Talk:Singapore Airlines Flight 321/Archive 1

Archive 1

Two Fatalities?

Local news sources state that a second person has died at a local hospital after being in severe condition, dating to 5:25 AM this morning, [1] per shown in this article, can someone confirm this? Lolzer3000 (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The news site, Khaosod English, has retracted that claim, so the fatality count (currently) stands at 1. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Casualties

30 people are listed as injured in the infobox but 32 are listed in the body with breakdown. Borgenland (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Now in agreement. WWGB (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Storage

Is it really necessary to include the fact the aircraft was in storage, in my opinion it isn't really relevant. I removed it once but the wording was changed and it was added it back. LouisOrr27 (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

This seems wholly irrelevant. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Nationalities of passengers

I am quite puzzled as to why the information about passenger nationalities has been labelled as 'definitely not encyclopedic' and, more broadly, why large portions of my work have been removed, including various references. Could someone please provide guidance on this? Thank you, Redtree21 (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the list of nationalities: this information has absolutely no bearing on the accident. To help determine if something is encyclopedic, try the WP:10YEARTEST: would the information help someone reading the article 10 years from now understand what happened?

Regarding the reversion of your edits citing flightradar24, I suggest you read WP:RS. The ADS data that flightradar uses is probably "reliable" in the general sense of the word, but it is not a "reliable source" in the sense we use the words on Wikipedia, and definitely not a secondary source. A news article that cites flightradar would be a good example of the type of source needed. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Rosbif73:, thank you for your reply. I accept the explanations you have given here, although I do have to admit I still do not agree entirely with your rationale. It came to my attention that several other details, including references to proper tabloid sources and information about the aircraft, were removed (not necessarily by yourself, there were a few editors doing it) and the article became littered with citation needed tags and other inline tags. The decision by numerous editors to remove content was quite rushed in my opinion; once again, not your fault, just what happened. Hopefully through time the article's standard will improve as the element of recentism stops being a factor. Thank you, Redtree21 (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

As most of the passengers were uninjured, their nationality is irrelevant. There is no benefit to the article by its inclusion. WWGB (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Tend to agree, in the absence of any information on the relative rates of compliance with safety advice between different nationalities. If all passengers had had their seatbelts fastened, there would be been many fewer injuries!? I guess this may emerge in the investigation report. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Of late, airlines to list nationalities as part of information to the public. This is deemed important enough by some airlines, but given it is factual and informational in nature, it should be included here at some point in the future when the information regarding fatalities and injured is known for certain.

Singapore Airlines has included a list of nationalities as part of its public statement to the press and it considered this information important enough to release this shortly after the incident. Inodes (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

It is factual, and no doubt verifiable, but not encyclopedic. See WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

A compromise is to note the nationalities of those injured or killed. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

True. Just moved a partial breakdown of nationalities from the deleted reactions section. Borgenland (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

6,000 ft

Re: this edit, which replaced the Singapore Airlines statement with the FlightRadar blog as a source, did the aircraft drop 6,000ft or not? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I initially put the item there last night when AP reported it from FD24, after which it was removed due to alleged inconsistencies. I restored it a few hours ago when it was clear the Airline confirmed the info, but apparently an IP tampered with the ref to POV-push the Blog. Borgenland (talk) 09:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I've now made this adjustment as it does not seem to be in the source provided. It seems the aircraft did not "drop" by 6,000 ft, but entered a controlled autopilot descent of 6,000 ft. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Update: some editor tampered with the data again and tried to assert F24's precedence over the Airline's statement. Borgenland (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

FR24 (which is not a blog, but first of all a source of ADSB data) is much more reliable as a source than most non specialist journalists or company spokesmen. And common sense dictate that a 6000 ft loss in 3 minutes is a rate of descent of 2000 ft/mn which is an absolutely normal descent, by nothing related with the incident..-Df (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

And the following 'analysis' by The Associated press

Tracking data captured by FlightRadar24 and analyzed by The Associated Press show Singapore Airlines Flight SQ321 cruising at an altitude of 37,000 feet (11,300 meters). At one point, the Boeing 777-300ER suddenly and sharply descended to 31,000 feet (9,400 meters) over about three minutes, according to the data. The aircraft then stayed at 31,000 feet (9,400 meters) for under 10 minutes before diverting and landing in Bangkok less than a half-hour later

— AP

proves that :

• FR24 is their source
• AP's analysis of data is bullshit ('suddenly and sharply' vs. normal 2000 ft/mn descent) - we'd better read and quote FR24 analysis - it shows that there was no altitude loss, but a gain of ~400 ft, before returning to 37000 ft, and there were sudden variations in vertical speed (+600 to -1500 ft/mn in 3 seconds) which means negative g's which caused the injuries Df (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

As an aviation expert says (see "Turbulences sur un vol de Singapore Airlines : "Une descente contrôlée, délibérément choisie par les pilotes", analyse un aviateur". Franceinfo (in French). 2024-05-22. Retrieved 2024-05-22.) : ' It's not a fall. The turbulence is a few tens of centimetres, even a few metres for the most intense, and then it's a controlled, voluntary descent, deliberately chosen by the pilots to descend to an altitude where you're no longer in a turbulence zone. There's absolutely no such thing as an 1,800-meter drop. This is a mistranslation of the Singapore Airlines explanations. It's a controlled descent.' Df (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Df The issue is that the source being used is flightradar24.com/blog/* (FR24 blog), which is a separate website from the main flightradar24.com (FR24, running on WordPress as well, which can be seen when viewing the HTML source). With the blog moniker, one tends to apply WP:BLOG standard on the source, even if the main website is of repute. There has been no discussion on the reliability of the FR24 blog at WP:RSN or at WT:AV.

Key questions to ascertain the reliability of the source are:

1. is there an editorial process for this blog?
2. can this blog be considered as a professional blog run by subject matter expert(s)?
3. is the writer of this article a subject matter expert?

Failing which:

1. are there other third party sources that cite FR24 blog article and report accurately?
2. can we use these sources instead of FR24 blog source directly?

– robertsky (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The author is Flightradar24's director of communications, so the article can probably be taken as an official statement from the site's operators. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

That does not answer any of the questions I posed above. – robertsky (talk) 04:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

My unease about this 6,000 feet descent sub-topic is that it is NOT the result of the actual turbulence event that forms the basis for this article, the same flightradar24 blog acknowledged that "Some media reports have erroneously reported the pilots’ initial descent toward Bangkok from 37,000 feet to 31,000 feet as the turbulence event. While the aircraft may have continued to experience turbulence during that descent, it was a standard descent to a new flight level controlled by altitude selection in the aircraft’s autopilot."

In my opinion, this sentence in the article: "Singapore Airlines said the aircraft descended 6,000 feet (1,829 m) within three minutes.[1] However, this descent was initiated 15 minutes after the turbulence encounter and was a controlled descent.[12]"; should be removed or rephrased to separate the altitude deviations caused by the turbulence event from the intended and controlled descent that any aircraft would invariably perform when the crew intends to make a landing; any thoughts? Bcmh (talk) 04:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I would say remove. It's clear from multiple sources that the 6000ft descent was part of the aircraft's diversion towards Bangkok and at 2000ft/min, this initial step down was on the lower end of normal aircraft operating descents. It doesn't appear to be in any way remarkable or encyclopedic. It's all coming back from poor journalism rushing to be first, mis-analyising the ADS-B data, putting something pointless out into the world, which is now only being commented on because its lack of significance needs to be explained. Do we need to include in the article that the aircraft lowered its flaps during the approach? That it lowered it's landing gear prior to landing? No, we do not. We don't need to include this first stage descent that occurred about 18 minutes after the severe turbulence encounter. It's just not relevant. Rob.au (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Quite agree. Non notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Rob.au @Martinevans123 thx to the two users for their aforesaid input; another issue I wish to highlight is that Singapore Airlines had not mentioned any altitude deviation or figures in any of their official communications, so I'm also doubtful over where AP got their information from, and they were likely referring to the intended and controlled descent and not the altitude deviations caused by the turbulence event, on this basis, I will be removing the paragraph: "Singapore Airlines said the aircraft descended 6,000 feet (2,000 m) within three minutes.[2] However, this descent was initiated 15 minutes after the turbulence encounter and was a controlled descent.[18]" but I will leave the source articles alone since they both mention the subsequent diversion and could be referenced in a new section on the misinformation surrounding this accident, especially when the investigation report is published. Bcmh (talk) 07:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Vertical draft

I’m going to mark the vertical draft comment in the article as failed verification as it isn’t in the Straights Times article cited, only the much woolier “air pocket”. Harris (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, part of the problem is that air pocket is a DAB page. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, and the meaning of "air pocket" we're interested in is linked from the dab page to the vertical draft article. But someone (who probably hadn't checked the cited source) pointed out that air pocket was a slang term and we ended up with the current mess. I'd be tempted to revert to "air pocket" with the scare quotes (and probably without the link to vertical draft). Rosbif73 (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

just adding some cents here, air pocket is not a technically and well-defined term, it would be quite challenging to use it in a factual sense as opposed to a table-top conversation, despite it's status as a disambiguation to vertical draft Bcmh (talk) 08:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Clear air turbulence

Was is clear air turbulence? There are a few online sources, e.g. here, here and here, which suggest it was? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

[2] “While details of Singapore Flight 321 are still developing, initial reports seem to indicate clear air turbulence, which is the most dangerous type of turbulence”

[3] One scenario that is impossible to prepare for is when the skies are clear and the plane’s radar does not detect anything amiss. This phenomenon is known as clear air turbulence."

"It’s unclear what happened next with SQ321, but there had been thunderstorms near its flight path. As it was flying over Myanmar, cruising at 37,000 feet above the southern section of the country’s biggest river, the Irrawaddy, it hit what the airline later described as “sudden extreme turbulence.”

While clear-air turbulence is likely what happened, it still cannot be confirmed with absolute certainty. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

So we could reflect that uncertainty more carefully, or just remove the term altogether? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I've just removed all mentions of clear-air turbulence as for now, it seems unconfirmed. While plenty of sources mention clear-air turbulence, they all fall short of actually stating that it was clear-air turbulence. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that many sources mention it, suggested to me that we ought to reflect that and also clarify the status of that conjecture in some way. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines Flight 321

@WWGB. What is the one death comparable to? As you said, "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently". CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 05:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine: The comparable values are 1 and 104, mentioned in the same sentence. Since we are comparing the two values in the same sentence, we can only write "resulting in 1 death and 104 injuries" or "resulting in one death and one hundred and four injuries" (both in numbers or both in words), as described in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Numbers as figures or words. WWGB (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Incident / Accident

I believe we should refer to this as an incident rather than an accident. Plane crashes I would consider an accident. ChickenNoodleSoupIsGood (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

See the explanation in the edit summary here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)