Talk:Aeroflot Flight 1492

Nicoljaus seems insistent upon starting an edit war. Despite the fact that the Moscow Times article does not name the “witness”, Nicoljaus reverts my edits which describe the “witness” as anonymous. He claims the TASS article names the witness. However, TASS (which is owned by the Russian government) is hardly a credible source, much like RT. TASS is known to promote lies and propaganda on the behalf of the Russian government.It is not a reliable source. 174.254.65.64 (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Death count

The death count in the Info Box is unconfirmed. Maybe we should hold off on listing the death toll until its confirmed. Thanks Juneau Mike (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

It is now GW Luxembourg (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Why does that picture say that 46 people died if 41 people died Emojibop17 (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Number of emergency exits on the SSJ-100?

Anybody else think the lack of overwing exits and the small number of emergency exits will be brought up soon? The SSJ100 has only 4 emergency exits: for comparison, the Airbus A318 (and aircraft of the same capacity) has 6, and the E190/E195 also has 6. Think this will come up in the investigation?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

RE exits: I doubt it. The wings were engulfed in fire. You would not have been able to use over wing exits in this case. So the issue is moot. The far more important topic is what will be done to the idiots that delayed the evacuation by retrieving their overhead baggage. It looks like they caused the deaths of those 41 people. Bmused55 (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Talking of the latter, I've reinstated the example which an IP claimed was not from a RS. Although the Metro and Daily Mail are both published by Associated Newspapers, the Metro was not part of the RFC which deemed the Daily Mail not to be reliable. It has a different editorial team and is separate. Mjroots (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rosbif73: who has reverted my reinstatement claiming the source does not say what is claimed. Please state what was said that you don't think is in the source quoted? Mjroots (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The source at [1] makes no mention of the person being in row 10, nor of the number of survivors behind him. (And, incidentally, Metro is also listed on WP:RS/P as Generally unreliable). Rosbif73 (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks like Metro have changed the text since first publishing. Old version not showing up on Wayback Machine. I've generally found Metro to be reliable for news stories. I'll see if something better can be found. Mjroots (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The passage that I deleted read: "It was reported that due to his actions, only three people behind him survived [...]". Do you seriously think that is something that could've been determined, so soon after the accident? It's just pure clickbait nonsense. 213.7.0.172 (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Luggage delaying evacuation

I've seen no reliable reports that indicate passengers carrying luggage delayed the evacuation. Just because you have luggage in hand, who is to say it wasn't under the seat and was grabbed without stepping into the aisle? This is just speculation, so before it goes in the article, it needs a reliable source. 174.0.48.147 (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

"the evacuation of the plane had been delayed by some passengers insisting on collecting their hand luggage first". WWGB (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

“cited an unnamed "informed source"” - obvious fake.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It only said that passengers with luggage have been seen and that there where speculations that they delayed the evacuation. This is fact, many notable sources world wide wrote about it, so there is no reason to delete it, even if reports came to the conclusion that it did not led to delays. --92.72.199.134 (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

And by the way: even grabbing luggage from under the seat delays an evacuation, this is why it counts as a violation of safety rules. --92.72.199.134 (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

BTW 2: The mentioned report of the passenger in newsru.com, that his own baggage fell from the overhead compartment and he only took it with him so it wouldn't obstruct other passengers, is very implausible in general. This might be true for one person but not for more than a dozen. Still this does not mean that it led to the death of anybody, but it could have. --92.72.199.134 (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, the gossip was widely discussed. But Wikipedia policy requires not to spread gossip about living people. "Avoid repeating gossip". I believe this article (in Russian) closes the baggage issue.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons does not apply at all because no specific person is even mentioned. And the TASS article only says that "a source" said that "many" of the victims did not even have a chance to leave their seats. But even if it did not lead to more victims, it still remains a fact that a lot of media sources reported about it. And this is NOT gossip. Passengers leaving with luggage: fact; leaving with luggage generally delays evacuations: fact; reputable media reported about it and speculated it could have increased number of victims: fact. --92.72.192.37 (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

because no specific person is even mentioned - "A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group."--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, this unbased gossip was deleted by two users, me and Alexei Kopylov ([2]). If WWGB does not participate in the discussion, we can assume that the consensus has been established.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

With the possible exception of the final sentence about baggage having fallen from lockers, the disputed section relates to facts that have been widely reported, so we aren't giving them WP:UNDUE weight. The cited sources easily qualify as WP:RS, and in any case there are a host of other equally reliable sources for the same claims. The article doesn't identify any of the passengers, so BLP criteria don't apply. And the article maintains WP:NPOV in that it doesn't draw any conclusions about the effects of these passengers' behaviour. So I agree with WWGB that there's no reason to delete this section. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

As we know, "Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies." Reliable sources published the information that they had at the time of publication. But now "сlaims sourced to initial news reports should be immediately replaced with better-researched ones as soon as they are published, especially if those original reports contained inaccuracies." The used sources discussed information that has not been confirmed, and the articles should not be overburdened with documenting controversy. The fact that some passengers have been evacuated with hand luggage is trivial - it happens all the time. The attention of sources was attracted by the statement that this was the cause of so many victims. Now it is definitely known that this is not the case. And I continue to believe that there is a BLP violation, because a group of persons is identified quite fully.--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Evacuating with bags is *obviously* not 'trivial'. Most accidents don't begin with a flashover - meaning evacuation is not quite so time-critical and people make it out alive whether or not they reach for their bag - which is why this hasn't been given a lot of media attention before. However, we can't really know if it had an impact on survivability in this particular instance (yet), so I went ahead and removed the bit that mentioned it might've led to an increased loss of life - which I assume was the more controversial supposition. 213.7.0.172 (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, it's probably worth mentioning that the way people are gonna approach the hand luggage issue here on Wikipedia is probably going to be coloured by the portrayal of the offending pax in the media and on social media. I think that's where Nicoljaus' disagreement is stemming from really - that we shouldn't fan the (out)raging flames and I can sympathise with that. 213.7.0.172 (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Evacuating with bags is *obviously* not 'trivial'. - You will be surprised. See for example the report for American Airlines Flight 383. Or video like this: [3]. But if you look at the articles, no one is trying to blame people with luggage for injuries that 20 passengers received.--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

But nevertheless, thank you for your edit.--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The report and the video you posted are from the same incident, and the victims had only minor injuries which where not related to the fire. And now look, what for example Wikipedia writes about it (American Airlines Flight 383 (2016)): "The Board also called for research into countermeasures against passengers evacuating with carry-on luggage despite being specifically instructed not to do so by crew." --92.72.192.37 (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC) . And there was discussion about the luggage in the media, some even suggested fines. But the attention was not a high since nobody died or got severely injured. --92.72.192.37 (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I know that report and the video were from the same incident. The other similar cases were Flight 2276 and Flight 521 Thus, passengers who evacuated with hand luggage at the time when the plane burns are not something unusual. However, unlike these cases, all the survivors of Flight 1492 unanimously testify that no one "stopped to get their luggage." The first breaking-news reports, that rushed with victim blaming, have already been refuted by the investigation and "should be immediately replaced with better-researched ones"--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, the report does not suggest that it's trivial. The question is not whether a delay can be incurred by people reaching for their bags (it can); the question is whether there are any documented instances where such a delay had an effect on the outcome of the evacuation (there aren't any). That is not to say that a delay is not potentially lethal, just that it hasn't manifested itself....lethally, yet. 213.7.0.172 (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course, if people take out their backpacks instead of going to the exit, it will slow down the evacuation. However, according to current information, passengers of Flight 1492 did not do this.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

"according to current information, passengers of Flight 1492 did not do this". No, this is wrong! You did not give any source to prove it and news reports are no official statements anyway. It is not (publicly) known but images showing more than a dozen passengers with luggage in their hand suggest something different. You don't seriously want to make people believe that all the luggage fell down and coincidentally everybody grabbed his own and took it just to unblock the aisle. I don't think this discussion leads anywhere, maybe it would be a good idea if an admin kept an eye on the article. --92.72.192.37 (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no verifiable information that the pax either did or did not reach for their bags. 213.7.0.172 (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

If there is no verifiable information that the pax did reach for their bags, discussion of this issue is not the place in the article. Do not spread gossip.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The New York Times is one of the most reputable and respected media outlets in the world. When it writes "radio station, Kommersant FM, reported that some passengers slowed evacuation of the plane by trying to retrieve luggage while people behind them tried to exit the plane. The news agency Interfax reported that as some passengers reached for their bags, others were stuck in the single-aisle, Russian-built plane you can be sure it has been checked and confirmed. It is far from being "gossip". Still not sure, then check this out. There are literally dozens of articles on the Internet, from reliable sources, confirming that pax took luggage with them. To remove any mention of this from the article is just censorship or biassed cleansing. WWGB (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think this essay describes our situation rather well: "If information gained from a reliable source (the "fruit") traces back to an unreliable source (the "tree") then that information is unreliable as well." There is no need to prove that NYT is a reliable source. The problem is that it relies on an anonymous and unconfirmed statement made before reliable information appeared (in the same first reports it was stated that only 13 passengers died).--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Mikhail Savchenko is neither anonymous nor unreliable. He was a passenger on the flight. He observed "people who ran out with bags" and also filmed it.[4] As he said, "God is their judge". WWGB (talk) 10:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Nowhere Savchenko does not claim that these people took out the luggage and thus prevented the exit. He, on the contrary, urged not to condemn these people in response to angry comments under the video.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no doubt that passengers were seen carrying hand luggage – it is attested by reliable sources and can be seen for oneself on videos such as [5]. There is no doubt that this has led to speculation that passengers retrieving their luggage delayed the evacuation. The article does not speculate, it relates the fact that speculation occurred, and given the intensity of this speculation it would be wrong not to include it. The information about bags falling from overhead compartments is arguably less reliable and is the only part to which the poisonous tree essay might apply. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

As I've said earlier, "The fact that some passengers have been evacuated with hand luggage is trivial - it happens all the time. The attention of sources was attracted by the statement that this was the cause of so many victims. Now it is definitely known that this is not the case." This anonymous source of Kommersant and Interfax in the first hours after the accident obviously did not have reliable information (even about the number of the dead). Kommersant mentions that his anonymous sources were representatives of Sheremetyevo Airport, which is a concerned party, as one of the possible culprits of the accidents.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

It might happen all the time, but it definitely isn't trivial – see the cite I just added to the Investigation section. And what references do you have to support your claim that it is definitely known that this is not the case? Rosbif73 (talk) 08:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The cite you just added once again talk about "passengers’ stopping to retrieve cabin luggage during evacuation". Do you have any survivor's testimony that they were detained by such people? We have only unreliable mud-slinging in the first couple of hours after the tragedy for this. I have the following to support my claim: According to TASS's law enforcement source, the majority of passengers in the tail end of the aircraft had practically no chance of rescue, many of them did not even have time to unbutton their seat belts. He added that those passengers from the tail section of the aircraft who managed to escape had moved to the front of the aircraft even before it stopped. The information that evacuation was delayed because some passengers grabbed their baggage have not been confirmed. --"Данные о проблемах с эвакуацией из SSJ-100 из-за ручной клади не подтвердились". TASS (in Russian). 2019-05-11. Retrieved 2019-05-11.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Exactly how the evacuation was affected by the luggage issue is unknown as yet, but that's not the point. The point is that some passengers did retrieve luggage, which has resulted in lots of speculation and raised questions that the investigation will have to consider. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

No, the investigation have closed this issue: The information that evacuation was delayed because some passengers grabbed their baggage have not been confirmed.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, except "not been confirmed" is not the same as "has been disproved". Nothing. Is. Closed. WWGB (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

This is just suit speak, which is characteristic of official communications in Russia. It means that information was taken into account, reviewed and refuted. And why so many emotions?--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh please, now you want us to believe that, in Russia, "not confirmed" means "refuted"? Gimme a break! WWGB (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

No, I say that if you are told by an official in response to your appeal that “the information was not confirmed” this means that you need to stop waiting for something. They so declare that the issue is closed.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

From what I can glean from a google translation of the Russian article, all we have is some anonymous "law enforcement" source saying that passengers in the rear had no chance anyway. That hardly seems definitive. We will probably never know how with any certainty whether more people might have escaped if a few seconds had been gained during the evacuation. But again, that's not the point right now (as far as this article is concerned). The facts as they have been reported to date clearly justify keeping the information, though of course that may change as and when new information is released. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I doubt that the new information will appear because the investigators do not enter into long discussions with anonymous "sources" who obviously knew nothing, not even the number of the dead. Hysteria in social networks is not their practice area.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we are done flogging a dead horse. There is no evidence here to change the article. WWGB (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

For my part, it looks like all your arguments have failed.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rosbif73: I looked through the cite you added, but did not understand who stated that the survivability analysis regarding the luggage issue will be performed. This analysis is mentioned only in the subtitle. It seems that this is the personal opinion of the author of the article.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that survivability analysis is a standard aspect of any accident investigation. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

So, information that the survivability analysis will be in the investigation report is rather trivial? And what's about baggage?--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rosbif73: Regarding the edit [6] - Why the deleted text is "unnecessary"? This is the latest data from investigators.--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

In the cited TASS reference, their source simply "did not find confirmation" of the claim, whereas the witnesses quoted by the other references actively refute the claim. Anyway, as WWGB has pointed out, we're flogging a dead horse here. The text is fine as it is, at least until any new information is revealed by reliable sources. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, let it be "did not find confirmation."--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Strange how in this discussion as well as in Russian media is argued with two contradicting claims: Everybody does it (carrying luggage during evacuation), but the passengers of this Aeroflot flight did not do it. --92.213.9.213 (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is claiming that passengers on this flight did not collect their luggage. Instead, the (equally extraordinary) claim is that this did not slow or hamper the evacuation in any way, contrary to the results of published research on evacuation procedures. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

contrary to the results of published research on evacuation procedures. Well, the published results are: Although the NTSB’s June 2000 safety study found that passengers exiting with carry-on baggage was “the most frequently cited obstruction to evacuation,” the NTSB has not identified any accident evacuations in which delays related to carry-on baggage caused injuries. Also, the NTSB is not aware of any study performed to (1) measure the potential delays associated with passengers retrieving and carrying baggage during an emergency evacuation. Interesting, yes? The most cited obstruction, and there is no evidence of injuries and no research. My opinion is that carriers too often tries to shift responsibility to stupid pax. --Nicoljaus (talk) 07:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

This crash took place outside of the NTSB’s jurisdiction. The NTSB only investigates accidents taking place in the US. What Nicoljaus doesn’t understand is simple logic, which involves the fact that if passengers on the plane took such a long time grabbing their luggage and taking it, which the video clearly shows in regards to the later, than it likely contributed to the death count. The selfish behavior of the passengers is supported by the video and a named eyewitness he calls an “obvious fake”. 174.254.66.216 (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

passengers on the plane took such a long time grabbing their luggage and taking it, which the video clearly shows - Primitive lie, there is no such video. And not a single eyewitness account confirming this.--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The only primative liar here is you, Nicoljaus. See [7]. In case your vision in general is as bad as your reading ability, numerous passengers are leaving the plane with luggage in tow. The named eyewitness was Mikhail Savchenko. And please use news agencies, not just (Russian State owned) TASS and the Moscow Times. 131.118.245.252 (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@ Both of you, please keep the discussion polite and without acquisitions ! kind regards Saschaporsche (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The article said "Speculation that the observed retrieval of luggage caused an evacuation delay was also refuted by witnesses" but this is wrong. The mentioned witnesses in the given sources said only they didn't see it or don't beliebe it, this is not a refutation. --92.72.199.141 (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you have anything to reinforce your confidence? Is there a source that doubts these testimonies?--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you don't know the meaning of the word refute. If somebody is possibly accused of something and says that this is "nonsense" then this is not a refutation. Only official investigations could refute the allegations. --92.213.14.245 (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The testimonies refuted exactly as a testimony can refute.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

As I briefly pointed out in an edit summary, the primary meaning of "refute" is to prove something to be false.[8] Refute has also acquired the secondary meaning of deny (definition 1.2 in that citation), but that secondary meaning is not universally accepted, whereas "disputed" has exactly the meaning we are looking for. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rosbif73: Listen, but the word "deny" you also canceled. If you are satisfied only with the word "dispute", show who disputes. Are there sources that that doubts these testimonies?--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is in a position to "refute" the speculation (at least under the primary meaning of the word "refute"). "Deny" is closer, but carries a slight implication that the witnesses are being personally accused of delaying things. "Disputed" is more WP:NPOV insofar as it removes that implication, i.e. we assume that the speculation is directed at some passengers who are NOT necessarily the witnesses in question. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I see you've changed it again to "rejected". I'm not convinced that this is an improvement, and still feel that "disputed" is very slightly more NPOV, but we're quibbling over very fine nuances here and I won't revert you again on this. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, thanks a lot. My position is that there is no “dispute”, because there is no second side for it, only unnamed "informed source"--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The subject of the verb in question is the speculation which, by definition, doesn't need a "second side". The media were the ones doing the speculating. And it is more NPOV to "dispute" speculation than to "reject" it (which sounds awfully definitive when neither "side" is in a position to prove anything). Rosbif73 (talk) 12:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Can we stop mingling facts with speculation? There is nothing definitive to say about passengers descending the slides with bags either way: it's speculation. The Accident section is about what actually happened. 62.228.84.95 (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Cancelled flights

@Nicoljaus: Does the news article say why Aeroflot cancelled the flights? Was it because of lack of spares (like we've seen with Interjet) or perhaps because of reduced capacity at SVO after the accident (unrelated to the type)? The way that's written would have people believe it's related to the accident - is it actually? 213.7.0.172 (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Aeroflot didn't comment on the reasons for the cancellation of these flights. The cited article provides several opinions on the possible causes but most of mentioned sources associate cancelled flights with the May 5 accident. One of the sources claims that there are fewer cancellations of "Boeing" and "Airbus" flights. In total, Aeroflot has 49 "Superjet" (and 50 canceled flights during the week). Tonight another Superjet was returned to Sheremetyevo after an hour of flight, possibly due to the depressurization of the cockpit (see [9])--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Pending changes

I don't understand why this article now requires autoconfirmed to make changes - perhaps someone can enlighten me? Have IPs been adding 'unsourced or poorly sourced material'? It doesn't seem that way to me. 213.7.0.172 (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I will enlighten you.

The reason I have requested this article to be protected is that there were a lot of changes made by unregistered users. The subject of the article is very recent and will be seen by many people. A lot of unsourced claims were made which is not acceptable at the moment.Thomas Westerlaken (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the changes made from 10 May onwards, most IP edits were made by me and I am quite certain I did not introduce any unsourced claims. Another IP restored half a sentence with a source and a third IP corrected a typo. In five days. So, I ask again, how is protecting the article justified? 213.7.0.172 (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Thomas Westerlaken: Still waiting for an answer. 213.7.0.172 (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I admit that you have a good point, I however still think it is better to keep the article protected for the time being, You can still edit it but changes have to be reviewed. In the meantime I would like to invite you to sign up to become a registered editor for Wikipedia. Please do consider registering as we can use the help of active users like you a lot Thomas Westerlaken (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Thomas Westerlaken, one week later, I don't see any signs that pending changes protection is still warranted, especially not until November. Could you (or the original protecting editor El C) consider reviewing this decision? Rosbif73 (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Thomas Westerlaken I find your attitude disturbing. There intentionally is no requirement to login to WP in order to be able to edit. That decision has been made by the community and the controlling body. It is not OK if you on your own deside that IPs should not be able to edit a page related to a current event. I, for instance, intentionally do not register although I try to contribute. But I do so as an IP because I do not want to be tracked, everybody to be able to follow my trace for instance to troll me or judge me or whatever. Doesn't mean that as an IP I'm a lesser contributor than somebody with a login (imho). So I think you should only block people if you have actual evidence of wrongdoing. JB. --92.195.54.253 (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@El C Reading back trough what I've said I now see that I was quite rude and not giving in while I really should have. I'm sorry and I agree that my attitude was indeed disturbing. I'm a fears believer of the good intentions of others and will act on that from now on. Thomas Westerlaken (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Wow, Kudos ! JB. --92.193.241.159 (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes lifted. El_C 13:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@El C: hello, could you please return the restrictions? Here seems to be a start of disruptive anonymous editing: [10], [11], and some earlier.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2019

Nicoljaus seems insistent upon starting an edit war. Despite the fact that the Moscow Times article does not name the “witness”, Nicoljaus reverts my edits which describe the “witness” as anonymous. He claims the TASS article names the witness. However, TASS (which is owned by the Russian government) is hardly a credible source, much like RT. TASS is known to promote lies and propaganda on the behalf of the Russian government.It is not a reliable source. Thank you very much. 2601:143:4200:E070:CD24:9F2D:3965:461A (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

See the refs at the end of the sentence: See also the link from the Moscow Times article: [12]. All witnesses are named there. Use online-translators if you needs. El_C, I think you should do the same thing, and then remove the obvious disinformation and return the remote source, canceling this edit: [13]--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

That was not the Moscow Times article you used in the Aftermath section. 2601:143:4200:E070:3D7F:2EF2:75DE:FCDF (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe take the matter to the Reliable sources noticeboard...? El_C 13:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I will not stop an anonymous user from doing this. But I don’t understand why I suddenly have to go and prove the reliability of the three sources that were in the article for half a year.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

It doesn’t appear to be a Moscow Times article at all. It’s a website called Kompravda. And the “witness” doesn’t say that he knows for sure that luggage didn’t delay the evacuation, he claims that only people in business class had luggage. It doesn’t rule out the possibility that luggage delayed the evacuation. 2601:143:4200:E070:90DB:A933:1415:E5C (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Moscow Times article gave a link to "Kompravda", when they mentioned a witness, and Moscow Times don't say it was "anonymous".--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@El C and DeltaQuad: I look into the contribution and I think this is a IP-sock of Themanhascome, who is the sock of UkrainianSavior who is the sock of Umertan-Nicoljaus (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Oops, DeltaQuad is inactive now. Therefore, I am waiting for your response before reporting this case to a wider discussion.--Nicoljaus (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Discuss the case in a civilized manner instead of making accusations and complaining. 2601:143:4200:E070:453D:A7B5:607:4583 (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC) You are mistaken with your accusations. Also, the Kompravda article does not refute the fact that passengers taking their luggage contributed to a delay. The witness in the article merely states that he thought only business class passengers had luggage. And if the Kompravda article named the witness, you should have listed it as a source in the aftermath section. Instead, you cited a source that had a link to the source you are referring to now, not the source itself that you are referring to. (The Kompravda website.) 2601:143:4200:E070:D088:3442:F0A9:CD6B (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Relevance of cancellations and divestments

I'm not convinced that Yamal Airlines' decision to cancel its order, and even more so Interjet's decision to sell its SSJs, are in any way related to this crash. Thoughts? Rosbif73 (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Do the sources make a connection? --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Nothing in the sources suggests a connection with the crash. WWGB (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

There are the big bold letters "After Fatal Crash Landing"--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Those "big bold letters" for the Yamal cancellation point out the timing but do not directly make a link between the two events. The reference for Interjet doesn't mention the crash at all. Both are now mentioned in the SSJ100 article, but I'm not convinced they belong here too. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think the connection is much more direct than between luggage and the death of people. Less than two weeks after the disaster, and the largest operators (after Airflot) intensified there efforts to reduce the fleet of such aircraft. However, now this article gives only timing and no conclusions.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

IMvHO, this is more relevant to the article on the aircraft. Mjroots (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The landing

New video has emerged of the landing. Not pre-empting the investigation, but this looks to me like pilot-induced oscillation. Obviously it would be straying into the realms of WP:OR to say this, but if a reliable source says it, we can quote the source. Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

This was brought up by Leeham News about a week ago. 213.7.0.172 (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Before you write something please take into account that shortly before the landing the wind shear warning came on repeatedly. Since the aircraft was overweight and on Direct Law an additional wind shear and the fact that the spoilers were armed but could not auto-deploy in Direct Law we have a situation that probably goes beyond a simple pilot-induced oscillation although I also see it as a part of the picture. If you want you can add the possible attempted go-around which was hampered by the half-deployed reversers ... all in all I would say, let the commission come to a conclusion. What I'm missing is a discussion of the deployment of the services, but that's another topic entirely. Actually I'm impressed that the plane survived the first couple of jumps while overweighed. JB. --92.195.54.253 (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Currency conversion

Are we serious with repeatedly reinstating the currency conversion with 2018 rates? Why would the conversion need to be updated 'dynamically'? We only care what the equivalent US$ was on this date - not in 2018 nor twenty years into the future. 213.7.0.172 (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Three or Four?

How many touchdowns were there? In this video], I clearly see four touches, in The Moscow Times source there are also four of them. The first touch (10 s on the video above) was on two points, it was soft, the head of the aircraft was slightly raised up. But he jumped and then there were three much more hard touchdowns. However, a number of sources do not mention the first soft touchdown, and then the last touch is not the fourth, but the third one. --Nicoljaus (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not our job to analyse the video; Rosaviatsia says there were 3. (But to answer your question, I presume they floated the first time where it looks like they actually touched down. There might have even been ground contact, but if there's not sufficient 'weight on wheels', the aircraft will remain in flight mode and it's not gonna register on the FDR.) 213.7.0.172 (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree in principle. I think it would be better to remove the direct statement about the "three" or "four" touchdowns. Let it be "a few touchdowns".--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Should we omit a finding of the investigation 'cause it doesn't look right to you? 213.7.0.172 (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

No, the investigation to date has not drawn any conclusions, even the analysis of the black boxes has not yet been completed, although they have been deciphered.--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I have to admit I find this arrangement where the MAK reports to Rosaviatsia and Rosaviatsia reports to the public rather peculiar; but why should we omit the number when the investigation committee included it in their summary? It makes no sense at all. 213.7.0.172 (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

What kind of " summary" are you talking about?--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

[14]. 213.7.0.172 (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh,I thought you mean that the Investigative Committee of Russia had made some kind of summary. Summary of IAC, as you yourself rightly said, does not consider the question of whether the first (soft) touchdown was, because it was not registered on the FDR.--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

That's not what I said. 213.7.0.172 (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Media misunderstanding

@213.7.0.172: About this revert: This was not "the media’s every misunderstanding". Here the reaction of Aeroflot and its position on the pilots' behavior are more important.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I suppose that's true; I moved it down to 'Aftermath'. 213.7.0.172 (talk) 10:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

"Three-point touchdown

@62.228.84.95: About this revert: Please, send your claims to Simon Hradecky and David Kaminski-Morrow. Or offer your own, better translation. No need for blank reverts and edit warring.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

FlightGlobal talks of a 'three-point contact with the runway' which makes a tiny teensy bit more sense. This phrasing is just awkward - why insist on it? The aircraft touched down 3 times, it didn't make a '3-point touchdown'. You need to explain what it is you disagree with if we're gonna be able to resolve this. Simon's first language is German, by the way. (Also, for the record, I'm IP 213 from before - my IP rolled over.) 62.228.84.95 (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

You didn't understand at all. "Three-point contact" is a contact with three points - two rear wheels and one front wheel.--Nicoljaus (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

If that is what they really meant a better way to formulate it would be that the aircraft made contact with both the nose gear and main landing gear. 62.228.84.95 (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Listen, the original bulletin used this wording. In the secondary sources - the same. Please find your secondary source in which this moment is formulated as you like and add it to the article. And no need to reverts.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh thank you, I was worried I wasn't gonna get my daily dose of a condescending tone. Contributing to Wikipedia is always such a blast. 62.228.84.95 (talk)

Just read the sources carefully, instead of starting a conflict because of your misunderstanding, and everything will be fine.--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I suppose you should revert that section to its pre-misunderstood state and I apologise for thinking editing this article was worth my time. 62.228.84.95 (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

 Closed Enough--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

[15]

Okay? I just wrote the same thing in plainer English. 62.228.153.245 (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

It would be better to clarify the wording. The reverse began to activate after the second touch, although the reverser doors were fully open after the second bouncing. Because of this, it was not possible to increase the engine thrust and to perform the go-around - the reverser doors did not have time to close. In your version the cause-effect relation was lost.--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this cause-and-effect relationship can be found in the English version of the text: ... This actions may be interpreted as an attempt to perform the go-around, as before that the thrust reverser system was engaged (the reverser doors were in the open position, though starting to close), the engine thrust did not increase. This sentence is a bit of a jumble, I have to be honest. Is the implication that a thrust increase was prevented by the reverser door logic? 62.228.153.245 (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, the Russian text is more understandable to me and I would translate it differently. Yes, if the reverser doors do not open, the engine power will remain IDLE. Your latest version is good.--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

[16] - why did you also revert the flight level edit? 62.228.153.245 (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• At 15:07:34, the Approach controller instructed the crew to climb to FL 100
• At 15:07:43, the "LATERAL NAVIGATION" / "LNAV" mode was engaged again
• At 15:08:03, the Approach controller instructed the crew to climb to FL 110.
• So, in my opinion, they reached level 100 before the lightning strike.--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Note the times:

At 15:08:03, the Approach controller instructed the crew to climb to FL 110. When the FO confirmed receiving the instruction, recorded by the CVR, the sound effect lasting for 1.5 seconds, starting from 15:08:09.7, was recorded. Most probably, at this stage, an atmospheric electricity impact affected the aircraft. 3 seconds prior, the FDR started to record the single commands, indicating the engagement of the permanent ignition on the both engines.

At 15:08:11.9, the disengagement of the autopilot occurred, accompanied by the

corresponding aural alert and the switching of the automatic flight control system into the "DIRECT MODE" (see Section 1.18.% of the present Report) with the audio alert "DIRECT MODE. DIRECT MODE". After the sound effect, simultaneously with the autopilot disengagement, the emotional exclamation of one of the crew members was recorded: "Wow!". The auto throttle continued to be engaged. The aircraft was in 20° right roll, crossing FL 89 (2700 m) in climb.

At 15:08:10, the a/c was hit by lightning. At 15:08:11, the a/p dc'ed and the pilot exclaimed 'wow'. At that point in time, the a/c was in a 20-degree bank (I assume they mean bank - not roll) crossing FL 089, climbing. Does the (original) Russian version put this differently? 62.228.153.245 (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The report does not say that at 15:08:11 the plane crossed the FL 089, you are mistaken. Look again:

• At 15:07:34, the Approach controller instructed the crew to climb to FL 100
• At 15:07:43, the "LATERAL NAVIGATION" / "LNAV" mode was engaged again

Do you know what the LNAV is?--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I know what LNAV is, how is it relevant? 62.228.153.245 (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Because LNAV turned on when the target height was reached, i.e. level 100.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the SSJ's avionics but I don't see why LNAV would engage upon reaching a certain altitude. The a/c leveled off at 6000 ft at 15:06:30 and didn't begin to climb again until 15:06:57 (p. 11) - to reach 10k at 15:07:43 it would need to have climbed with a vertical speed of 4k+ feet/min - while in a turn! In the same paragraph, it says that a v/s of 938 feet/min was selected, which remained active until 15:07:21 (p.12). Therefore it couldn't have been above 6,500 feet at 15:07:21. 62.228.153.245 (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, I made a stupid mistake. Found this place in the Report: "The auto throttle continued to be engaged. The aircraft was in 20° right roll, crossing FL 89' (2700 m) in climb."'--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Compliance of the landing gear design to the airworthiness requirements

It is clearly stated in the footnote 17 on the page 90 of the Report (English version) that: " This section is given in compliance with the materials provided by the aircraft designer". Not "the analysis given in this section has been conducted in compliance...". I. e. it is clearly stated in the report that the section contains the opinion of the aircraft's manufacturer, not of the investigators. Эйхер (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

What does the Russian version say? 62.228.153.245 (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

"Настоящий раздел приведен в соответствии с материалами, представленными разработчиком самолета.

Комиссия продолжает работы по анализу данного вопроса" (footnote 18 p. 100 of the Russian version) - the same (perhaps even more clearly). Эйхер (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Double Negative

Let me comment on the last sentence before "Interim Report". Although "sic" only means something like "as seen in the original" this failed translation can easily be seen as a dumb expression by the IAC. However, as you can see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative#Slavic_languages

"In Slavic languages [], multiple negatives are grammatically correct ways to express negation, and a single negative is often incorrect."

In my opinion what we currently have is simply a very poor translation. A proper translation would preserve the sense but in correct English, canceling out the double negative. I speak some Slavic languages and can confirm that it's the sense of the statement. JB. --92.195.54.253 (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)