Jump to content

Talk:Lion Air Flight 904

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

Deletion Policy

[edit]

I agree to delete the page, because no special thing(s) of Lion Air Flight 904, except the accident.Gsarwa (talk) 13:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree; it was a crash in the sea with no fatalities, that in itself is notable. As an incident in which a plane landed short of the runway, compare British Airways Flight 38, a similar incident which also has its own article. Jamie|C 17:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree; Lion Air may get a lot of heat from this one. I wouldn't mind if Lion Air eventually folds, but this event might mark one of the milestones into making that happen. That, in light of stupid cost-cutting measures enforced by the most low-budget airline companies, would make it notable. Zoef1234 (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the AfD discussion has closed early with an overwhelming consensus to keep. Comments pertaining to deletion should have been discussed in the entry itself, and not here. Any subsequent comments should go in a second nomination, but by the reaction of the community to the first one, I think waiting a few months before renominating is advisable. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

[edit]
YesY Done Michaelzeng7 (alt) (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contradicting Historical Claim

[edit]

The article stated that "This is the first time in history of a modern passenger aircraft ditching in an open sea without any fatalities" without any citation, while the page at Water landing clearly mentioned several contradicting examples. Moreover, the further reading section of the Water landing page linked to http://www.equipped.com/ditchingmyths.htm, which contains statistical examination that refutes the claim. I'm removing the claim unless someone could provide a valid citation of the claim. 77.172.68.203 (talk) 08:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree it said in the history of Modern aviation which I would argue started with the DC-9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.70.111 (talk) 09:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest IP 77.172.68.203 read the items he cites before spouting claims. Our article on water landing speaks for itself and clearly shows no open sea ditching by a passenger jet where people have NOT died. There have not been that many of those ditchings, anyway. And the advocacy page that contains statistical examination is about small aircraft. --Mareklug talk 10:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mareklug would be right as The Hudson River is A controlled river not an Open Sea & Since 1996 There have only been three open sea ditchings those being: Ethiopian Airways Flight 961, Tutinair Flight 1153 & This flight, However this flight is the ONLY one that has had no deaths. 121.219.70.111 (talk) 10:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just my 2¢ worth: if the airplane is resting on the ground because the water is so shallow, and right next to the coast (from where the picture was taken), is that actually the "Open Sea"? Falconusp t c 14:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about Pan Am Flight 6? 24.47.141.254 (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote "Since 1996" So Pan Am Flight 6 wouldn't count121.219.70.111 (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many problems with this I am not sure where to begin.

1. A 'ditching' refers to a planned water landing. There is no indication so far of any planning here. Most sources I have seen (like the AV Herald http://avherald.com/h?comment=460aeabb&opt=0) are calling this a CFIT (controlled flight into terrain), meaning the pilots missed the runway. Some sources, like the BBC (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/world/asia/plane-skids-into-water-at-airport-in-bali.html?_r=1&) have this listed as a runway overrun. NEITHER of these scenarios qualify as a ditching.

2. If it is a CFIT, then Japan Airlines Flight 2 is a jet that crashed in such a manner in the ocean with all survivors, so the claim of this being the only instance is faulty. If it is an overrun, then China Airlines Flight 605 (a much larger plane!) went into the ocean at old Kai Tak airport with no falities, so the claim is still faulty.

3. Using as the source of the statement a blog in which the main headline is "I built this site because George Bush and Barack Obama and their whore daughters imitated from my personal photos. Published photos of Dajjal are imitated from my pictures too" and is merely the personal blog of someone with copy-pasted Wiki articles is yeah, dubious.

Since the statement is demonstrably false using serveral sources including the Wikipedia artile on water landings, I am editing the page to remove both it and the dubious source. There are already so many misconceptions about water landings, let's not contribute to them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.103.30 (talk • contribs)

First of all, learn to sign your comments (four tilde signs in a row will do it: ~~~~). Second, don't remove content just because you decide after your own say that this should be so, especially when other, experienced editors have added it. Third, all your claims here are bogus and some are untrue: Just because news sources have persisted in falsely reporting this accident as a runway overrun, or runway overshoot, sometimes only implying that the aircraft flew *over* the runway and ended up in the sea, at other times, falsely claiming that it touched down on the runway and slid into the sea, does not mean this is an argument for you removing the content. Whether it is controlled flight into the terrain or a microburst-caused premature landing/crash, or whatever, it is still a ditching in the open sea, even if unintended. Fourth, Japan Airlines Flight 2 ditched in San Francisco Bay, not open sea. Fifth, China Airlines Flight 605 actually landed at the Hong Kong airport 2/3rds of the way down the runway and ended up in the water. If you look at the satellite maps of Hong Kong, you will discover that this too is not open sea but inter-island bay waters. I did not leave the source you contest in place; someone else did; I merely noted in my edit summary that this item needs sourcing. Since I happen to know that this information is true, I added it. It is also discussed in many places on the internet on professional and amateur pilot/enthusiast forums, but these obviously don't qualify for wikipedia sourcing. So it behooves us to wait for this information to become mentioned in mainstream media and become citable. Data mining databases such as Aviation Safety Network will also be seen as original research and won't do. So, instead of removing or rewriting this information, just chill and better yet, get a login username. --Mareklug talk 21:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Whether it is controlled flight into the terrain or a microburst-caused premature landing/crash, or whatever, it is still a ditching in the open sea, even if unintended' - Disagree: from Water landing, the NTSB " defines "ditching" in its aviation accident coding manual as "a planned event in which a flight crew knowingly makes a controlled emergency landing in water" ". The crew of the incident flight did not intend to land in the water, so it's not really a ditching. And if you're looking for a passenger jet successfully ditching into open ocean with all survivors, try 2009 Pel-Air Westwind ditching. -- Bramley (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know, whether it is ditching or crash-landing, it is still a first event of its kind, where a regulation-size passenger jet ends up in the open sea without loss of life. The ditching you linked is by a puny little plane that takes 6 people on board. --Mareklug talk 08:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As Bramley notes, you are incorrect in your definition of a ditching. You also contradict yourself - you say news sources are giving false reports, yet then say I should wait for mainstream media reports. I do believe the BBC counts as such a source. You 'happen to know this infrmation is true' - not a source. Finally, this is not the open sea any more than the above ditchings were - the plane is obviously in shallow water if you look at the pictures. I do apologize for no sign-off, I am not used to talk-page edits and believed my IP address would appear automatically as a signature. 24.186.244.3 (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not contradicting myself -- I want to disregard obviously false reporting, whether it is BBC or whoever, while adhering to WP:RS. If you know anything about that part of Bali coast, or even zoomed out the satellite map, you would see that this is open sea, and the the plane crash-landed 0.62 nautical mile from the jutting out seawall that protects the runway. But obviously you folks are hell-bent on making this first-ever full-sized passenger jet sea crash-landing without fatalities not be noted in the article. Pity. All it took was substituting "ditching" with "crash-landing" and keeping the item in the article until it got sourced. --Mareklug talk 08:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone think it is better to reword this sentence to "first time event since date"? That would make it less contentious for all of us in my opinion.RoeRobber 09:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obersttseu (talk • contribs)
I've just removed this (without being aware of this discussion). The claim that the aircraft landed in the 'open sea' is obviously wrong; as the article notes, it landed in shallow coastal waters. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I reverted you , as you obviously did us a disservice, citing the Hong Kong accident addressed above which is not at all like this one for a number of mentioned reasons. Anyway, I raised this exact issue on PPRuNe Forums, asking if the phrasing as we have it is true, and if so, if it can be reliably sourced. And the plane did crash-land in the open sea, however shallow it may be. It was not a lagoon (Hong Kong, Thaiti) or a river (NYC, St. Petersburg), and it did not involve a loss of life (Comoros Islands, again, coastal sea waters; Yogoharta, river, 1 dead). Please do wait. --Mareklug talk 10:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An editor is insisting on adding an external link to a short Govindasamy-authored Flightglobal piece which brings nothing substantive to the article that the sources already used don't, plus it contains this misleading passage: He says that the initial reports indicate that the aircraft, which was on a scheduled service from Bandung to Bali, veered off the runway 50m before its end while landing and went into the sea.. Obviously, this is stale, false information that was issued originally and since retracted. The aircraft never reached the runway, so it could not have veered off of it. Some notable news outlets, including BBC, still report this as "runway overrun", which, again, is false information. I cannot engage in any more removal of this, as it would be edit-warring, so I am asking the community to handle it. It seems to me someone is pushing Flightglobal for some reason, despite any good reason to do so in this instant. --Mareklug talk 10:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is lacking reliable sources. I reverted my last edit, and I'm placing the above-mentioned source plus another reliable one below, just in case you, or anyone else, change their mind and decide to include them. I'll be watching the article from now on.
  • Toh, Mavis (14 April 2013). "Crashed Lion Air 737-800 flight data recorder retrieved". Singapore: Flightglobal. Archived from the original on 15 April 2013.
  • Govindasamy, Siva (13 April 2013). "Lion Air 737-800 crashes into sea while landing at Bali". Singapore: Flightglobal. Archived from the original on 14 April 2013.
  • Blachly, Linda (13 April 2013). "Lion Air 737 misses runway in Bali, lands in sea; 45 injured". Air Transport World. Archived from the original on 15 April 2013.

--Jetstreamer Talk 10:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your second Linda Blachly-authored source also contains misleading language: The Transportation Ministry’s director general of aviation told the Associated Press the aircraft overshot the runway and fell into the sea from a height of about 50 meters. Again, there was no runway overshooting. It was an undershoot. Please don't give us false sources, however reliable the publisher may be. --Mareklug talk 10:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me remind you WP:VNT. I've been working on aircraft crash articles for more than two years, so I know what I do. Let me also remind you than nobody owns any article.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No reason why we cant quote from reliable sources even if we have to say that initial reports from source w and x said it overshot the runway but subsequently this was corrected from source y and z. MilborneOne (talk) 11:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also section

[edit]

I propose the addition of US Airways Flight 1549 due to the similarity in the outcome and the aircraft are of comparable size (100-200 passengers). I'm aware that the US Airways flight is dissimilar due it being a ditching and also the bird strike cause, but I feel that the similar outcomes warrants its inclusion.RoeRobber 00:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obersttseu (talk • contribs)

Added due to lack of objections.Obersttseu (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weather Report

[edit]

I do not see a reason to include any weather report in this article, especially the METAR codes given that they do not provide useful information of weather at time of crash. The METAR is not adequately explained as described in WP:MOS. If the final investigation determined the weather to be a major contributor, I feel that we can include that information under the appropriate section.Obersttseu (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Picture on the top of the article

[edit]

The picture depicted in the main article is a Boeing 737-900, not 737-800 (PK-LKS is a 737-800 , not 737-900). Could someone change it because I think it could cause a confusion.


"Johngabriel.ibay (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)"[reply]

Final report

[edit]

The final report into the accident has been released. Link is for Aviation Safety Network as the NTSC website seems not to be working. Mjroots (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lion Air Flight 904. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lion Air Flight 904. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lion_Air_Flight_904&oldid=1213311088"