Template:Did you know nominations/Aeroflot Flight 6709
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Aeroflot Flight 6709
- ...
that all three engines on Aeroflot Flight 6709 stopped after the flight engineer accidentally turned off the fuel pump?Source: "...flight engineer accidentally disconnected the automatic transferring of fuel" 1- ALT1:...
that all three engines on Aeroflot Flight 6709 stopped after a pilot accidentally turned off the fuel pump?Source: "...flight engineer accidentally disconnected the automatic transferring of fuel" 1
- ALT1:...
Created by AviationFreak (talk). Self-nominated at 12:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC).
The article is new and long enough, and there are no obvious copyvios, and the hook is cited as given. However, I'm not convinced that any of the sources in the article are reliable. I'm not going to nominate it for deletion as I haven't checked other sources, but I can't see how this is a genuinely notable event. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- This is a common thing with articles about aviation incidents in the USSR (See Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in the Soviet Union). Due to censorship, there are generally very few sources mentioning a given aviation incident. The guideline at the Soviet Aviation Task Force (which I'm aware is not an official WP:SNG) describes this. I didn't see this mentioned in DYK Rule 4, but if the article isn't eligible for DYK due to this I understand. AviationFreak💬 19:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- ? - Interesting: - ?
- Other problems: - ?
| QPQ: None required. |
Overall: 
This review is offered as a second opinion (especially on sources), as requested above. The above review is fine, but I covered the ground again to familiarise myself with the situation. There are currently only three sources: two in English from the West, and one in Russian (which google-translates clearly and accurately in my opinion). The two western sources are based on the Russian one, so we must first look at that one for reliability, then look at whether we can rely on the Western interpretations of that.
The Russian source (airdisaster.ru). I believe that this is reliable and neutral because it is detailed and factual, the information appears to be as complete as we're going to get, and it does not appear to jump to unsupported conclusions. The following is what I understand from the Russian text (I have included context and explanation).
The Tu 154 would be seen now as a very old-fashioned aeroplane, with two pilots and a flight engineer (FE). Nowadays (last 40 years in the West) we don't need a flight engineer as aircraft systems are sufficiently automated. The fuel system of the Tu 154 is rather bizarrely designed, in that the main fuel tanks feed to a "supply tank", which then feeds the 3 engines. This is incredibly stupid and dangerous as it means a single failure can result in the loss of all three engines. (As a contrast, for example in current A320's both engines are running completely separate fuel systems, and also all 6 fuel pumps can fail and we can still get fuel flow via a gravity feeding process). So either the FE turned off the automatic system, or a momentary electrical spike/failure of the switch turned it off. Either way, the FE should still have been monitoring both the fuel state and the transfer of fuel from the tanks. He was however not given the final warning that there was no fuel being pumped into the supply tank, as the red warning bulb wasn't working. So you can't say for certain that the FE turned off the automatic system, but either way he wasn't monitoring and operating the fuel system correctly. (Current context as I see it: Russia was known in the past for poor aviation safety, however they have started using Western-built aircraft in recent years which has improved things on the technical side. A major part of safety however is training and crew competency.)
The Western sources. In the light of the Russian source, I believe that the Western sources have made two and two equal five by saying that for sure the FE turned off the fuel. The Russian information shows some doubt about whether he put out his hand and knowingly pulled the off switch. It does reveal that he must have been at least partially at fault for not monitoring the fuel properly, even though the red warning bulb misled him. I would guess that he was not a criminal or drunken fool, etc., but was very likely a victim of poor or inadequate recruitment and training - oh yes and a rubbish aeroplane.
My conclusion is that the article can certainly use the Russian source and rely on it for facts. It can still use the Western sources, but the text should clearly say that the Western sources say that the FE turned off the fuel, and it should also say that there is no clear evidence that he actually did that.
The Russian source puts ALT0 and ALT1 in doubt. Therefore we need a new ALT which fits the information that we have. We have clear information about the design of the plane, but less clear information about what the crew did. We know about the fatalities. So maybe we could have an ALT2 about the aircraft design, the fact that the plane crashed, the fatalities, or a mix of those?
One more thing. I don't know about you, but I'm very sad for the people who died and their families. For that reason I think a note about the fatality numbers should be added to the header, to clarify that they are not forgotten. Storye book (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- @AviationFreak: Please see the above new review? Thanks. Storye book (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Storye book: Thank you for this outstanding and in-depth review. I have made the suggested changes to the article. My suggestions for hooks would be
- ALT2 ... that as a result of poor aircraft design, all three engines on Aeroflot Flight 6709 stopped simultaneously?
- ALT3 ... that all three engines on Aeroflot Flight 6709 stopped at the same time, resulting in a deadly crash?
- I've added info supporting these claims to the article with citations. Interestingly, the Russian article states that the FE was arrested and that the shutoff was part of a training exercise, but I can't find any source for that. As far as the fatalities, I agree that this was a tragic event that didn't need to happen. The Russian source has more information about the fatalities, but it's pretty gruesome and I won't go into it here. AviationFreak💬 20:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
for ALTs 2 and 3. Good to go. Thank you for your reply and your article updates, AviationFreak. I think that it is now safe for the article to go forward even though it only has one reliable source. It is a good source, it's all we can get at the moment, better sources may come along one day, and you have used it with discretion. The article contains no accusations against the crew, which is good, considering that they or their close relatives may still be alive, their landing skills did actually save 120 lives, and they must have been absolutely terrified. You might like to look again at "Some of these attempts worked, but they did not supply enough power." The word, "they" is ambiguous; it could mean the attempts or it could mean the crew. I'm guessing you mean the attempts; if so I suggest that you remove the word, "they", and that will clarify things. We need articles like this, and I look forward to seeing more of them. Storye book (talk) 11:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
