Talk:Turkish Airlines Flight 6491/Archive 1

Archive 1

Concern retracted: Is the aircraft a 747-400 series, or a 747-100 or 747-200 series?

The aircraft in the first image looks like a 747-100 or 747-200 series to me rather than a 747-400 series, which I believe has a longer upper deck. I'm not certain though - I don't have a confirmation yet. Is there a possibility of misidentification related to either the image or the aircraft's identification? --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I retract my concern. Several 747-412F aircraft as illustrated at http://www.JetPhotos.net/showphotos.php?aircraft=Boeing+747-412F%28SCD%29 seem identical in appearance. So evidently the Boeing 747-412F, a freighter, has a shorter upper deck than 747-400 passenger variants. Sorry for my distraction! --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 05:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

You can see the registration TC-MCL in the picture and check it against public databases, it's a 747-412F. - Toothswung (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Another giveaway that it's a 400 series freighter and not a 100 or 200 series are the winglets. Only the 400 series in all the photos I searched through online had winglets. But the short upper deck sure makes it look like a 100 series! 2600:8800:50B:6700:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Name of village

What's the official name of the "village" if there is one? Google lists it as "дачa СУ" (Dachi SU), which means "dacha of the construction administration" (строительное управление in Russian). Some of the Kyrgyz press report it as Дача СУ as well, e.g. here. Other Kyrgyz news reports list it as "Дача-Суу", which is half Russian, half Kyrgyz - "суу" means "water" and there are a lot of place names in something-суу , but then the something is always in Kyrgyz. I would suggest we stick to "Dacha SU" for the time being, unless someone can find "Dacha-Suu" on a map. -- Toothswung (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It's also not really so much a village as a residential area next to the airport; it started out as an area of summer cottages (dacha), and gradually people began to live in them full-time - many of the residents are airport personnel. - Toothswung (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this source says: "The affected dacha community has 340 houses and people live permanently in 190 of them. Dacha SU has 10 streets." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Turkish Airlines or not Turkish Airlines

it is not a turkish airlines flight. 95.0.108.81 (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It was operating under a TK callsign; so for all intents and purposes it's a Turkish Airlines flight, even if it's under wet lease with the plane and crew of some other operator. - Toothswung (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• As written in here, several airline firms share callsigns: ...is an aviation business arrangement where two or more airlines share the same flight. According to THY, the aircraft belongs to ACT: [1] (not on lease). THY doesn't have any responsibility for ACT crew's trainings or ACT aircrafts' maintenance. If this crash is due to A/C technical inadequacy or pilot error, then THY has no responsibility I guess. Yes, the kargo load belongs to THY, but using a subcontractors is a business model that many companies use today. --Joseph (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Apparently "wet lease" applies here? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• This makes sense, I guess. --Joseph (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a suggestion! I think perhaps the denial via Twitter needs to be mentioned in the article, at least? Legal responsibility is quite an important issue. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

BBC is calling it "A Turkish cargo plane ... operated by ACT Airlines";[2] unless anyone has good sources that it is a Turkish Airlines plane, I think we should move the article. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it was a Turkish Airlines plane or not. The flight was operated as a Turkish Airlines flight, hence the article's name. See wikipedia naming conventions regarding aircraft accidents.91.47.241.177 (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a link for those convention? I thought the operator was ACT Airlines? That's what multiple RS sources say. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk)

Could you clarify what is intended by that term "Operator" in the infobox - the infobox template doesn't give much guidance. And how does this relate to "the book IATA rule"? Just looking for consistency here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with legal responsibility, more with trying to avoid bad PR. Still I added a reference to this. - Toothswung (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I see. Who would pay any compensation? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

According to Turkish Airlines, it was a Turkish Airlines flight that however the Austrian press should not associate with Turkish Airlines. [3] --Con^structor 07:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted the change of operator in the infobox from ACT to Turkish Airlines, as above it was a Turkish Airlines flight but the operator was ACT under a wet lease, although responsible for the flight and using THY flight number (so they picked up up the bill from air traffic) the aircraft would not have been on the Turkish AOC. So the intro and article title correctly calls it a Turkish Airlines flight the operator (of the aircraft) for the sake of the infobox was ACT. MilborneOne (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Compare to Atlasjet Flight 4203, also an accident involving a wet-leased plane, where the infobox lists the operator of the flight number, not the operator of the plane. - Toothswung (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively, I suggest listing both airlines, as in Air France Flight 422 or Nigeria Airways Flight 2120, so in the infobox we should write something like "ACT Airlines on behalf of Turkish Airlines". - Toothswung (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

That would be OK MilborneOne (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@MilborneOne and Toothswung: I think we need to change table as on SFN as "Operator" row causing confusion

On SFN there are two rows please see > https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20170116-0

We need to change "Operator" to "Operating for" & add another row "Leased from" for those accidents involving leased aircraft.

Therefore my suggestion is as below.

Operating for :Turkish Airlines
Leased from : :MyCargo Airlines

What do you reckon?

CaptainMega (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that you can't just add a row, it's an infobox template (Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence). You could take the issue to the talk page there and suggest to change the template. In the meantime, I think the solution implemented by @MilborneOne ("Airline 1 on behalf of Airline 2") is fine, it's in use on a number of other pages as well. - Toothswung (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Toothswung: Thanks, created new section under Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence CaptainMega (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Local (conspiracy) theories about the crash

Just in case anyone is interested, now some Kyrgyz media outlets are claiming that Kyrgyz authorities usually smuggle goods with the help of such flights and that the actual reason for Turkish Airlines Flight 6491's stopover at Manas was to unload some consumer electronics. They claim that the Boeing could have easily made it to Istanbul without refueling in Bishkek. They also claim that aviation fuel is much cheaper in Astana, Kazakhstan, which is very close to Bishkek. For those who speak Russian, you can read about such claims here and here. I don't know if this should be mentioned in the article, but such claims do seem to be gaining strength here in Kyrgyzstan. Nataev ^talk 09:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I've been thinking about adding it myself - also the discontent with president Atambaev, who didn't show up at the crash site and didn't appear saying much either. My gut feeling is that it might be a bit too early to add these things, because all these theories are still developing and evolving, as Kyrgyz politicians try to assert media presence and position themselves. The range theory is at least an open question; the 747-400F has a lower range than the non-freight versions (see this presentation by Boeing, page 2), but I don't expect the Kyrgyz press to bother too much about the details. - Toothswung (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

None of it if true appears to be relevant to the accident so perhaps best left to the tabloids for now. MilborneOne (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Not directly relevant, no. But if the only reason the aircraft landed was for some illicit purpose, then obviously it could and should have been wholly avoided. I expect the local Kyrgyz people are angry that so many ordinary people on the ground were killed. It seems the housing was literally next to the airport perimeter fence, at the end of the runway. The proximity is obvious from the plan diagram, but is not really brought out in the text. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The flight has been operating for a number of years so the stop-over was not unusual or different then had been done many times before. So perhaps we can ignore these mainly non-relevant to the accident claims and wait for the official report. MilborneOne (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I cannot disagree. I'm not sure the accident report will produce any recommendations about the safe distance for housing. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

See also section

Doesn't even contain the two worst accidents for ground fatalities - 88 and 74 - the second of which was also the worst aviation accident in history at the time it happened. In all fairness the 88 ground fatalities crash doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. IMHO the SA section of this article is a example of WP:Recentism....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

If it's just for numbers, then the 1996 Air Africa crash was several times worse than both of your incidents (but I'm curious what cases you had in mind). But to be honest I don't think it makes sense at all to have a See Also section that is just a list of crashes with ground fatalities. At least they should be somehow related to the incident in question (by cause, plac,e ...). But the investigation isn't even over yet, too early really to say much. - Toothswung (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Not in citation given

The preliminary report does say it captured a 9 degree glideslope while the real glideslope is 3 degrees, therefore the 9 degree one is a false glideslope - page 10 paragraph 9. With regard to not climbing out safely I don't site a reference, it is an obvious and necessary observation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:281:C300:1676:E953:271C:2D45:76FC (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)