Talk:EgyptAir Flight 804/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Guardian refs

@Geogene:, the Guardian references you consolidated were to different entries in the live feed. They need to be separated out again to their proper individual URLs. Concrete Cloverleaf (talk) 06:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Concrete Cloverleaf: I think it would be better to use only one URL for all of them. The reflist will become unwieldy soon. Those few who want to check the references will basically end up looking at the same source many times. Also it makes the article look like it draws info from so many sources while in fact there are only few. WikiHannibal (talk) 08:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@WikiHannibal: The Guardian's live feed stretches over several pages at this point. It's not really fair on readers to make them dig through all the posts looking for the relevant one when we can link them straight to the relevant one for each claim. Concrete Cloverleaf (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Other incidents

I've tagged this as unreferenced, but do we really need it? Until cause is known or even strongly suspected, we don't know which other losses have parallels to this one. I need to be AFK for a couple of hours, so if any other editor agrees that the section can go, please nuke it. Mjroots (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Nonsense to speculate about parallel accidents at this early stage of the investigation. That may be tabloid journalist policy, but it certainly shouldn't be ours.EditorASC (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Egyptian airspace

Apparently, it wasn't in Egyptian airspace because they've all got it wrong and 'airspace' is the wrong designation somehow and we can't have 'FIR' either because they say 'airspace'. This is some next-level Catch-22 nonsense. 93.109.2.70 (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Does a Wiki in-line link to FIR help in the meantime? I added it in until maybe another source/ref becomes available. Obawan 12:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obawan (talk • contribs)

The last paragraph of the lead mentions that it was inside the Egyptian FIR. We don't need to say it twice. Firebrace (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The point is to give some approximation of the location of the incident. I've taken another shot at it. 93.109.2.70 (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to the last paragraph of the lead. --Obawan (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

As with all countries, Egyptian airspace extends to one of a country's land border, or 12 nautical miles (22 km) off the coast. This is not to be confused with an area covered by a Flight Information Region, which can extend much further of the coast, but into international airspace. Mjroots (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

This makes reference to ATS airspace and not national airspace. National airspace is of little relevance to navigation. 93.109.2.70 (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

west of crete ?

It is currently stated that wreckage has been reportedly sighted west of Crete. All other media I have seen said the wreckage was south of Karpathos and south-east of Crete. Not west of Crete.Lathamibird (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

That is what the source referencing the info states. Mjroots (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Latest news place debris near Karpathos so I've removed the sentence about debris way out west of Crete. In any case, that bit of info was at odds with everything else known about the crash. Pichpich (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Route flight number changing

News from Airlineroute: Egyptair has changed the flight number of this route from MS803/804 to MS801/802: https://twitter.com/Airlineroute/status/733347192228843520

They haven't put the statement on the website yet.--TerrainAhead^{Pull Up!} 19:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Destination arrival time

@Mjroots: why does the time of its scheduled arrival matter? That has no relevance to the disappearance, and the point is not to collect trivia. Geogene (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, it is valid info, but I'm easy as to whether or not it is included. What I strongly object to is the removal of article structure, as I have detailed on your talk page. Mjroots (talk) 04:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with structuring a tiny article, but I'm not strongly against it. If you don't mind, I'm going to cull the arrival time--I just don't see the connection. Geogene (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Concrete Cloverleaf: why? Do you think there's some kind of numerological significance to the arrival time? I have a pet peeve about some transportation articles where people wind up throwing every piece of trivia they can find about it. Geogene (talk) 04:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The idea of adding structure is that it gives editors a better idea of where to add information, and also makes a better article for readers. Mjroots (talk) 04:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Geogene (talk) 04:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Could be useful information for future readers trying to understand the timeline of events. No harm in having it. Concrete Cloverleaf (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not finding that convincing at all. Geogene (talk) 04:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd say it would be important if the flight was only known to be missing because it didn't arrive on time other than that it doesn't really make a difference at least in my opinion. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 05:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

If it is a fact, why can't it be included? 164.215.0.189 (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Neither do I it doesn't make sense I did this (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Nationality table

Can we please reference the number of victims of each nationality? This version of the article had a fair few references in the table, but they seem to have disappeared. Mjroots (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

What I see here includes passenger count (we don't yet know victims) by nationality. Do you see the table in a frame on the right-hand side of the page? General Ization ^Talk 21:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Why should they be referenced individually when there is one source for (almost) all of them? Firebrace (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Title

Shouldn't this be MS804? That's the nomenclature. kencf0618 (talk) 03:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

That was what the most sources were calling it when I created the MS804 article. I still think I'm right, but I also think that's going to get shortened to Flight 804 pretty soon. What's important though is that we're all editing the same page and not tripping over each other. Geogene (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The article is at it correct title per the naming convention for aircrash articles. A redirect from MS804 may be created though. Mjroots (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry that I redirected EgyptAir Flight MS804 to EgyptAir Flight 804 at 03:35, 19 May 2016 without discussion. --Neo-Jay (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I'm so used to thinking "(Malaysia Airlines Flight) #MH370," yet created Flight 804 on the fly, but that directs here so it's all good. kencf0618 (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The article is at the correct title (EgyptAir Flight 804), according to the naming convention for aviation accidents/crashes (WP:AVINAME). MS/MSR are the IATA/ICAO abbreviations for Egyptair, so MS804/MSR804 are just abbreviations for "EgyptAir Flight 804". AHeneen (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Missing vs Crashed

Wow are you guys serious? No parts of this plane have been found but we've labeled it "crashed" and the persons "missing." Yet every time I edit MH370 to show "crashed" instead of "missing" I get a scolding and people immediately change it from "crashed" to "missing" , and MH370 has already had pieces of wreckage discovered on Reunion Island and Madagascar. I love the two-faced ness of Wikipedia aviation experts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.8.49.109 (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't all editors have to reflect what the sources say? Why not create an account, and then we could all love you back? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

MH370 is still "missing" because the aircraft itself has not been found yet. Yes, pieces have been found, but this is similar to finding your cars bumper and license plate, but not knowing where the car itself is. Finding parts does not definitively point to a cause, even though the finding of said parts makes a certain cause more likely. Juneau Mike (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Uh, yeah genious, this airplane has NOT been found yet either! But the official wording is already "crashed." So why does this get a pass? Isn't this still missing, by definition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.8.49.109 (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines call on editors to be polite, and welcoming. "Uh, yeah (genius)" is neither. Please try to do better. Thanks. Juneau Mike (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

There are very many reliable sources saying that it's crashed? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Among other differences between MH370 and this flight, an aircraft that is tracked making the kind of extreme altitude changes and maneuvers that MS804 is reliably sourced and officially verified as having made immediately before loss of radar contact cannot be reasonably assumed to have done anything but crash, whereas an aircraft that simply disappears from radar flying at its assigned altitude and airspeed and (though off its plan) in a straight-line flight path cannot. General Ization ^Talk 16:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Really General Ization? You're using your own "assumption" that 804 must have crashed because of making extreme altitude changes and maneuvers? And not MH370? First of all, wiki doesn't go based on your assumptions. Second, MH370 also made altitude and course changes. And seriously... you're saying one can crash, but the other one that flew off course could not reasonably have.... crashed? Okay, you're either trolling or an idiot. Please do tell, if MH370 did NOT crash, what did it do? Land in the Ocean? Where's your citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.8.49.109 (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, and with all due respect, please watch your tone. We are all collaborators here, not adversaries. Thanks. Juneau Mike (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

"either trolling or an idiot" - this is like your "landed or crashed" again, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

My comment was largely intended to explain to you why reliable sources are already describing MS804 as having crashed, whereas they are not doing so for MH370. In order for Wikipedia to use language different from that used by reliable sources concerning MH370, there must be consensus to do so, and there is no such consensus at this point, whatever assumptions you may wish to make about MH370's fate. General Ization ^Talk 17:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Please can we confine discussion on this talk page to EgyptAir Flight 804 and keep MH370 chatter at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370? Mjroots (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. My most recent comment was about the tone used here. But your point is well taken, mi amigo! :) Juneau Mike (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Consensus though isn't based on aerodynamics and gravity. Any airplane that takes off must eventually come down. Either with fuel in a controlled manner (which we are all accustomed to), or run out of fuel and glide down to a landing, or crash. There could be many other reasons, like bomb, incapacitation, etc.... but NONE change the fact that these planes, both Egypt 804 and MH370 crashed. They did not make it to their intended destination, and they sure as heck are not flying right now. Have fun with your consensus. No wonder wiki has gone down the drain the last couple years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.8.49.109 (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Phew! ... at least it hasn't sunk. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

In the mean time, they've found it. Tvx1 19:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I guess most of it will have sunk. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

But we now have "went missing" in the opening paragraph and "crashed" in the info box, because we have to "Use the language used by our sources." I'd agree that "went missing" is perfectly accurate, as far as the incident narrative is concerned, but there seems to be now a slight inconsistency. Are we really being that selective with "our sources"? Certainly no reputable news source will now be saying it's "missing". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the revert, but what you actually changed it to was "went crashed", which I'm quite certain none of our sources will have said. I'd suggest that for now we leave it in the lead as "went missing" and add that the wreckage believed to be that of the aircraft was later found. This is entirely factual and conveys that the aircraft is (presumably) no longer missing. As I said in my summary, there is no deadline. General Ization ^Talk 19:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to translate into Krek' Bristle there. That adjustment sounds fine. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC) ... I wouldn't want to be accused of being a two-faced aviation expert who'd gone down the drain.

Just a note that (as following editors will already know) EgyptAir has formally retracted the claim that the wreckage of MS804 was found, after the lead Greek accident investigator disputed the claim (in fact saying that the wreckage found near Karpathos was not an aircraft). So in addition to adding more information to the lead (which should eventually move to the body, rather than stay there) I have changed the status in the infobox back to "Missing", since at this point the plane seems to be still unfound (and that is how reliable sources are describing it. e.g. [1]). General Ization ^Talk 21:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Officials are making this perfectly clear that the aircraft has crashed. "Missing" implies the possibility that it's still in the air. Geogene (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that anyone, even "officials", can be "perfectly clear" without any physical evidence. As the AAIB point out, accidental loss of any aircraft may correctly include "missing". BBC Radio News has lately included comments from US deep-water investigator David Mearns who suggests the debris found could easily have been life-jackets, presumably lost from migrant crossings. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Find me a new (i.e., post-retraction) reliable source that says explicitly that it has crashed, and we'll go from there. At this point in time, any source quoted prior to that time is potentially compromised by EgyptAir's claim, now retracted, that wreckage had been found. I'm not arguing that it's still aloft, but we follow our sources. General Ization ^Talk 21:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Find me any reliable source, anywhere, that suggests this airplane isn't at the bottom of the Mediterranean right now. Geogene (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Understood, but sources don't support this [2]. And if you're suggesting this aircraft might actually have landed in North Korea or something, then that's fringe. It's good to be conservative in covering this stuff, but Wikipedia takes this a little too far with these Jolly Rodger airliners circling around the world's oceans with parts dropping off of them. I'm not going to edit war over it but I think people should rethink it. Geogene (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

We go by what sources say, not by what they suggest, in declaring that a plane has crashed. We could say "Missing (presumed crashed)", but then we get into questions of presumed by whom? and it is better not to relay presumptions rather than facts in an encyclopedia. We are not a newspaper. General Ization ^Talk 21:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You are not willing to use "presumed crashed"? Really? That's surreal. Geogene (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Presumed by whom? (And no, we can't say "by everybody", nor "by Wikipedia editors".) General Ization ^Talk 21:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you come up with one reliable source that claims this aircraft has not crashed? Geogene (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

That's rather unrealistic, isn't it. Most news source may say crashed. Some may say "missing". None will want to claim "this aircraft has not crashed", well none we'd use anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

We also do not declare that aircraft have crashed based on the absence of sources that say they haven't, nor state that any other event has occurred based on the absence of sources that say it hasn't. General Ization ^Talk 21:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Who said anything about the bottom? Mearns is a respected marine scientist ... North Korea? ... Jolly Rodger? Quite relieved you've decided not to "edit war". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

That should have been Flying Dutchman, of course. I confused my cursed pirates. Geogene (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

Is this real or vandalism? If vandalism ... whoever you are ... you are a terrible/horrible person.

Unconfirmed crew names (possibly bogus)

Crew: 1)Captain/ Mohammed Saeed Ali Ali Shokeir 2)First Officer/ Mohamed Ahmed Mamdouh Ahmed Asem had 2,766 hours 3)Purser/ Mervat Zakria Zaki Mohamed 4)Cabin Crew/ Atef Loutfi Abdellatief Amin 5)Cabin Crew/ Samar Ezzeldein Safwat Youssef 6)Cabin Crew/ Haitham Moustafa Abdelhamied Elazizy 7)Cabin Crew/ Yara Hani Farag Tawfek 8)Security Officer/ Mahmoud Ahmed Abdelraziek Abdelkarem 9)Security Officer/ Ahmed Mohamed Magdey Ahmed 10)Security Officer/ Mohamed Abdelmenoum Elgonimy Elkayal

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.43.4.28 (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2016‎ (UTC

That information was reverted with this edit. General Ization ^Talk 15:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not normal to name any of those on board until there has been an official announcement. Even then, apart from the pilot and first officer, people are usually not named unless they are notable. The reasons for your apparent disquiet are somewhat unclear. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Even if this is only the talk page, shouldn't the names be removed (not just hidden)? This is a public place anyway. Should an administrator be notified or something? Rentzepopoulos (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

If someone wants to request that they be revdel'ed, these are the edits to the article and these are the edits to the Talk page that should be suppressed. General Ization ^Talk 15:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

However, CNN has now reported the names of the pilots and purser, which match those supplied by the IP (albeit with slightly different transliterations). General Ization ^Talk 00:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

EgyptAir corporate press release

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

All editors have had their say and appropriate mea culpas have been expressed. Let's move on, please. General Ization ^Talk 00:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

---

@Coviepresb1647: Per WP:BRD, the onus is on you to get consensus for including EgyptAir's pompous warning to the media... Firebrace (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Ignored since you told me to "Fuck Off" instead of wanting to resolve this civilly. Until you become civil, only then will I revisit this.Coviepresb1647 (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Since EgyptAir's Web site is a primary source and we rely on secondary and tertiary sources, I don't think it's necessary for us to reproduce EgyptAir's admonishment to media. Also, please see WP:Civility. General Ization ^Talk 17:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

On your clarifying explanation of the sources, I agree, General Ization; and a sincere many thanks for being civil and desiring to resolve this civilly.Coviepresb1647 (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion. All editors are reminded of WP:CIVILITY.

Firebrace attacked me on his talk page by telling me to "Fuck Off" instead of wanting to resolve the issue civlly and peacefully. He should also regard WP:Civility. I ashamedly admit that I responded in kind on his talk page and apologize. Nonetheless, I am not listening to him for the time being. However, like General Ization, I will listen to others on EgyptAir's press releases.Coviepresb1647 (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC) "Fuck off" is not a personal attack but calling someone a jerk is... Firebrace (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC) BOTH "fuck off" and "jerk" are uncivil. Hence, I will retract my share ("jerk") of that. Good day.Coviepresb1647 (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Firebrace thinks hes god. What he says is okey while what he disagrees with is wrong. what world is he/she/it living in?Lihaas (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Had you both not considered "fuck off you jerk god"? I was recently told I was "a jerk" by an Admin, but then told soon after that I was only acting. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Though Firebrace has yet to apologize, I am not going to even entertain Lihaas's or Martinevans123's strange remarks which cross the line even further and that don't constructively contribute to conflict resolution.Coviepresb1647 (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC) I apologize; the dispute could have been resolved much earlier without edit warring. Firebrace (talk) 00:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC) I agree. Apology accepted, and all's forgiven.Coviepresb1647 (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Egyptian press releases

The Egyptian Ministry of Civil Aviation made some press releases in Arabic and English. I'll archive them later but they're at http://www.civilaviation.gov.eg/ WhisperToMe (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

{{cn}}

Probably no need to have {{citation needed}} tags on this article when it is all over the news. If there is anything there that doesn't have a reference, let's just remove it. It will all change in the next 48 hours or so anyway. --John (talk) 08:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Search and Rescue

The article says: On 20 May, the Egyptian Armed Forces and Marine Forces. I think which Marine forces should be specified. If it was Egyptian than I think Egyptian Armed Forces includes a Marine attachment. RougeSheppard (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Plea

Let me be proactive in requesting that if this plane is revealed to have been destroyed with all on board, we not generate a little list of "Reactions" with the condolences of all countries of the world, accompanied with little flags. Please? --John (talk) 08:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Large flags? I tend to agree that such sections are not encyclopedic. But is there any agreed criterion as to how large a disaster has to be before such a section is justified? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking not at all would be better. --John (talk) 09:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

This is the best page on Wikipedia. List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War Needs more flags in the bottom third though.. Lipsquid (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, great to see a few flags flying. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Altitude

The ICAO standard for reporting altitude is in feet not meters. The formatting should be changed to reflect that. EG: 37,000feet (11,000 meters) not 11,000 meters (37,000) feet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikey08 (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)24.4.93.227 (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Wholly agree, I'm never sure why we need metres in this type of article, unless it's to give folks an idea how far it would be to run, or cycle, or drive.... straight down. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to know how fast it was descending on radar. Has anybody seen that? Geogene (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Isn't a 90 degree left turn an airline SOP for a traumatic depressurisation event? Has anyone in the press picked up on this? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Source or making up stuff again? Lipsquid (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

"ROPE A DOPE", yes? Why don't we ask User:EditorASC? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC) [3], [4], [5]

No it is not. Most airlines SOP is to immediately begin a descent to 10,000 feet at maximum safe vertical speed. (terrain allowing) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikey08 (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 24.4.93.227 (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone in the press picked up on this obvious red herring? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your "obvious red herring" comment. What are you describing as a red herring? General Ization ^Talk 22:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The 90 degree left turn. Our ip friend from Frisco says it's NOT an SOP. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, still not understanding how "the 90 degree left turn" is a red herring. But maybe it's just me. General Ization ^Talk 22:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

People might think, as I did, that this was a deliberate pilot reaction to a traumatic depressurisation event. If it's not an SOP for EgyptAir, it (probably) tells us nothing about what the pilot did. So it's just a dead heron. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah. It's only pescetorial if we (or someone) actually says that the 90 degree turn is or might be an intentional act by the pilot. I don't think we (or anyone) did; that was just your assumption. General Ization ^Talk 22:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

My assumptions are just a drop in the ocean, here. But, ooh, hang on, we're getting some spikes on the San Francisco radar. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to know this also. I suspect our statement in the lead "and then began to descend" gives a false impression of what may have been the very rapid loss of 22,000+ feet of altitude, probably exceeding the design of the craft (closer to the sense of "dropped", as many sources are saying rather then "descended"). But without knowing the rate of descent, we can't say much else. General Ization ^Talk 23:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

If sources have revealed the altitude lost, surely they know the time this took, and thus the vertical airspeed? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

If there was in fact, a 90 degree left turn when it began to descend, that would be an indication the pilot was controlling the plane at that point. When a pilot deems it essential to begin an immediate descent from an assigned cruising altitude on an airway, a 90 degree turn, right or left, is a safety SOP to avoid the possibility of a collision with any other flights that might be below on that same airway.EditorASC (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

That's what I thought. But you're questioning the source for that claim, Panos Kammenos? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I haven't questioned anyone or anything. That is why I phrased it "If there was in fact, a 90 degree turn." EditorASC (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok. But the article says "Panos Kammenos, the Greek Defence Minister, noted the aircraft changed heading 90 degrees to the left and then turned .." which looks to me very much like a supposed fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

And it now appears in the article lede. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure why anyone has a problem with my comments above. I was NOT commenting about any alleged turns or maneuvers AFTER the alleged 90 degree turn to the left. I was simply observing that a precise 90 degree turn to the left, IF that actually happened, would be an indication the pilot was the cause of that turn.

There could be a variety of reasons why a pilot would do that without waiting for ATC approval. It could have been because there was a slow loss of pressurization and the warning lights/horns indicated the cabin pressure had just risen above 10,000 ft. OR it could have been that one engine was showing low oil pressure. In that event, the plane would have to descend to a lower altitude as soon as the thrust lever was retarded, to avoid a high altitude stall, because the plane would not be able to maintain a safe airspeed on one engine, that high up. OR, there might have been a fire warning in one of the blue rooms. Other possibilities too, any of which would have required a prudent captain to begin a descent as soon as he turned off the airway, so as to avoid any possibility of colliding with other aircraft at lower altitudes on the same airway.

It really doesn't matter why; all that is important here is that IF -- I repeat "IF" -- there was a precise 90 degree turn away from the airway, it is unlikely that would have occurred unless someone at the controls deliberately caused that turn.

I was not, nor am I now suggesting anyone should put any of this into the article. My sole purpose is to help other editors to interpret some of the so-called WP:RS sources with a jaundiced eye; be skeptical of comments alleged to have been made by "experts" in the popular press. Start with the biased assumption that most press reporters don't know an aileron from a flap. In other words don't rush to print everything or anything they offer. Most of what they say in the early days of an investigation turns out later to be inaccurate, so beware.EditorASC (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

This Boeing 777 captain says at CNN that "These [erratic manuevers] are not characteristic of an airliner. As a matter of fact, Airbus designs its airliners so pilots cannot exceed certain parameters in both 'pitch' and 'bank.' As an example, the airplane won't go beyond a 35-degree bank turn. This makes these drastic turns all the more curious." This calls into question the assertion that the 90 degree turn is evidence of pilot control at the time the maneuver occurred. General Ization ^Talk 16:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

90° turn≠90° bank. Tvx1 17:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't assume 90° turn=90° bank. My point is that a seasoned airline pilot thinks the turns are "drastic" and "curious" and that neither is explained by SOP. General Ization ^Talk 17:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Pardon me, but that captain did NOT say, in that article, that "neither is explained by SOP." That is an unjustified inference of your own. Further, you left out his other very important statements. That pilot also said:

Assuming the flight path information from Greek air traffic control data is correct....At this time, it is too early in the investigation to gauge the accuracy of the information.EditorASC (talk) 01:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

"Captain Mike Vivian, former head of flight operations for the Civil Aviation Authority told Radio 4’s Today programme there could have been a struggle on the flight deck.": in the The Independent. Obviously all very speculative. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It could have been hit by a meteor too. Until there is confirmation, let's stick to known facts and not speculate. Mjroots (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, we could check the list, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Unify timezones used in the article and reconcile differences in time of disappearance.

WEST and CEST with UTC in parentheses is given throughout, but the flight occurred in one time zone only. Time of disappearance is variously given as 2:45 local time or 2:30, source depending, and in the used CNN source, it is even mistakenly depicted as 3:09 on a graphic. If we cannot reconcile two different disappearance times, both should be sourced and reported throughout. --Mareklug ^talk 15:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I propose we keep the reference to local time in the lede (Egypt Standard Time (UTC+2)) and remove all references to timezones+UTC throughout the article. Regarding the time of disappearance, I don't think it is very important as I expect that sources will converge sooner or later. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Support. Having everything in one timezone if all events are only in it is objectively better than mixing them, with a little note like "All times are in UTC+2." Would do it myself if I wasn't on my phone. Sincerely, Marksomnian. (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, seems like someone already did it. I am blind 😜 Sincerely, Marksomnian. (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

66 deaths?

I haven't been able to find anything about a victim count, so I don't think it should list all passengers as deceased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilthyRedmond (talk • contribs) 15:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the mangled wreckage now recovered, and considering that body parts have been found, it's not really sensible to assume there were any survivors. But I think you are right there has been no official government statement confirming the number of dead. So I have added "assumed" to the figure of 66 dead in the infobox. Please adjust that if there has in fact been an official announcement, and we can also add it, with the source, to the article main body. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I highly doubt sadly that there are any survivors. It isn't impossible but free falling from 10,000 feet diminishes the chances, but even if you were to survive that injured remember two days have passed so far. In a nutshell it is assumed per Martin. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Aviation Codes Needs Explanation

I think an explanation of the aviation codes is needed for the general codes. I saw an attempt earlier, which resulted in some disruptive behaviour. Nevertheless, there are hundreds of articles in the press explaining the codes meaning to the public. The page is protected now, but I believe this should be an important addition to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafsal13 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

They do all have textual descriptors, and there is already some explanation, of probably the most important, in the text. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I found it really hard to understand the actual meaning of the code from the textual representation. May be it is comprehensible from external sources, but I still think, we can provide some lay meaning with the appropriate sources for verification. Rafsal13 (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

That's a fair point. They are somewhat open to misinterpretation. That's why I added the link to the aircraft schematic earlier on this Talk Page. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Great, yes, I saw that. The paragraph below the codes might not provide a one to one link to the above messages, but, it does provide some overview. We however, should provide the public with the meaning and leave the interpretation for them, rather than leading them into a certain direction, as the press would usually do. Rafsal13 (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

You may have a point but the earlier attempt was a WP:COPYVIO; also bear in mind WP:CLOP... Firebrace (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio: LOL! You started off by claiming NOR on this one. 31.52.165.58 (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

That's standard practice if no source is provided. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

That was before he provided a source. In the absence of a source I assumed it was original research. Then he provided one, and it turned out to be a copyright violation, which might explain why he was reluctant to provide it... Firebrace (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree, which is why we need to do better, because I believe, and I think you do as well, that it would be of value for the general public. Rafsal13 (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Protection

Whey, hey!! I just won my bet. I betted that before the day was out this article would be protected in some way! After all, it's been up and running for a couple of days now without a significant protection - that in itself is exceptional for this type of article. So yet again a content dispute has resulted in freezing out all the IP editors, who may well have had good stuff to add or edit. If you've got a problem with a particular user, and he really is disruptive, then block HIM, not all other similar users. Policy! Protection is not to be used to discriminate against IP users!! 31.52.165.58 (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations. Did you get good odds? 82.36.155.179, who was so keen to explain the ACARS codes to us, is now blocked, in fact. A shame really as it seems they were editing in good faith, with material apparently taken from The Daily Telegraph and received only one warning. But their 10 repeat edits were getting rather disruptive. Disruptive IP's often come back, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

No, very poor odds, given that it was almost a certainty! Funny how the other warring editors - User:Firebrace et al. haven't been blocked. Then again, this is Wikipedia, which is administered in a shit way, with an astonishing bias against IP editors, even those with valuable contributions. 31.52.165.58 (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that some IP's are dynamic, meaning they change frequently despite the users being the same. Other IP's strem from public terminals and are use by a number of people. "Blocking the disruptive IP" is thus not always possible and protecting the article is far mor efficient. Tvx1 14:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the in-depth analysis of Wikipedia administration. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

If you don't like being treated like a second-class IP editor, then I suggest you start an account. It's free! With an account you develop a reputation and other editors come to know you as a reliable contributor. - Ahunt (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Garbage. Many editors come to articles like this for the first time, then promptly find they can't edit the particular article any more, even if they do create an account. So what do they do? They don't come back. It's well known that articles like these attract new users, if they are allowed to. Unfortunately this is often stymied by well-meaning but generally low intellect admins. 31.52.165.58 (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps there's an argument for lowering the criteria for autoconfrimed user in certain circumstances or on certain articles. You could suggest that at Wikipedia talk:User access levels. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes. I never thought of that! Sorry, but that is total bollocks. Returning IPs of the type you describe are easy to spot. But thanks for confirming the real reason here; 'far more efficient'. Yes, get rid of the IPs en-masse because they're just too much trouble and get in the way of other editors. When's Firebrace going to be blocked? He and some other guy edit warred past 3RR and they're not exempt just because the other party was an IP. 31.52.165.58 (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding us all about the prime importance of adding good content. I think the place of ip editors at Wikipedia is a much larger issue that you need to raise at a different forum. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:NOT3RR, the removal of a copyright violation does not count as a revert for the purposes of 3RR. Firebrace (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

If this Talk Page becomes engulfed with multiple Template:Request edits from IPs, I guess there may well then be a good case for removing or lowering the protection. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

This can be done at WP:UNPROTECT by asking User:Widr. I didn't report him for edit warring because there is a backlog of reports and it takes far too long to get anything done that way, and there is a history of IPs causing problems on the article... Firebrace (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Even so, reverting a dispruptive editor seven times is never the efficient solution to deal with a disruptive editor. Even if it is to remove a copyright violation, that tactic does more harm than good. After being reverted a maximum of two or three times you should have known that the IP wouldn't have stopped and should have requested protection before reverting again. Tvx1 22:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Responses

@Tvx1: Re [6], it is a fact that they have an opinion. Firebrace (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

But that the cause is what they claim it is is not. Neither Russia nor the USA have any involvement in the accident or the investigation into it. The sources state very clearly that their opinion isn't based on any evidence. It's pure hearsay and I fail to see why we should give any attention to it. The accident featured a French-built plane flying for an Egyptian operator on a route between France and Egypt. The relevant parties are consequently France and Egypt. Tvx1 20:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

We pay attention to it because our reliable sources pay attention to it. Since the officials involved are anonymous, we don't know what they know, nor what they don't know. Presumably the reporters talking directly with them have already done the leg work necessary to establish that they have credibility and have decided that their statements are worthy of coverage. Therefore, so should we. It is entirely possible that US and/or Russian intelligence services already know more, or soon will, about the cause of the incident than French or Egyptian civil aviation authorities, and possibly their intelligence services. General Ization ^Talk 20:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree. The last time a plane exploded over Egypt, the US had "classified assets" that apparently registered the heat signature. Same thing with MH17. Geogene (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Via BBC News: "Egyptian minister says terrorism most likely cause of crash". [7] It can't be pure hearsay if even the Egyptians, who, frankly, are less competent than the U.S. and Russian authorities on such matters, are saying it was probably terrorism. And no, the U.S. did not say their opinion wasn't based on ANY evidence, they said it wasn't based on concrete evidence, which is obvious to all since the aircraft hasn't been found yet... Firebrace (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying the Egyptian's claim is hearsay. I left that one in in my edits because I know full well that Egypt is a party in the investigation since it was en Egypt-bound, Egypt-operated airplane. The Russians and the USA's opinions are hearsay. It's pure hypothesis. Like the sources state, they have no concrete evidence. They know nothing because they can't know anything yet since hardly anything has been found from the airplane. When they have confirmed that they have found it, they can study the debris field more closely and through that determine whether the plane broke up in flight or upon impact with the sea. Following that, they can start salvaging the wreckage and (hopefully) the flight recorders and use them to (hopefully) determine the cause. None of this crucial evidence has been acquired now. It hasn't even been 24 hours. With neither Russia or the USA being part of the investigation or even involved in the incident in any way, their opinion is utterly worthless. We might just as well include the opinion of the Papua-New Guineans or of the Vatican City. With the clear statement that their opinions aren't based on any specific evidence they have clearly admitted they are merely speculating and I cannot see what their speculation adds to this article. Tvx1 21:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Once again, wreckage is not the only kind of "evidence" used in an air accident investigation, much less the investigation of a suspected terrorist act. I can assure you that the intelligence services are not just sitting on their hands waiting for wreckage to be found, and we do not know what they have already discovered, so your conjecture that these statements are "hearsay," "pure hypothesis" and "worthless" is itself purely your hypothesis. General Ization ^Talk 21:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It is founded on their own admittance that it's not based on any concrete evidence. "Intelligence" falls under that concrete evidence too. So your insistence that they have discovered something is just as much speculation as them saying it was a bomb or a terrorist act. I have really missed the part where this has become a "suspected terrorist act". More so because neither of them is involved in the incident in any way. It isn't so just because the USA and Russia say so. I will reminded you that the airplane's operator has already denied all the others' speculation. And I didn't only mention wreckage in my previous post. But yes, physical evidence from the crash site is most often the most important evidence used in such cases. Tvx1 22:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I did not insist that they had discovered something (though they may well have). I insist that they have expressed opinions, and that they are notable opinions because they are credible sources, reported by reliable sources, and we do not actually know what they know or do not know. Please start over at the top of this section. General Ization ^Talk 22:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The sentence about two US officials "believing" a bomb was the cause has two sources at the end of it. The first (from CNN) is two sentences. The second source has basically the same information, but also contains the following in a different section: "Officials say they [sic] have been no signs of an explosion on board the crashed plane as part of a review of satellite imagery so far. The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters, said the conclusion was the result of a preliminary examination of imagery and cautioned against media reports suggesting the United States believed a bomb was responsible for the crash. The United States has not ruled out any possible causes for the crash, including mechanical failure, terrorism or a deliberate act by the pilot or crew, they said." As per my previous attempt to change the sentence, the current version carries too much weight. YSSYguy (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Can we actually give a neutral reflection of our sources. The NBC has the following two passages:

Officials from multiple U.S. agencies told Reuters, however, that a review of satellite imagery had not so far detected any sign of an explosion on board the flight.

"Two U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News there was "nothing finite, nothing specific" in chatter about a coming attack on aviation. There is nothing out there yet to confirm "foul play," according to the officials."

Yet for some reason only the content that says it is an explosion/bomb/foul play is selectively mentioned in this article. Tvx1 10:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

See, now Akld guy has removed this as well. I'm clearly not the only one with the same opinion. And the claim made when the content was reinstated, that they are the official responses, doesn't hold much water. Yes the Egyptian statement was made by their government, the US claims however weren't. All of them are made by some unspecified "officials" of whom we don't know their importance. I still feel this adds little to the article. Tvx1 22:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

It's speculation by unnamed US "officials" who are sometimes described as refusing to give their identities because they are not authorized to speak to media. What this amounts to, I think, is that low level officials of certain authorities float the idea that it's terrorism so that if it's later proved to be so, they can say, "See, our intelligence was good but we weren't allowed to say anything definite at the time." If it's not terrorism, no harm is done to the unnamed officials' reputations. Wikipedia does itself no good by reporting this baseless, conflicting speculation. It adds nothing to the article because we all know for ourselves that terrorism might be a possibility. Akld guy (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it forms a legitimate part of the narrative (not that it's any business of the US, of course?) Is the US the only country which has the ability to detect aircraft explosions by means of satellite? .. or the only country that makes public statements based on such evidence (even if apparently unreliable)? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Los Angeles World Airports

An article used as a source reads: "Security has been tightened at Los Angeles International Airport and other airfields" and “enhanced our counter-terrorism security measures at our Los Angeles World Airport airports. The article specifically mentions more than 1 airport, not only Los Angeles International Airport but two other Los Angeles World Airports - that means LA/Ontario International Airport and Van Nuys Airport. I know this is a minor issue, and had been already settled as seen in the history of the article, but since it was brought up again by User:Vwanweb, I prefer to deal with it here. From my point of view, Vwanweb started removing sourced information, without an explanation. (To include, as he did, that "Although one media outlet reported "some" airports in California have tightened their security, there are no citations available depicting the exact airports." in the article itself is hardly encyclopedic.) Please comment so that we can decide. Of course the easiest way is to not speak about the other not so important airports but I think the article can be more precise. Meanwhile, I restore the previous version as it was (several editors contributed to the wording, it's not my version). I also ask Vwanweb to explain why he believes the info is unsourced, and not revert again. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I have removed it as it is not really notable to the accident and really not that relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Slogan

WikiHannibal and others opposing this edit: Its important in a sense that something about downing this plane was mentioned two years ago no matter if people writing the slogan did not mean it but same plane came down two years later. Also, a reliable source like The New York Times considered it important enough to publish a full story around it. I think it warrants mention in this article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I still do not know what it is that makes it important for this article ("important in a sense that something about downing this plane was mentioned two years ago" reads like a description of what happened not explanation why it is relevant for this article). Or like one of those "Coincidence?? I think not!" stories. What is the connection between the slogan and this flight? You said yourself there is none. WikiHannibal (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

+1 Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Better make that +2. Until an actual reason is given, we should avoid looking like we're making insinuations like that.142.105.159.60 (talk) 03:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• As discussed above at #Bloat, two-year-old graffiti would not qualify for the article, however well attested. --John (talk) 10:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Possible fire

The Aviation Herald are reporting that ACARS messages sent from the aircraft may indicate a fire on board. Note that the Aviation Herald is a premium quality source, with a reputation for checking info and not putting out specutlation as fact. Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

That's extremely interesting and quite convincing. 00:26Z 2600 SMOKE LAVATORY SMOKE followed by 00:27Z 2600 AVIONICS SMOKE. The preceding messages suggest an anti-icing component may have overheated? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Note a similar event B737 flight crew experiences cockpit window overheat after takeoff Flight crew diverts to nearest suitable airport. 216.205.224.11 (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, although that was L1 Captain's window on a B737 (that cracked and delaminated). No easy way to see a direct connection with the smoke in toilet and smoke in avionics bay that happened here? Where is the R SLIDING WINDOW SENSOR? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is an example of a cockpit fire from a faulty windshield heater on an Airbus: Plane fire caused by Airbus windscreen heater "After similar incidents occurred on other A330 and A320 jets, Airbus last year recommended carriers identify and replace 1,500 windshields worldwide that had been produced using the same sealant." Here is the ATSB investigation document 216.205.224.11 (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I heard experts say that they doubt it was from a cigarette (for example) as the malfunctions were catastrophic. As for wires I would assume it would be the same thing, a flight crew is trained though to deal with fires on board an airplane. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the Airbus windshield heater failures to date have not been catastrophic "All Nippon Airways: On 19 May 2009, during cruise at 37,000 ft, the flight crew of a Japanese-registered A320 aircraft reported that a loud ‘bang’ was heard followed by the immediate observation of sparks and smoke from the left windshield. In response, the pilots put on oxygen masks per the ‘Smoke/Fumes/Avionics Smoke’ checklist and continued the flight." However it is possible that the crew reacted in an inappropriate fashion (for example, see Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 where one of the pilots cycled the circuit breaker of the Flight Augmentation Computer (FAC), contributing to the crash.) 216.205.224.11 (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

David Learmount on BBC Breakfast says that the 2600 SMOKE LAVATORY SMOKE message refers to the forward lavatory, which is close to the avionics bay (next message). Mjroots (talk) 07:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's a AFRC chart for the A320: [8] The access door to the avionics compartment can be seen located under the cockpit area. I assume this is what the AVIONICS SMOKE ACARS message refers to. As you can see the batteries are down there too. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

People, please respect WP:NOTFORUM. This is not a place to discuss the accident, but to discuss improvements to the article. We should by no means attempt to determine the cause of the crash ourselves. Our only job is to reflect what the sources state the cause to be. Tvx1 10:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll remove or strike what I posted above, if you think that will help. The article has a link to "avionics bay", but that doesn't really help the general reader locate it on an A320. The same goes for "a toilet". Could you suggest any further links or additions to the article that might improve it in this respect? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I would have asked if any A320 expert could clarify which, if any, of the sensor events which triggered the ACARS message would also have triggered a flight deck warning. But that might be seen as WP:FORUM and WP:SYNTH. Perhaps some of the articles in the press, particularly the aviation press, have this information. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, even Wikipedia talk pages sometimes are considered credible enough to be copied by news outlets, so I would agree with Tvx1 on that. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Editing often benefits for a clearer understanding by all parties. I wholly agree that undue speculation should be avoided. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)