Jump to content

Talk:Germanwings Flight 9525/Archive 2

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

It was suicide

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Admin - Why you delete my section here?! We made a deal to keep it just 2 days. You close it - what other you want?! Is the truth not interesting for you?! My information is VERY SERIOUS - is not speculation. I'm almost never wrong. They know from beginning what happen but they lie. Radar data showed to them exactly when a HUMAN was controlling the plane and when FLIGHT ENVELOPE PROTECTION SYSTEM do it.

"Usually pilots(one after other) go to the toilet 2-3 minutes after reaching of cruise altitude. Suitable time for suicide when one pilot left alone in the cabin of the plane."

By the way as I said in my blog probably the pilot from inside "WAS NOT SILENT" May be, he spoke something AGAINST LUFTHANSA and now they hide it.

"(wild guess) Do you know that probably now they listen from a cockpit voice recorder (CVR) first "SUICIDE NOTE MESSAGE" left behind before a pilot has committed suicide? In it, he explains the reasons for his actions."

What exactly these section for SUICIDE here in TALK, not in main article - make you angry?! I don't understand. It is time for you to start DISCUSSING about it.

http://encheveg.blog.bg/technology/2015/03/25/what-is-the-truth-about-germanwings-flight-9525-crash.1348923

P.s. A320 is controlled by the Joystick which is positioned to the left and right from the pilots - this mean if some of them have medical issue HE WILL NOT PUT PRESSURE TO THE JOYSTICK and DESCENT will have other flight characteristic!

Enchev EG (talk) 06:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Enchev EG:, as you were told the first time, you need to provide extraordinary sources for extraordinary claims, which you failed to do. Also, and you've been told this before, THERE IS NO NEED TO SHOUT! You have a better chance of being listened to if you make a rational argument in a calm manner.
That said, it is looking that murder-suicide is a very likely scenario. We can look for reliable sources to report this, and use said sources in the article. Mjroots (talk) 06:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@Mjroots: This is TALK page, not MAIN ARTICLE - here you must do DISCUSSIONS not follow strictly rules of Wiki that are make mainly for articles. What source you want, when I WAS ONLY PERSON WHO TALK ABOUT SUICIDE with DATA?! I was not rude?! I show you original data from RADAR that I used them. In fact I am the only reliable source at the moment. Even now they lie trying make case MEDICAL without consider CABIN ARRANGEMENT and JOYSTICK CONTROLS. As I said here is DISCUSSION PAGE, not MAIN ARTICLE you may be more CALMLY with section like this - especially when you soon must make it part of main article.Enchev EG (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
If I was rude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU#t=120 The people from outside start mock you for this strange rule "reliable sources". Do you see some other source even NOW, except me, to talk about SUICIDE with DATA?! Show me it. Enchev EG (talk) 07:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
We have experience with this individual from TransAsia Airways Flight 235. They do not edit the article, they only argue endlessly in article talk, ignore user talk page warnings, and refuse to learn basic Wikipedia principles. They earned a one-week block at the other article last month. My suggestion is to simply ignore them. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, the problem has gone away. I've just blocked him for 2 weeks for a personal attack against another editor on his talk page. Obviously only here to push his own agenda. Can't see him lasting that long. Mjroots (talk) 08:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
A grammatically incorrect personal attack at that. Looks like I picked a bad week to stop doing amphetamines. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hatting this section per WP:CRYSTAL and bad faith/vandalism issues. -- Aronzak (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Only here to push his own agenda?? Are you admins for real? In case you haven't noticed Enchev EG was spot on! 87.114.172.97 (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

And this is one of the reasons for me to trust Wikipedia less and less. The guy was 100% right but got blocked out of no reason!!! Someone else was trying to push his/her own agenda, but not that guy! 179.153.241.50 (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC) added by Martinevans123 (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
For a proper analysis of the log-file see http://figshare.com/articles/Germanwings_4U9525_pdf/1356060.
You may compare that analysis with Mr. Enchev analysis --Foolssanma (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Not sure about that "100%". But you're saying this analysis by Dieter Scholz was the source of his comments? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
As far as I can say Mr. Scholz is popably not the source of Mr. Enchev --Foolssanma (talk) 05:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
You may compare that analysis with Mr. Enchev analysis - Analysis is something we do not do as Wikipedia editors. See WP:SYNTH. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Sure, what to do and what not as Wiki editors is one thing. I presonally would like to have an expert statement about both analisys, whether they match or differ, whether they made mistakes, etc. etc. But checking articles by experts ist rather the way how sinetific magagzins work. --06:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is further data/analysis:http://forum.flightradar24.com/threads/8650-We-have-analysed-the-raw-data-from-the-transponder-of-4U9525-and-found-some-more-dat I've picked that link from the german wiki page. --Foolssanma (talk) 06:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Obiosely the AP setting for the altitude is logged and transmitted and can therefore be found in the RAW data of the log-file catched by Fligthradar24. This article is about the changing of the altitute settings from 38000 ft via 13000 ft to 96 ft within 3 seconds.--Foolssanma (talk) 07:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It is good to archive primary source information so future generations will have continued access to it.

French pages:

English Pages:

Spanish pages:

German pages:

CVR Photos:

Crash site photo: http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.gwi18g/images/photo.site.jpg - http://www.webcitation.org/6XLB2CFtW WhisperToMe (talk) 10:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Reaction of other airlines

The paragraph on the immediate reactions of other airlines was removed here, with edit summary "none of this is relevant to the accident and we dont really need a long list of the airlines of the world and individual policy on the minimum needed on the flightdeck". I would suggest that the reaction by other airlines are very much "relevant to this accident". Maybe we don't need "a long list", but I think complete removal of any mention is a little hasty. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes it was me that removed it, sorry I was probably hasty but I saw more and more airlines being added, perhaps we can simplify it to say a number of airliners have either changed or explained current policy without adding a long list of the actual airlines? MilborneOne (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
A very good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I have re-added a simpler statement. MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
That looks fine to me. On a related topic - I don't think the article makes clear that the door has three modes - open, locked with key-pad entry and completely locked. Obviously these modes are controlled by a manual switch on the flightdeck. What do you think? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Looks like you might be back soon MilborneOne, with those scissors of yours. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree that there is no need to have a list of airlines that always have two people in the cockpit and that a general statement is sufficient. I have just trimmed another iteration of this quickly growing list and it is just not relevant to this event. - Ahunt (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
(I'd still be interested to see a before and after policy comparison - but probably not in this article). Martinevans123 (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh I am sure many airlines will change policies because of this, but it is still not required to list them all in this article. - Ahunt (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think a list of responses by individual airlines is necessary. However, I do think that a general statement should be included that many airlines changed their policies in response to the accident. It is also important to note the responses by civil aviation authorities. I saw on the news this morning (Good Morning America) that the US FAA has a policy that two people must be in the cockpit at all times and that if a pilot must leave (eg. to use the restroom), another pilot or a flight attendant will enter the cabin; the report noted that there is no such two-person regulation in Europe. I think a mention should be made if there are discussions that European regulators are considering adoption of such a two-person rule and can note that such a rule already exists in the US. AHeneen (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Polish citizen didn't travel on Polish passport

The article linked as a source for the Polish citizen says that one of the passangers was an infant with multiple citizenships (including Polish). However, the child didn't travel on the Polish passport.
Shouldn't this information be removed then? Or indicated with a note, as with dual citizenships in Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 article? As of now, the total number of nationalities says 154, which is four people too many. – Mayast (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The source I have just added says "two Spanish babies". So the picture is a little confused. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
More information is now available: the baby was travelling on a Spanish passport with its 37-year-old Spanish mother. The woman's husband and the baby's father is Polish, so the seven-month-old boy had a dual Spanish-Polish citizenship. Source (Gazeta.pl)
The baby might also had a British citizenship, as the couple lived in Manchester and the article says 'several citizenships', but as of now, that's just speculation on my end. - Mayast (talk) 04:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, The Daily Telegraph describes the seven-month old Julian Pracz-Bandres as "British": [1]. So presumably included in that table tally of 3 for UK. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
It may help to compare the existing nationality list with the one the airline releases, if it does release one. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Obama quote

Obama has no relevance to this incident and thus I propose deleting the quote and keeping the political response section Germnan/French/Spanish unless further developments take place - as they are principle countries involved. Cantab12 (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree. HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Me too. WWGB (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree as well. CookieMonster755 (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Angela Merkel's quote would be much more appropriate: (one source here) Prhartcom (talk) 06:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Totally agree with all of the above. And I really don't think the "football response" belongs in the article either!--60.255.0.17 (talk) 09:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
There will be hundreds of tributes and memorials, they don't need to be each mentioned here. The "football" one can be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 Done - Ahunt (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

American or Spanish?

Hello everybody. Hopefully I am not botherning anyone today with this question, but I was wondering, according to the Wikipedia article, there was 3 American citizens. According to the BBC, there was 3 Americans, but 1 was living in Barcelona. Was this American living in Barcelona, a Spanish citizen, or a American citizen, or dual-citzenship? CookieMonster755 (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

"Revision 0" technical problem

It has happened at least twice, so it's not just a one-time freak accident. After an edit, the article will not display and there is a message about "unable to access revision 0" or some such thing. The workaround is to revert the last edit, and then it can be tried again. It would be interesting to know whether the problem is only with this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I've only seen it happen in diff view; the article still loads fine, I think. Alakzi (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
By diff view, are you referring to the page history? If so, there would be no way to revert the last edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
When viewing the difference between revisions, like this. Alakzi (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
(I've had to make the same edit twice (my hidden note in the Reactions" section). The first one just disappeared. No idea if this is related). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Alakzi, no, what I've seen wasn't in a diff. It occurred immediately after hitting "Save page", which should return to article view. That said, you might well see an error as well if you attempted to view the diff for that last edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I saw the problem last night too. Maybe worth raising at WP:VPT. Mjroots (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Just saw the problem at Ferguson unrest. In this case the last edit wasn't mine and the article remained out of service for one hour and 16 minutes. The exact text, shown on what should have been the article view, was:

The revision #0 of the page named "Ferguson unrest" does not exist. This is usually caused by following an outdated history link to a page that has been deleted. Details can be found in the deletion log.

So it's not just this article, and I'll look into it further. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Issue already raised at WP:VPT by another editor for a different (third) article. I added to it. Until the problem is fixed, just be aware that if you see it you should immediately revert the last edit. Explain in your edit summary that you are reverting to correct a technical problem and suggest that the editor re-try the edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Altitude_Chart_for_Flight_4U9525_register_D-AIPX.png

Appears to be original research without a reliable source for the data, also it would be expected official height date would be in feet. Suggest it should be removed if not validated by a reliable source. MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, learn from my travails and be sure to post at least a link to this discussion on the file uploader's talk page. Regarding your comments, while I agree a reliable source reference is needed to differentiate from WP:OR, I can't see that having official height data in other than feet automatically makes it suspect. Regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The drawing appears to have used data from FR24 according to User:Ueutyi commons talkpage, I raised it because the commons file has no source just that it was his "own work". And if it did come from FR24 the original data was in feet so the user has converted and made the drawing, it would have been better to stick to feet to it could be verified against the original data. [Just to note a Conflict of Interest, I am a FR24 data supplier] MilborneOne (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Comparison to BEA press conference 25.05.2015 slide and Flightradar24 data http://i58.tinypic.com/2nks41z.jpg. It seems that BEA "radar" data is almost same or they are also using Flightradar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.9.106 (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It came from Flightradar24 and official BEA press conference. Thanks for asking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ueutyi (talk • contribs) 23:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Flightradar24 data

Flight data including MACH, IAS, TAS, ROLL

Flightradar24 publised more data http://forum.flightradar24.com/threads/8650-We-have-analysed-the-raw-data-from-the-transponder-of-4U9525-and-found-some-more-dat?p=64702&viewfull=1#post64702 (IAS[kt], Mach ,TAS[kt],Baro Vrate [fpm] ,Inertial Vrate [fpm], Altitude [ft],MCP/FMC [ft]) Google earth: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5175572/5d42675.kml TXT-format: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5175572/GWI18G_mode_s%2Badsb.txt

Unofficial visualizations from that data. http://i58.tinypic.com/2h834lk.jpg http://i62.tinypic.com/2z9mmw6.jpg Visualization contains calculated Vrate, not from flightradar24.

From visualization we can see that Speed (IAS,Mach,TAS) or Calculated sinkrate was not constant during descend.

Latest flightradar24 data comparison to BEA premilinary info at press conference 25.05.2015. http://i58.tinypic.com/2nks41z.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.9.106 (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia bases its coverage of major events off publications that consult experts in the field from reliable sources, not Original research based on raw data from primary sources. -- Aronzak (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of the source or validity of the data, what is the significance of this? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
What is signicance Flightpath what Altitude chart? What is signicance of flight data recorder and cocpit voice recorder? What is signicance radar position and transponder data? They are only real evidence and fact what happend inside cocpit and what did pilot/airplane automation do in those last 10 minutes. What happend in end of decend is clear to everyone. From that data everyone could to own conculisions and speculations what happend. There is no need to start speculate here, only showing data. If flight data recorder is found and publised then we have more reliable data. But it could take many months or even years untile BEA will finish investigation. Comparison between BEA slides and flightradar data confirms that source is enough reliable to be used, if BEA data correlates with other data.
We don't publish raw data from self-published sources, we used WP:RS. - Ahunt (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

ModeS

Flightradar24 ModeS rawdata shows unusual data seconds before decend begin. (09:30:52Z.386 MCP/FMC ALT: 38000 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa / 09:30:54Z.083 MCP/FMC ALT: 13008 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa / 09:30:55Z.397 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa) Between 09:30:52 and 09:30:55 from data can be seen that the altitude setting was changed from 38,000 feet to 96 feet and 9 seconds later the aircraft started to descend. 

- - http://forum.flightradar24.com/threads/8650-We-have-analysed-the-raw-data-from-the-transponder-of-4U9525-and-found-some-more-dat?p=64616%7Ctitle=Flight radar ModeS messages decoded raw data

Data shows that somebody did do something on plane, and setup low altitude and plane transponder/ADS-B equipment send it out to air and Flighradar24 got it. There is no anykindof speculation why data changed or what happend after his. Everyone can do own conculsions from this data. Final BEA raport probably will tell what happend in plane between 09:30.52-09:30.55

Somebody said that RAW data from flightradar is not reliable. BEA has confirmed almoust everything that flighradar24 has recorded. Flightradar24 is only recording data what comes from planes and they do not make any changes to it.

I think this should this be in article because this is start of decend? And it shows that somebody changed altitude setting at plane.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/26/europe/france-germanwings-plane-crash-main/ CNNLatest developments: • 5:32 p.m. ET: Transponder data shows that the autopilot on Germanwings Flight 9525 was reprogrammed by someone in the cockpit to change the plane's altitude from 38,000 feet to 100 feet, according to Flightradar24, a website that tracks aviation data.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.9.106 (talk)

Wait until a reliable independent source reports the 96 foot figure. The prosecutor has already stated that the altitude selector was changed. -- Aronzak (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Forums are not acceptable refs either, see WP:SPS. - Ahunt (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Raw data is put to Flightradar24 forum by Flightradar24 Administrator. Its not regular user, its person who have access data. Flightradar ModeS rawdata and and other sources confirms that what data says. Somebody changed altitude, change and exact time can been sen there. Time when it happend also confirms this.

Coordinates and height CSV

Flightradar24 has a CSV file with the coordinates and altitude, showing a drop from 38000 feet at 09:31:02 to 6800 feet at 09:40:36. I guess OR means we have to wait for media reports to use this. -- Aronzak (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Flightradar is not a WP:RS. Wait for the BEA to give a preliminary report. Mjroots (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

BEA more or less confirmed FR24 data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by

The BEA press conference on 25 March confirmed the times, route and altitude, during the final descent of the aircraft, previously given by Flightradar24.Slide from that pressconference can be found at http://aviation-safety.net/photos/displayphoto.php?id=20150324-0&vnr=3&kind=G That BEA slide confirms Flightradar24 data to be enough accurate to be used.

83.140.242.20 (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Flight radar cut off was 10:41 CET and not 10:53 as reported in some MSM. See http://avherald.com/img/germanwings_a320_d-aipx_150324_map.jpg

Flightradar24 recorded its last update at 09:40:36; the plane's location was 44°14′02″N 6°24′25″E, altitude 6800 feet, ground speed 378 vertical speed -3520.
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.9.106 (talk) 02:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's a WP:RS: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/03/24/world/europe/germanwings-plane-crash-map.html JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Unofficial plots from flightradar24 data and google maps ground height. Whole flight: http://i62.tinypic.com/2poz8sl.jpg Decend phase of flight: http://i57.tinypic.com/2z4e5qb.jpg

Consistency of having a cause noted

Currently, the lede includes a statement of cause:

The French prosecutor, the French and German aviation authorities, and a spokesperson for Germanwings have said the crash was intentionally caused by the co-pilot, 27-year-old Andreas Lubitz, who was earlier deemed unfit for piloting duty by his doctor for mental health reasons.

As a consequence, there are certain other elements of the article that are included. Some editors remove one or more of these, stating in their edit summary such things as “unproven”. It would be good to have a consensus that:

  • If you have one, you have them all, to be consistent, and,
  • It is appropriate to have these elements, given the statement of cause.

Here are those elements:

  1. /*See also*/ * [[Suicide by pilot]]
  2. /*Similar incidents*/ the list
  3. /*External Links*/ [http://news.aviation-safety.net/2015/03/26/list-of-aircraft-accidents-and-incidents-deliberately-caused-by-pilots/ List of aircraft accidents and incidents intentionally caused by pilots] on the Aviation safety network website
  4. /*External Links*/ [[Category:Airliner accidents and incidents involving deliberate crashes]]

Thoughts? JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Your number 4 is not an external link, it is a category. It is inappropriate to categorize THIS incident in such a way as it is the opinion of prosecutors, not yet a fact proven in law. The other examples refer to other incidents, so their inclusion is OK. WWGB (talk) 01:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Just a note that categories are listed in the external links section. As for your assertion that it cannot be included until it is "a fact proven in law", well, that's what I'd like to get a consensus of opinion. I disagree with you on this. Let's see what others think. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

'Medical Grounding Note'

The Crew section currently describes Lubvitz as 'tearing up medical grounding notes'. It's fairly clear this was not a 'medical grounding note', reports in the UK media are describing is as 'a sick note' - which is the note your GP gives you to tell your employer you aren't fit for work. That's not the same as being medically grounded. A medical grounding can only be issued by the relevant aviation medical organization in that country, not sure who that would be in the case of Germany, but it's usually a branch of the main aviation regulator. If he had been grounded by the regulator then the overwhelming likelihood is that his employers would have been immediately informed that he was not fit to fly. Can we get the text modified to reflect what we know, rather than speculation that isn't supported by the facts? 92.238.224.101 (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: By now, all news accounts consistently characterize the pilot as hiding the note from his employer and colleagues, and insofar as we must go by what reliable sourcing dictates, I made sure this is included in both the lede and the body of the article, including relevant quotes both in the text and in the in-line citation via its quote= parameter value. I trust this is not controversial, if you take stock in what is available for sourcing at this date and hour. --Mareklug talk 05:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
This ref describes it as a "sick note", so will fix based on that. - Ahunt (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


Some documents that I am archiving:

They are both in German WhisperToMe (talk) 06:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

his (ex?) girlfriend's statement is being reported on the BBC news heavily

One of you more involved editors should include it, as it probably has the most reliable reason for his insane motivations.HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32098578

"hiding from employer and his colleagues"

 Comment: By now, all news accounts consistently characterize the pilot as hiding the note from his employer and colleagues, and insofar as we must go by what reliable sourcing dictates, I made sure this is included in both the lede and the body of the article, including relevant quotes both in the text and in the in-line citation via its quote= parameter value. I trust this is not controversial, if you take stock in what is available for sourcing at this date and hour. --Mareklug talk 05:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not fully accurate. There is no information about what was in the note, no indication regarding what the practitioner knew about his patient's employment, etc. The note did not come from the hospital where the young man was usually treated, which he visited last on Jan 5th. It is not yet known if the practitioner knew that he was grounding an airline pilot. --Askedonty (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Cabin door locked

Hi; User:Saschaporsche seems to be disputing sources that state that the cabin door was locked by the co-pilot who disabled access from the cockpit controls, and I think also disputes the part about the pilot trying to enter a code, and has reverted these statements([2] and [3]), replacing them with text saying the co-pilot simply "did not open the door". Here are the sources that are being reverted:[4] and [5] Can the editor provide sources that say that these two sources are incorrect? Does anyone else have thoughts? Of course if the co-pilot was just throwing a deadbolt or something I would be interested to learn this and make the correction. Thanks! Prhartcom (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, nobody can know if a code was entered at this point. Indeed the sources you quoted themselves use a lot of qualifiers "it is believed" etc. They infer this from the usual procedures of the door, but in fact we do no know yet. The NYT is very clear on that, the Guardian uses a misleading title, but when you click on it you can see its only speculation. I would not add it as a fact yet, only as speculation by the individuals to whom it can be attributed. A humble contributor (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
That was probably from New York Times eg

Those clues led French prosecutors to say Thursday that the co-pilot had locked the pilot out of the cockpit and deliberately crashed the plane.

but could be refactored to ATTRIBUTEPOV statements based on exact comments from the prosecutor or Carsten Spohr. The use of the axe (reported to AFP) means that the code didn't work. -- Aronzak (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, I assume you caught this bit on the same NYT page: [6], which states as fact from Airbus exactly how the locking mechanism works, a fact that existed before the crash. I haven't yet heard from the reverting editor but I believe both sources are valuable enough to restore. What we can do is quote from the NYT/Airbus source that explains the cockpit control/code door locking mechanism, then quote from the experts speculating on how the mechanisms were used by the co-pilot. Do we have agreement? Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, i personnally saw the newsconference LIVE on tv. Being asked if the captain used the code, mr Spohr said: i assume he tried that". Now, it looks like the guardian understood this as "the captain used the code to enter, but it was denied bij the co-pilot", which is wrong. We have no prove of this as long as the full transcript of the voicerecorder is not yet released. So stating "the code was used" is not correct. Hope this clarifies my point. Regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd suggest that even a "full transcript" of the recording is extremely unlikely to shine any light on this. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Saschaporsche, thanks for the clarification. Do I have your agreement to restore the sources including [7] above, quote from the NYT/Airbus source that explains the cockpit control/code door locking mechanism, then quote from the experts speculating on how the mechanisms were used by the co-pilot. Prhartcom (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The statement that the door's panel can be disabled from the controls is uncontroversial. The statement that the co-pilot disabled the panel is an inference from the Cockpit Voice Recorder. Current text

After banging on the door, with no response from the co-pilot, the pilot, who had a code to open the door (unless the panel was disabled from the cockpit controls) proceeded to hit the door with an axe

The pilot knowing the code is uncontroversial. Bashing the door with an axe is not something the pilot would do if the panel was on. I added the original sentence, but the one there now should convey the meaning. -- Aronzak (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, we do not know if the pilot indeed had the code. He should have it in order to open the door, but that is not the same. I understand that the code is pretty much never required, and we might yet find that he simply had the wrong one, did not bother with it or that it was faulty. We dont know. THe msot we can say at this point, that he usually would be expected to have the code. A humble contributor (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Fringe theories and responses

There have been a lot of fringe theories and responses to this crash, and I'm wondering how many of them are notable enough to be included in the article. Some have been reported on in the mainstream media. Self-proclaimed ISIS supporters have hailed Lubitz as a hero, as have incels. Meanwhile Jay Rollins speculated on MSNBC that the plane was actually hacked, possibly by foreign forces, and Veterans Today has promoted a similar idea as a conspiracy theory. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The usual reliable sources only policy applies to this kind of speculation. See also WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. -- The Anome (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

sick note contents

We don't know the sick notes were for depression! Secretlondon (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The article doesn't say the sick notes were for depression. - Ahunt (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Secretlondon — This article does not state that the sticky notes were about Andreas Lubitz depression. Please be calm and civic when posting on a project or article talk page. For more Information, visit WP:Cooperation. Thank you for your edits to Wikipedia. CookieMonster755 (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Sticky notes and sick notes are different things. Just an FYI. Mkdwtalk 23:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
And sticky notes are different from Sticky Notes. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 Comment: By now, all news accounts consistently characterize the pilot as hiding the note from his employer and colleagues, and insofar as we must go by what reliable sourcing dictates, I made sure this is included in both the lede and the body of the article, including relevant quotes both in the text and in the in-line citation via its quote= parameter value. I trust this is not controversial, if you take stock in what is available for sourcing at this date and hour. --Mareklug talk 05:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about that InedibleHulk and Mkdw, guess you know more than I do. I will let the professionals do the replying. Cheers! CookieMonster755 (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Didn't mean it like that. I'm as amateur as the next editor. Well, most of us. I hope no paid spin doctors are working on this one. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Response by Mental Health Professionals

There have been multiple responses by mental health professionals warning about the dangers in identifying all people with mental health issues with killers and harm that this media approach can make to many professionals in different professions:

I am wondering if this is something that might be added as a caution to media sensationalism. Emilijaknezevic (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Loose statements about "authorities"

In Investigation section: "On 26 March, Marseille prosecutor Brice Robin, French and German authorities, and a spokesperson for Germanwings all said the crash was intentional", and which in the lead has been modified to "The French prosecutor, the French and German aviation authorities, and a spokesman for Germanwings have all said that they believe that the crash was intentionally caused...."

The cites do not support that. Undoubtedly the French prosecutor said that, and Lufthansa/GermanWings nuanced that when they said [emphasis added] "We were stunned to learn today that the airplane we lost in southern France was to all appearances made to crash by deliberate act—presumably by the co-pilot. This is evidently the conclusion of the French investigative authorities who have studied the voice recorder that was recovered from the ill-fated Airbus A320"[7]. There are no cites for statements by any German authorities, nor for any in France (apart from the Prosecutor), and in particular any aviation authorities. If such statements exist, they should be cited - indeed, must be cited - not least because a similar unsupported statement is made on the BLP-governed Andreas Lubitz page in an even more definitive version [emphasis added]: "Marseille prosecutor Brice Robin, French and German authorities, as well as executives of Lufthansa, have issued statements that they believe that Lubitz deliberately crashed Germanwings Flight 9525...". Davidships (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Fully agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Controlled flight into terrain

The current link in the infobox is to Murder-suicide, should it also have Controlled flight into terrain? -- Aronzak (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. the CFIT page clearly says unintentional.Naraht (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I have changed it back to "Intentionally flown into terrain". There is no indication that this is a suicide yet vs a mass murder and as per the article CFIT accidents are unintentional by definition. - Ahunt (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be 'mass murder-suicide'? 87.114.172.97 (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Not unless you can cite a ref that says that WP:V. - Ahunt (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
While still under investigation, there are a number of WP:RS indicating an intentional act by the copilot:
Nobody denies that. Intentional act ≠ murder–suicide or CFIT. Alakzi (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The article Murder–suicide states A murder–suicide is an act in which an individual kills one or more other persons before, or at the same time as, killing oneself. I don't see how an "Intentional act", as described by the WP:RSs, can be anything but murder–suicide. Pardon me if I don't understand your assertion. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I will add the CFIT, by definition, is not intentional, per that article. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll add my reinforcement that CFIT is not intentional, thus this incident cannot be considered a CFIT. AHeneen (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it's called murder-suicide in other pages I have checked. CFIT definition seems wrong in this case IMO. I have changed it to "Suspected murder-suicide by co-pilot" 179.153.241.50 (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I have changed it back to "Suspected deliberate flight into terrain; under investigation" as that is all we know at this point. No reliable source has labelled this a murder and the available evidence seems to point to it being a mental health issue, rather than an intentional murder. - Ahunt (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Several sources are bringing up his girlfriend's statements on how the co-pilot wanted to "do something to make everyone remember his name". This together with other statements by the authorities suggest it was not only a health issue but a deliberate intentional murder. I stand on my opinion that "Suspected murder-suicide" is more appropriate for the time being, since it's more consistent with the current line of investigation. -179.153.241.50 (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
That would be strictly WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. To call it murder we need more than your opinion, we need WP:RS. At this point all anyone is saying is that the crash was deliberate. - Ahunt (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I'm not sure if these are reliable sources, but so far we have
And several other news sources have the same piece of info, so it's not just my opinion. We are not here to judge if the woman who lived with Andreas Lubitz is telling the truth, but she's obviously an informant for the authorities and if we put her statement together with all other evidence this suggests a deliberate act of muder-suicide by the co-pilot. -179.153.241.50 (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
More:
There is nothing in any of those refs that connect that remark he made to the girlfriend to the crash. I realize that the press is trying to connect them, but there is no evidence presented at all. Notice how the reports are all very inconsistent too, one source says "heinous", while the others just say he wanted to do something to be remembered for. He might have been planning something completely different, like starting a metal band or running for office. Connecting those statements to the crash is strictly conjecture. Until some authority declares that this was a murder and not a mental health event then we have to go with what we know at this point in time and not succumb to the media feeding frenzy. - Ahunt (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
"The prosecutor’s assertions instantly changed the nature of the investigation of the crash, which obliterated the Airbus A320 and killed people from more than a dozen countries, into a criminal inquiry focused on Mr. Lubitz."... Not only that, but just to quote one authority: "Carsten Spohr, the chief executive of Lufthansa and a former A320 pilot, suggested that what Mr. Lubitz had done was something of a different magnitude. “I am not a legal expert,” he said, adding, “If a person takes 149 other people to their deaths with him, there is another word than suicide.”"
That said, "Suspected murder-suicide by co-pilot; under investigation" is a more appropriate wording for this incident. Notice the word "suspected". Anyway, I hope some editor or Admin changes it.-179.153.241.50 (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Suicide is one thing, not caring of what's going on is different, particularly where mental health issue are present. Do we know anything about delirium ? Stop curtaining definitions. To be "Fit" means to be "able" in German vernacular. CFIT as an acronym features in the instructions of all European airlines. We cannot yet decide about any other definition. --Askedonty (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
You are still drawing your own conclusions that this is a murder. No reliable source has said that yet, so we can't do so. - Ahunt (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Repeated attempts at censorship

We know what both the authorities and the company say have happened: the co-pilot deliberately crashed the plane. There are an enormous amounts of WP:RS saying this. Yet some users repeatedly either remove it entirely, or downplay it with wording such as "investigators believe". That's WP:OR, the investigators have explicitly said it was intentional, not that it "maybe" was intentional.Jeppiz (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This is Day 3. I don't think it's unreasonable to hedge our language a little on this, and it's certainly not censorship. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
We need to see a proper investigation, and conclusions before claiming it was suicide. I am not clear on French law, but in the UK we would need the conclusions of an inquest before reporting this as a murder/suicide. Martin451 22:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
We don't say it was mass-murder and suicide, we say that the "authorities, prosecutor and company" say it was. It's not for us to believe anything. We know what they have said, we have WP:RS sources for it and we report it, we don't make personal guesses, which is WP:OR. If the authorities, the prosecutor and the company all would say Elvis crashed it, and no WP:RS source would say otherwise, we would say Elvis crashed it. Wikipedia is not the place to put forward personal beliefs about what happened, nor to hedge the language of the authorities as quoted in reliable sources. Jeppiz (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not a "personal belief" to say that investigators believe, unless you want to question the competence of the sources where you got that information. "Investigators believe" is not the same as "the investigation has shown". The operative word is "believe". This early in the investigation, their belief should not be presented as fact, no matter how many of them believe it. If mainstream RS states it more definitely, we can too. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but news sources like to make a leap of faith, don't they? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Are you saying that, even if mainstream RS states it more definitely, we should still hedge? Because mainstream RS can't be trusted on these things? I hope not. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Almost certainly. News channels love to make more drama, don't they? We have one interpretation of one black box recording. And difficult to arrange a criminal trial, no? But, as we both know, in the contest between "truth" and "verifiability" there is only one wiki-winner. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Your last sentence is true. And the alternative is everyone's personal opinion of "truth" which, trust me, would be far worse and would probably kill Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, little point in discussing if the premise is that we should disregard all WP:RS because they "love to make more drama". You're free to hold that view, but you're not free to edit Wikipedia according to it. Simple as that.Jeppiz (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we all make mistakes. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I have added the new section heading "Cause of crash". I copied the sentence already in the lede that states cause of crash under this new heading. I added yet another source asserting this is the cause of the crash. In this edit, I made no other changes. Prhartcom (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I have really got to laugh. The registered member who worked out the truth about the cause of the crash was censured and banned yesterday on the basis that his so-called speculative posts were contrary to Wiki policy. Now we have a bunch of speculators speculating that the official investigation is wrong and that it might not be a murder suicide incident at all. Geeeeez...give me strength. Are there any senior Admins out there who can bring this bullshit to an end? Pleeeeeeeeeease 87.114.172.97 (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Please understand that our goal here is not to work out the truth, but to represent what reputable sources say. Whether any speculation turns out to be correct is irrelevant. Reputable sources do show what investigators say at this point, and thus we do include the investigators statements in the article. A humble contributor (talk) 11:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Are they not the same thing? Some members speculating that the official conclusion so far isn't the truth is what's unhelpful. 87.114.172.97 (talk) 11:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Not really. We do not have a 'official conclusion' so far, as in fact the investigation has not been, well, concluded. What we do have is an investigator making a claim in at a preliminary stage of the investigation. He himself is not a reputable source on the event yet due to the preliminary nature of it all, so we can not say "this is how it happened". We do however have reputable sources that report what he was saying and he seems relevant, so that is what we write "This guy says this is how it likely happened, based on these factors that he mentioned". When we get the actual official conclusion I would support that as a reputable source as well and then we might be more definite. EDIT: The other members above are discussing how to the sources should be interpreted, which is fundamentally different to theorizing about the event itself. A humble contributor (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
agreed, WP is not for OR. If the overwhelming majority of WP:RS say Obama is King of All Londinium, then Wikipedia must change his title. However if there is reason to doubt this, Wikipedia should certainly also cite this as well. It is an appropriate and helpful purpose of Wikipedia to prevent WP:RS outlier data from being entirely submarined in a media frenzy. 72.37.244.196 (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we can be pretty sure that the information which has been released is accurate otherwise we would have had substantial denials to the contrary. As far as reliable sources being accurate are concerned you only need to look at the Lockerbie Pan Am article. 87.114.172.97 (talk) 12:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Flight path map

Moving/restarting discussion to gain comments (the previous discussion didn't get any comments in past 36 hours except the two that made the maps)

Which map should be used in the article? Comments about the maps themselves? AHeneen (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Both maps state they use data from [8], but note the bottom of that page that states

Copyright © 2012-2015 by Flightradar24 AB | Please use our contact form to get in touch with us

So, I wonder if either graphic will survive a copyright review. Putting aside that potential issue, the first map has much better explanation of its provenance and is, to me, more visually appealing. JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The "Source" parameter of the locator map explains why the information used is not subject to copyright. AHeneen (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I read that parameter. While it is not up to us to decide such things, I mention my concern in good faith, as I assume others involved have acted. I do note that FlightRadar24's Terms and Conditions of use, section 2, suggest they would not agree with the note in that source parameter:
2. Use License
Website’s information and Services are provided for personal, non-commercial use only. Permission is granted to temporarily download one copy of the materials (information or software) on Flightradar24’s web site for personal, non-commercial transitory viewing only. This is the grant of a license, not a transfer of title, and under this license you may not:
Modify or copy the materials;
Use the materials for any commercial purpose, or for any public display (commercial or non-commercial);
Attempt to decompile or reverse engineer any software contained on Flightradar24's web site;
Remove any copyright or other proprietary notations from the materials; or
Transfer the materials to another person or "mirror" the materials on any other server.
emphasis added. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
They claim copyright for information; however this cannot stand as flight data is a representation of a true fact, not their own creation and I assume that they received this information from a publicly available source. What I find problematic is the use of their map. So, an SVG plot of flight data on any public domain map should be ok. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
See Derivative work and Commons:Deletion requests/File:4U9525 flight path v1.svg JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd ask you to raise any copyright issues with me directly rather than forcing myself and other contributors to argue the merits of the track in various places.

Flightradar24 says in their press section "Screenshots from Flightradar24.com or any of the Flightradar24 apps may be used for free by media if screenshots are attributed to Flightradar24. Websites publishing screenshots must link to Flightradar24.com."

The use of GPS data is no different here than in Malaysia Airlines 370, which FlighRadar24 explicitly gives permission to use. AHeenen states "Since the location of the aircraft is a fact, not a creative work, and the map traced purports to show the path that Flight 370 traveled based on primary & secondary radar, the flight path is not subject to copyright"

I'll add a similar copyright justification.

Additionally, FlightAware, which I checked the flightradar24 data against in an unpublished graph, has a second set of GPS co-ordinates, and state "Accredited news outlets and members of the media may reproduce or redistribute FlightAware content... contingent that FlightAware is cited..."

BEA permits their photos to be used copyright-free with attribution - the same will happen for charts when they have a full report. These images will be replaced when BEA puts out their final report. -- Aronzak (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding not raising the issue with you, I I believe I followed the process and offer notification in the right form and places. If you consider that I did not do so, feel free to file an RFC/U. As you've entered the same exact text above as on my talk page, I'll delete (more likely hat) the latter. As for the substance of your assertion, (a) you are adding an improvement to the copyright justification - great!, and (b) regarding your comparison to Malaysia Airlines 370, has FlighRadar24 explicitly given permision for this flight as well? If so, than this is a moot issue. If not, it would seem reasonable to get that permission. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
FYI, WP:RFC/USER is no more. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Please direct comments about the copyright of the image to Commons:Deletion requests/File:4U9525 flight path v1.svg. Regarding the image used in this article, I've edited the locator style map to include the airbase and made the font size of the event labels larger. I'm placing it in the article because I believe it is superior to the topographic map. AHeneen (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Axe

The Independent says this: "The German newspaper Bild quoted anonymous sources on Friday as saying Sondenheimer began trying to break the door down with an axe in a desperate attempt to get back inside." So where did this axe come from?" [9] Martinevans123 (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The Washington Post raises doubt about the validity of this claim [10] JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
There's a fire axe in a stowage at the F/A station at the front. Some airlines have replaced it with a crowbar after 9/11. Alakzi (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
So if it's carried by Germnanwings, it's very likely he used it? But I think this anonymous statement is probably based on some informed opinion and not an analysis of the CVR. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
As noted in the WaPo source I gave above:

The reports, in French and German media outlets, could not be independently verified. Typically, however, the ax is located inside the cockpit of an A320, pilots familiar with the aircraft said, and it was unclear how the locked-out pilot would have had access to the tool.

It is WP:OR to claim "There's a fire axe in a stowage at the F/A station at the front". JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, so I'd change my comment to: "Although it's carried by Germnanwings, it's very unlikely he could have used it". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
It would've been OR, if I had at any point made a case for it to be added to the article. I was simply answering Martin's question. Alakzi (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Bild is Germany's The Sun. If Bild were to claim the sky is blue, I'd start having second doubts. Alakzi (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, difficult to make this story more sensational than it already is. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Use of px for thumbnails

WP:IMGSIZE, part of a policy, states: In general, do not use px without very good reason; (emphasis theirs). There are good reasons for this.

The use of px fixes the image size in pixels, not in centimeters or inches. The actual physical size depends on the resolution of the reader's screen. This varies widely, not only between types of devices, but even within one type. People often experience a substantial increase in resolution when they buy a new computer, for example.

This is why they created the user preferences setting for default thumbnail size (Preferences->Appearance). A user can set this value as per their personal preferences, and they can update it when their resolution changes. However, this is defeated when you code a px, since it overrides their setting.

Many editors seem to miss the fact that these are thumbnails, or don't understand what a thumbnail is. Depending on the content of the image, some thumbnails are large enough that the reader does not need to click through to the larger version of the image. However, these are exception cases and that is not the intent of a thumbnail. The intent is to provide a graphical link to that image, to give some idea of what the user will see if they click it.

To avoid endlessly going back and forth on this, we need to establish a consensus that px should not be coded for a thumbnail unless consensus for the aforementioned very good reason has been reached in talk. I'm aware that such usage is fairly widespread, but that fact alone does not outweigh the strong arguments against that usage. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why it needs discussion, forced image sizes are always the exception and not the standard. MilborneOne (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I felt it needs discussion because so many editors, even experienced editors, seem to disagree with us on that. Two days ago there were three thumbnails with px, I removed them, and there are now two of them. Clearly, there is insufficient agreement on this to prevent the use of px; my goal is to increase the level of agreement. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
If we must absolutely increase the size of the thumbs, it can be done with upright=. Alakzi (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Upright is not a "forced image" size so should not be disputed if used. Just to reply to Mandruss I would agree that if a user has a valid reason to force the image size then they should come here for agreement, the default is not to use them. MilborneOne (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

18G

GWI18G was the flight's callsign; not the flight number. This should be clarified at some point but since I couldn't find a source, I'll just be leaving a note here. Alakzi (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Disputed removal of a sentence

I removed the sentence "The crash is also the first loss of a Lufthansa-owned airliner during the cruising phase of flight"; my edit was undone, so I am opening a discussion over its merits. In my opinion the sentence is irrelevant, it does not aid anyone in understanding this event. This was not a Lufthansa aircraft, this was a Germanwings aircraft; and while as we all know the one is a subsidiary of the other, it is a separate entity. It would be the same as saying that, if a Jaguar car won a motor race for the first time, it was the first win for a Tata car. It has been stated in the article that Lufthansa is the parent company, and I believe that is important for a reader to know that; but linking to Lufthansa's history of accidents in no way helps a reader understand what has happened. YSSYguy (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with the removal. It adds nothing. This is not an article about Lufthansa.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree with removal Germanwings is not Lufthansa. MilborneOne (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Since Lufthansa is the much better known operator, some kind of context for the accident in terms of their accident history may well be relevant. The operating policies of the parent company affect all of its subsidiaries. Phase of flight, as an aspect of such a history, may also be significant. But perhaps the significance of the accident in terms of Germanwings' own history should also be made clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
It may be better known but this was a Germanwings flight, it has its own operators certificate and legal identity, the fact that Lufthansa owns the company is not really relevant in this case. MilborneOne (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
And who's going to pay the compensation? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Legally Germanwings as operator of the flight under I believe the Chicago Convention. MilborneOne (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah yes, but that's only if they're found liable, of course. And who decides that? (Unless even raising this topic is just undue speculation. of course). Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
An insurance company will pay, but when that happens we will not be mentioning the name of that company, because it will not aid in understanding the events. LH's operating history has no bearing on this event. YSSYguy (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it might be mentioned if it bankrupted them. I would have thought the victims' families would be interested in that particular sequence of events. This aircraft was actually flown, for a time, by Lufthansa itself. Why do we include the actions and comments of Lufthansa Chief Executive Carsten Spohr?? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Carsten Spohr has a responsibility I believe for the Germanwings on behalf of the Lufthansa Group rather then Lufthansa the airline. MilborneOne (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the removal. Germanwings is a separate entity. It is 100% owned by Lufthansa, but Germanwing's aircraft, branding, employees, etc. are all separate from Lufthansa. AHeneen (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Then maybe that sentence would fit only in the article on the Lufthansa Group, and in the section there on its flight safety record (if such a section existed). Martinevans123 (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Strange but the Lufthansa Group doesnt actually have an article, it is all mixed in with the airline which is only one part of the group. MilborneOne (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
In which case maybe that sentence I added under Reactions: Legal needs to be adjusted. Even the German source seems to think it's the Lufthansa airline that will be paying compensation. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I replaced it because an adequate reason wasn't given for its removal, other than "not relevant". The statement doesn't say that it was a Lufthansa airliner, it says that it was a Lufthansa-owned airliner. The record was stated by the Lufthansa CEO, Carsten Spohr, according to the reference which I provided next to the sentence in the article. I didn't, however, provide the original link to the Lufthansa accidents. EP111 (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
N.b. The aircraft was on lease to Germanwings, not outright ownership. See Airframe Details For Germanwings Flight 4U 9525. EP111 (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
@EP111 There are several ways the sentence is not relevant, and there isn't room in the edit summary. 1) the information does nothing to aid a reader's understanding of the subject. 2) it almost falls in the category of a "the sun rises every day"-type statement; airliner crashes from cruise altitude are exceedingly rare and the list of airlines that have never suffered a crash of an aircraft in that mode of flight would be very long. 3) if it was leased from British Airways or LAN Airlines or ILFC or Wells Fargo there would be no question over its relevance 4) the crashed aircraft was operated by a different airline, which didn't even exist the last time LH had a serious accident, hence linking to the list of Lufthansa accidents is not aiding a reader's understanding of the subject. Anyway, leaving aside your inadequate reason for undoing an edit by a User of good standing, what is your position with respect to inclusion or removal of the sentence? YSSYguy (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@YSSYguy: After being insulted, by being directly described as inadequate (the second person was used), I'll have to oppose it. Please remember to read WP:NPA. EP111 (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Editnotice that Bild should not be used as a source

As Bild is not a WP:RS I'm wondering if there is value to an WP:EDITNOTICE for this article and Andreas Lubitz with.

Do not add content to this article based on information from the Bild tabloid. Bild is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles.

--Marc Kupper|talk 16:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

But what about all the major Italian news channels amd media outlets? Are they not reliable sources? Anyway, we'll see what emerges over the next few days re Lubitz's remains, the time the passengers began screaming and the precise words spoken in the cockpit between the two pilots.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
One of the problems is that other reliable source media outlets, like CBC News and AVweb are using Bild as a source of information. - Ahunt (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I notice in the source I used they gave the New York Times as the font of information for the cockpit conversation and the time the screams were first heard.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
If a normally WP:RS Italian news agency if the source of a report then it likely is fine. To date, the English language articles I have seen have been careful to make it clear when information comes from Bild. I am assuming Italian news agencies do the same. The proposed editnotice is intended to cover both direct citations of Bild and sources where Bild appears to be the original source. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Jeanne boleyn, I only see three recent edits from you for this article.[11][12][13] And assume you are referring to the second edit which you cite to this dailytelegraph article. The dailytelegraph mentions the New York Times once in "Bild and the New York Times, citing two officials with knowledge of the investigation, said Lubitz had sought treatment for problems with his sight." The dailytelegraph is not using NYT as a source for cockpit conversation nor "screams". If you want to add something about problems with his eyesight then a scan of NYT coverage finds Germanwings Pilot Andreas Lubitz Sought Treatment for Vision Problems Before Crash, Authorities Say. That NYT article also mentions Bild but for something unrelated to his eyesight. Thus, it appears that possible issues with his eyesight sourced well enough that if appears relevant that we can add it to Wikipedia. Details of the conversations and screams seem to be based solely on Bild and should not be in the article. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I am content to wait until more sources come to light confirming what Bild is alleging.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Transcripts from voice recorder

The Jerusalem Post posted an article with quotes from the transcripts of the cockpit voice recorder that were first published on the Sunday edition of Bild. According to the article, Andreas Lubitz invited the captain to take a bathroom break several times and the captain is hearing shouting "open the damn door" before the crash.

Now also on the Independent with additional details. Antonella (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Bild is not a RS, I think. Reporting by other papers of what Bild printed, when clearly labelled as such and especially when in quotes, does not make the information reliable or citable. We can wait. Davidships (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
There are many RS reporting this. Put it in. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
No, there are not many reliable sources reporting on this, there is only Bild, which published what it claims is a summary of the transcript from the recording, which has not been released. Other sources have translated Bild's report, but no one can independently verify the information. As we have been very cautious on Wikipedia, let's wait at least another day or so to see about this so-called transcript. Prhartcom (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Rubbish. I heard this via an independent BBC report.HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The Italian station Rai will be updating its report on the crash in about five minues, I shall listen carefully to see whether or not they mention Bild as their own source of info for the transcript.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is the {{portalbar}} template being persistently moved from the "See also" section to the "External links" one? Portals are not external links.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Neither is the navigation template, but that goes at the footer too, along with that portal bar. And that's the correct place for both of them. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Can you please point to the guideline saying so? The location of navboxes is clearly treated at WP:ORDER but nothing is said about links to portals there.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Portal bars are the same thing as a navigation template. Ergo. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Then it won't be difficult for you to point to the corresponding guidelines.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Well the burden is with you, seeing as you've been reverted by several editors on this issue. Over to you. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
WP:BURDEN deals with citations to comply with WP:VERIFY, a basic policy: ″Responsibility for providing citations″; it has nothing to do with the issue being discussed here. Again, which are the guidelines for your statements? The ones at {{portal}} are crystal clear.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Portal#How to add portal links to articles,

These links go in the See also section. Entering the link at the top of the section will allow it to sit on the top right.

JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@JoeSperrazza: Thank you very much. Finally, someone shed light into the subject.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Pregnant girlfriend?

AVweb is reporting that Lubitz's current girlfriend is pregnant. AVweb is a reliable source but, in this case they attribute this news to Bild, which we consider not a WP:RS. This should be added if it can be independently confirmed, as it may have been a psychological factor in the crash. - Ahunt (talk) 11:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

See the section directly above. Alakzi (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree it is a slightly different subject, but a similar issue, which is why I brought it here to the talk page. This should be added if sources independent of Bild can be found, but at least it is noted here for future use. - Ahunt (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Imo, it should be added if (1) sources independent of Bild can be found, and (2) RS report a somewhat clear connection between the pregnancy and the subject of this article (unlikely to happen this early in the investigation). Absent (2), it would be tabloid speculation to include it. I think we're supposed to avoid what "may have been a psychological factor". ―Mandruss ☎ 23:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Yep. If a source doesn't say it, best to not even think it. Not while at Wikipedia, anyway. What you think off the job is your business. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

15 degree turn

Early on, I saw coverage of a 15 degree turn made around the beginning of the descent. http://abcnews.go.com/International/germanwings-crash-reasons-plane/story?id=29894494 I note it is not mentioned at all in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.244.196 (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you think it may have been a mistake? How would this alter the outcome, or indeed the article, in any way? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
My guess is that no one considers that turn particularly relevant (I don't), and to include it would imply relevance that has not been established. We don't speculate. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the general consensus is that Lubitz didn't change course, only altitude. Why would he, unless perhaps trying to advance the impact. But without the FDR, as Mandruss says, it's just speculation? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not for speculation and this venue is not a genral-purpose forum to discuss theories, hence, I will not speculate on the importance of the turn, and neither should you. That is for WP:RS to do. And some did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.244.196 (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
So sorry. Is that better?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The ABC story doesn't say where that 15 degree turn information came from and no one else seems to have reported it so it perhaps was an error? That was a very early story about the crash and early reporting had lots of errors, as usual. Also we don't include every minor little detail, just things that are notable to the event. If this turns out to be notable later on then it is recorded here on the talk page and can be added in, but right now it seems unlikely to be notable. - Ahunt (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
It was such a specific and particular thing, I would be surprised if it was reported erroneously. I believe the original reporters found it important (I read it in more than one place, but did not capture them) and the dearth of further reports is probably WP:RS making their own editorial decisions that it is not important in light of the shift to the suicide narrative. (I would call it an outlier.) While Wikipedia must derive itself from WP:RS, Wikipedia has a higher calling and itself should resist picking which narrative to follow, and that makes a complicated and subtle situation when the media frenzies upon one single narrative. 72.37.244.196 (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
That's an interesting twist of logic, one that I haven't seen before. That we have to include it because it would be speculation to exclude it. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
An airline flight includes millions of details, from who is on the flight to what colour the plates used for the lunch service were. We have to make some calls on what is notable and what isn't. In this case, because it hasn't been mentioned in other RS, it probably isn't notable. - Ahunt (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

(unindent) The aircraft had been cruising at 38,000 with a heading of 42° up to 09:30:03 (UTC). At 09:31:05 the altitude is reported as 37,975 feet and the heading is 25°. The aircraft continues to descend on a heading of 25° up through 09:35:14. From 09:36:16 to 09:41:04 the heading is reported as 26°. (source: http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airplanes/d-aipx/#5d42675 for the overview and http://mobile.api.fr24.com/common/v1/flight-playback.json?flightId=5d42675 for the raw data).

It appears the 17 degree turn was completed immediately prior to the start of the descent. As there has been no coverage of this turn I'm guessing it was part of the filed flight plan. The change to 26° is a bit interesting. Hopefully the flight data recorder's storage chips are recovered.

In terms of the article - I don't see a need to mention this turn unless a WP:RS mentions it. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

A bit more detail - this post has some raw data provided by an flightradar24 administrator.
  • 09:30:48Z.936 Start of data. The autopilot was at 38,000 feet and the aircraft is at 38,000 feet.
  • 09:30:52Z.386 Autopilot remains at 38,000 feet and the aircraft is at 38,000 feet.
  • 09:30:54Z.083 Autopilot set to 13,008 feet. The aircraft remains at 38,000 feet.
  • 09:30:55Z.397 Autopilot set to 96 feet. The aircraft remains at 38,000 feet.
  • 09:31:04Z.376 Autopilot remains at 96 feet. The aircraft starts its descent and is at 37,975 feet.
  • 09:31:21Z.216 End of data. Autopilot remains at 96 feet. The aircraft continues to descend and is at 37,700 feet.
The raw data excerpt does not include any heading information though it can be computed from latitude/longitude values. The raw data goes from 9:30:48.936 to 9:31:21.216 with a data point roughly every 0.7 seconds. At the start the heading is roughly 31° from point to point and by the end it is roughly 23° from point to point. Thus, the turn from 43° was initiated prior to setting the desired altitude and it was continuing to turn to the desired heading as it started its descent. The fact that it overshot 25° and a few minutes later there's a change to 26° hints that the aircraft was being steered manually. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
A final update - the 17° turn seems to be part of the standard flight path per https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/580364493928181760 --Marc Kupper|talk 01:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Germanwings_Flight_9525/Archive_2&oldid=1136726785"