INSIDE." This mean ONE pilot stay ALONE in CABIN and can make attempt for SUICIDE when other is go to toilet. Ok, live this section only 2 days - and we talk after that. Main pilot is suicideR if ask for it.Enchev EG (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC) It should be noted that this is the same user who last month received a one-week block by MilborneOne for WP:FORUM and WP:NOTHERE at Talk:TransAsia Airways Flight 235. Lesson not learned, apparently. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Sky News now reporting that an investigator who has heard the cockpit voice tape has revealed that one of the pilots was locked out of the cockpit just before the aircraft went into a steep descent. Apparently gentle knocking followed by more aggressive knocking was heard thereafter noises associated with an attempt to force the door. If these facts are later confirmed the conclusion is obvious. 87.114.172.97 (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Officials have stated that the crash was probably intentional, but none of them has (yet) used the term suicide. Conclusions are not to be drawn here on wikipedia, not even if they seem obvious - let's stay away far from that. Nothing is obvious until the official investigation is over. Jahoe (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

How do we know which pilot was at the controls?

News reports say that the captain was locked out of the cockpit and the co-pilot was at the controls. How do investigators know it wasn't the other way around? Does the flight data recorder show which entry code was used in the failed effort to reenter the flight deck? Is it just that the captain was so much more experienced? TypoBoy (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The recorder that was found was the CVR. Alakzi (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe the recording is alleged to have allowed identification of the person banging on the flightdeck door. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The pilot is heard yielding the controls to the co-pilot to leave. Then leaving noises. Then a pause. Then the knocking-banging noises. Stands to reason that the pilot actually left, and the copilot remained. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32063587 A humble contributor (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The French Prosecutor also said in his briefing that screaming could be heard, shortly before the impact. Should this be added as a fact or is that too distressing for the victim's families? It shows that at least some of the passengers were aware of what was happening. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No this should not be added. Also why should that be relevant for an encyclopedia? MfG Seader (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It's already there, in the "Investigation" section. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Analyzing the Descending Flight of the Germanwings A320 4U9525

Something (on 2015-03-26, 10:00 still unknown) caused 4U9525 to descent. All the rest is the automatic reaction of a properly functioning Airbus A320 to these initial conditions: The aircraft is disengaging the autopilot automatically at a Mach number of 0.82 as a consequence of High Speed Protection and follows a subsequent descending flight in manual mode (with normal Fly-by-Wire flight control laws) and idle thrust. The pilots probably are neither touching the side sticks nor the thrust levers. At least, it does not need any pilot intervention to explain the cause of the last 9 minutes of the flight and the final tragic effect.

31.19.210.13 (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1356060 (PDF)

http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1356061 (XLS)

http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1356062 (Dataset) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.22.196.218 (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Names of the pilot and copilot

Why haven't these been released? I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count. Abductive (reasoning) 02:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

1. a reason, 2. a reason, 3. You're delusional? Leitmotiv (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably because the one left in the cockpit was Muslim or had an Arabic name? Currently speculation is rife: cite 213.174.123.194 (talk) 04:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks very like there were suspicions from the outset. Somebody somewhere knows if one of the pilots was having problems. 87.114.172.97 (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The German Newspaper Express says that the Co-Pilots Name was Andreas. More Details are not knowen at the moment. --145.30.124.13 (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The German Newspaper Bild says that the Pilots Name is Patrick S. --145.30.124.13 (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

BBC reports co-pilot was Andreas Lubitz. Also reports Marseilles prosecutor Brice Robin saying co-pilot "wanted to destroy plane".Mattojgb (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Map (2)

I really prefer the map made from the location map template (much more clear):

Departure airport, Barcelona (10:01 CET)

Destination airport, Düsseldorf (11:39 CET)

Crash site (10:53 CET)

Over the one now used in the article:

Flight path

What do you think? Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 16:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The image map is better when enlarged. Alakzi (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I've added the GPS trace from public FlightRadar data into the Marble application. There might be a better way to get high resolution render from public Open Street Map. -- Aronzak (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Is that the usual flightpath for Barcelona to Duesseldorf? It doesnt look like the plane should have been flying over the mountains at all... Fig (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I am working on a new map that will look similar to the maps I've created for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 & Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 (see earlier maps discussion), which use the "locator" Wikipedia map convention. Using a topographic map is difficult because it is hard to make the labels clear over all the colors used for the topographic map. I will make the map big enough to include a large topographic inset for the area of the crash. I will hopefully upload the map later this morning (UTC-4...around mid-day European time) and no later than about 18:00-20:00UTC. AHeneen (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I have uploaded a new map. I had to finish it quickly while I have internet access. It still needs some cleanup. There's enough space to add an insert of the crash site later. AHeneen (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@AHeneen: can you add Orange-Caritat Air Base to the map? -- Aronzak (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

More readable at 200/250px? -- Aronzak (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The labels and colors are consistent, with the exception that the country labels for Andorra & Monaco are smaller than the country labels for Spain, France, & Italy. I think the map is more readable at a larger size. When I added the map, I set "upright=1.5" so that it would appear bigger than the standard image. I do not think the airbase should be added. For a map like this to effectively display information, it should not have much chartjunk (term can be applied to maps too). I also think the map should include the relevant information. The map at right should include the airport names (but again, I don't think the airbase needs to be included). I think the map that is in the article is fine, but will need to note the point where the captain left the cockpit (presumably when the plane began to descend). AHeneen (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

If you're referring to the one on the right, My reading of the sources is that the captain left after the start of cruising and returned during the descent. I would argue that the distance from Orange-Caritat Air Base to the crash site is of interest to readers. I'll change the colours of the mountains to make it easier to read the text. -- Aronzak (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

In locator map style.

Sorry, my comments about labels/colors and size was with regard to the previous map. I now see that the airbase is relevant and will try to adjust the locator map to include it. However, I think the locator map is clearer and should be used in the article. AHeneen (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok my comment was just make the text larger so the labels can be read at upright=1.2 -- Aronzak (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I've lowered contrast of the background here.

Flight Path

•  BCN Barcelona–El Prat Airport
•  XOG Orange-Caritat Air Base

-- Aronzak (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

total count

so 153>150. Why? Nergaal (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

That's how maths works. Sorry, I'm not sure. Maybe some had duel nationality? I've not checked all the sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

All sources seem to agree on 150, certainly all that I've seen. That's the number in today's nytimes.com article. The total in the table really needs to be number of bodies, not number of nationalities. For the dual citizenships, we can choose one and, if it's really that important (is it?), use a footnote to note the other. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

We could also have separate rows for the duals, e.g. Dual UK/US - 1, requiring two of the silly flags of course. This would probably be the clearest solution and the one least prone to future "correction". ―Mandruss ☎ 21:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not just US and UK that have got silly flags, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I know, and I didn't say that. US/UK was an arbitrary example and was not connected to the word silly. Anyway, it's not the flags that are silly but their use in this table. Sorry for being ambiguous. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Alas it was a joke Martinevans123 (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

How are the two infants accounted for? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the total number should match the number of victims, not nationalities. Please see my post at Talk:Germanwings Flight 9525#Polish citizen didn't travel on Polish passport. As for the cleanest solution, in Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 article, dual nationalities were indicated with notes. — Mayast (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that that is cleaner than separate rows, which does not require footnotes and does not require us to choose a "primary" nationality. In other words, I'm disagreeing with my own initial comment after further thought. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

We don't need to choose primary citizenships - they had already been picked by the passengers, who chose to use one passport instead of another during this flight. Anyway, that's how it was handled in the Flight 17 article. As for separate rows for all the dual citizenships, I'm afraid the table would become very cluttered. Also, it would be much easier to make mistakes by counting the same passangers twice. - Mayast (talk) 06:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Very cluttered? We currently show five duals. The worst case, then, is five additional rows, or a 25% increase, somewhat lower if you consider caption, heading, and total. The way to prevent mistakes is to be careful, and any mistakes would be correctable in any case. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiProjects 'Class' quality

I am looking at the talkpage, and many of the WikiProject tags are classified as "Start-class". I have read the article, and assesment for WikiProject's quality scale, and many of these tags should be updated to "C-class" because this article passes quality scale for WikiProject Germany, and WikiProject Aviation accidents. Again, this is a personal opinion. If you read the article, and read the WikiProject (WP Germany & WP Aviation accidents) quality scale, this article seems like it should be "C-class" instead of "Start-class". Please update it if it passes "C-class" quality scale on these WikiProjects, or shoot me a reply with your concerns about the issue. Thanks. CookieMonster755 (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree; this article is at C-class now, please feel free to go ahead and make this change. Prhartcom (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done CookieMonster755 (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with C class, it's not far short of B class, but not there yet. Mostly due to the fact that it can't fully cover the topic due to the fact that it is still a developing story. Mjroots (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Nationalities

I don't know if there's a general wikipedia policy on this, but several victims had dual citizenship. How should they be listed? Up until now it seems that they're just arbitrarily moved back and forth between nations. Either they should be listed according to the passport on which they travelled, or with both their nationalities, or as a separate category. For example, why is the Bosnian-German couple listed as Bosnian only while there's already a note that they didn't travel on their Bosnian passports? It shouldn't be the criterion to try and add as many countries to the list as possible. There must be a system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.136.20 (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it's unsatisfactory. The problem is that they are not clearly identified in the table. So we don't know which five in the table they are. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The number five (earlier four) derives from the fact, that with all the nationalities summed up, the total number of victims was indicated as 155. So I listed the number of dual citizenships separately, however, that number may not be correct.
Anyway, I used a note to identify the baby with Spanish-Polish-British citizenship. The baby boy is definitely included in the Brtish victims count, but I don't know whether he is also counted as a Spanish victim. As for the Bosnian victims, I agree that they should be counted as Germans (travelling with German passport) with a similar note saying that they had dual Bosnian-German citizenship – I'll do it right away. I've already proposed a similar solution at Talk:Germanwings Flight 9525#total count. — Mayast (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It may be clarified the list the airline may provide. Generally the airline counts passengers based on what passport they board with (since this was intra-Schengen it may be based on national ID cards when passports were not provided) WhisperToMe (talk) 07:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Number of victims by nationality

Note, on de iw or pl iw, there is only 35 victims from Spain (with source).--Kacir (talk)

It may be best to use whatever nationality list the airline will provided. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)