Talk:1986 Mozambican Tupolev Tu-134 crash

Stirling work

JMK is to be congratulated for the stirling work done on this article.Phase4 20:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Major cleanup required

This article is in serious need of a cleanup as it is laced with original research and uncited information. Socrates2008 (Talk) 04:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:NkomatiAccord.jpg

The image Image:NkomatiAccord.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

References

Some references supplied, more to be done. JMK (talk) 01:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Good work! Socrates2008 (Talk) 14:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me on the straight track Socrates, with well-placed tags. JMK (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject South Africa assessment

I've assessed this article as C-Class. If attention is paid to sorting out the missing references, this can easily become B-Class, and maybe even progress further. Ron2K (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.ecr.co.za/content/view/3557/81/
  • In 1986 Mozambican Tupolev Tu-134 crash on 2011-05-25 05:18:07, 404 Not Found
  • In 1986 Mozambican Tupolev Tu-134 crash on 2011-06-07 12:14:43, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://70.84.171.10/~etools/newsbrief/1996/news1018
  • In 1986 Mozambican Tupolev Tu-134 crash on 2011-05-25 05:18:16, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
  • In 1986 Mozambican Tupolev Tu-134 crash on 2011-06-07 12:15:33, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.citizen.co.za/index/article.aspx?pDesc=79767,1,22
  • In 1986 Mozambican Tupolev Tu-134 crash on 2011-05-25 05:18:16, Long Chain of Redirects: [1] -> [2] -> [3] -> [4] -> [5] -> [6] -> [7] -> [8] -> [9] -> [10] -> [11] -> [12] -> [13] -> [14] -> [15] -> [16] -> [17] -> [18] -> [19] -> [20]
  • In 1986 Mozambican Tupolev Tu-134 crash on 2011-06-07 12:15:46, Long Chain of Redirects: [21] -> [22] -> [23] -> [24] -> [25] -> [26] -> [27] -> [28] -> [29] -> [30] -> [31] -> [32] -> [33] -> [34] -> [35] -> [36] -> [37] -> [38] -> [39] -> [40]

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed changes to article

1. "The Soviet delegation issued a minority report(...)" is wrong. There was no "minority report"; the ONLY report of this accident was the official RSA one. As parties to the investigation the USSR and Mozambique could, and did, within a 60-day period after a draft had been completed give their comments and propose changes to the draft which the RSA could either incorporate into the draft (which was done for some of Mozambique's submissions), or not and instead just append the comments (in the case of the USSR's) to the final version. The whole Other investigations section should just be shitcanned (weasely and unsourced, except for the rebuttal) and incorporated into the Margo section with the reader given an accurate description of the way these investigations are handled by international treaty. Currently the statement in there is "South Africa was obliged to work in partnership with the state of ownership (Mozambique) and the state of manufacture (Soviet Union).", which is completely inaccurate. LoveUxoxo (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The words "minority report" are used in a number of sources to describe the Soviet rebuttal of the South African report.

Chapter 5 of Annex 13 of the Chicago Convention has the responsibilities of the different states. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. Even if just one source used for the article referred to the 37 page submission of the USSR as "The Minority Report" that should be reflected in the text. However, in that case I'd prefer the text to read something like "The USSR's submission, commonly (or) sometimes (or) also referred to as the "minority report", ..."

I know I'm acting a bit nitpicky but a true minority report in an official aircraft accident investigation is very rare. Arrow Air Flight 1285 is the best example I can think of, when a bitterly divided (five against four) Canadian investigative board issued two separate reports, now colloquially (officially?) referred to as the majority report and minority report. But in this case, where invited parties to the investigation (but not the ones in charge) submit a different opinion for consideration isn't uncommon. Page one of the report ends with the declaration "Our decision is unanimous", and I think that it is important for the text to be equally definitive.

I do not want to seem to be pleading the "truth" over WP:VERIFY here; while there are reliable secondary sources that use the term "minority report", I think the overall weight of sourcing available, especially those focused on aviation, make it clear that there was only one report, with no "official" dissent. The Aviation Safety Network source doesn't even mention any alternative theory to the official probable cause.

There was indeed one report, but this was followed by a world of well-publicised conspiracy theories challenging the official report by the apartheid government of SA; also, some very prominent people coming out and sharing their conspiracies theories in the press.

In the context of aviation, which I think the first half of this article should focus on, the USSR's submission should be given much less weight; in fact in that context it is close to WP:FRINGE territory. For the second half (roughly) of the article, in the context of politics, the theory of a conspiracy should be the focus, appropriately. LoveUxoxo (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

...and when I said dump Other investigations I specifically meant that Soviet report sub-section. It's just so wrong to add four sentences of such controversial text without a cite. I completely lose all WP:AGF when I see that, and it just better to start from scratch. As for the article itself, while my list of grievances is long, the article itself is awesome and I <3 all who worked on it. I had never heard about this before, and its fascinating and so very notable. This could easily be a Wikipedia:Featured articles. Let's do it! LoveUxoxo (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

2. Geo-coordinates are AGAIN inaccurate. Sorry for whining instead of just WP:BOLD and fixing it, but I feel I have a civic duty to warn everybody that those geo-coordinates are usually wrong. NEVER trust them. In any case they should be (per the Final Report): Lat. 25 54' 41" S, Long. 31 57" 26". I will fix that. Done.

Really? The co-ordinates were placed (by me) over the memorial - hardly out the ball park. GPS did not exist when the accient happened, so the coords in the official report are likely to be unprecise anyway.Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

A memorial would be ballpark, but hardly the best source. There is not good reason to use the memorial coordinates over that over the Factual Report. I don't think the your last statement about GPS is accurate at all (airliners did have INS, and surveying did exist prior to the digital age) but rather than argue opinion I think I'd just rather say WP:WEIGHT here. (add.)The debris field is 846m in length. Its not for us to pick the first impact point, final resting place, center of debris field, where the memorial was situated or any other method of determining "where" in that area this accident occurred, its up to the official authorities, in this case jointly RSA, Mozambique and USSR investigators. The fact that the memorial is a few hundred meters off (but still within the debris field) isn't surprising at all. LoveUxoxo (talk) 04:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

3. Even if C9-CAA was led astray by a intentional decoy navigational beacon, this would not have caused the crash. The is a fundamental finding of the investigative body that is not currently addressed by the article (nor by the TRC). You cannot crash an aircraft with a false VOR beacon. You could get the lost, but NOT fly into the ground. A common (and understandable) misconception that C9-CAA intercepted a fake ILS signal and flew into the ground like Die Hard 2 is not (verifiably) true. LoveUxoxo (talk)

That's interesting, but it's also opinion. Find a reliable source, then add it to the article...Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, heh, it is an opinion, but the opinion of the Board of Inquiry. I can't stress this enough: the probable cause of this accident does not mention the turn at all. Over the course of the report the turn is acknowledged, examined in depth, and different scenarios for why the aircraft might have gone astray considered. But in the end the turn away from Maputo was not determined to be causal to the accident. LoveUxoxo (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

4. "The Margo commission’s findings were based mainly on the flight recorders, testimony by South African officials and the technical reports submitted by the SA investigation team." Ack. That statement is sourced to the Final Report, but I'm not sure if my discomfort is because it is too broad or too specific (seriously). If you are talking about what all aircraft accident investigations do, I suppose those things are some of the things always considered. In this specific case, those factors were some of those considered. But it seems an arbitrary statement about what was "mainly" considered, unsupported by the reference given (I do not recall any statement in the Final Report to that effect, please correct me if I am wrong). If we are going to state what the main factors for the commission's findings were, in a case this controversial, the statement needs to be impeccably supported by the reference. LoveUxoxo (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Not clear what you concern is here...

The statement is not supported by the reference. Please show me where in the given source it states that. The biggest problem with that statement is the over-emphasis on the South African contributions to the investigation, ignoring the international participation, and thus inferring bias and a possible cover-up. LoveUxoxo (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

5. Junk (Investigations) South African response, On site investigation, South African investigation First, what exactly do we want to explain to the reader here? Flight recorders seized for a while, documents on board the plane examined, Botha (I guess both) acting "badly". Four sentences ladies, that's all it takes. And those four sentences need to be sourced better than now. Look at the (apparently) primary sources from Pik Botha and Des Lynch. Its completely unreasonable to accept them (those URLs specifically) as WP:RS. Four sentences, sourced appropriately = waaaay bettet. It's useless minutiae to talk about when which Botha received a phone call from whom. LoveUxoxo (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Be bold (but please add refs) Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

6. The infobox image [41] looks to me like a MS Flight Simulator screenshot (seriously, am I the only one?) Compare it to allhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1986_Mozambican_Tupolev_Tu-134_crash&action=edit&section=9 of Gennady Misko's other work,[42] [43] it sticks out like a sore thumb. I think its just a prank. LoveUxoxo (talk) 06:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Lack of free images of the aircraft - do you have something better? Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much any of Many of the other free images in the Tu-134 article shows Tu-134s in liveries closer to the actual accident aircraft in 1986, thus more representative and better for use in the article. The current image is an airliner in 2008. LoveUxoxo (talk) Regardless, I'd always prefer a simple screen grab from a news report showing the crashed aircraft (1:03-1:06) that meets fair use criteria based on historic signifigance. The article is of the crash of the plane, obviously the first image should be the crashed plane. Later in the article you have images of "Machel's presidential aircraft as seen in Brussels in 1982", or that isn't available images like "A Tu-134 aircraft similar to the one that crashed". LoveUxoxo (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed re-write "Accident flight"

Please ignore the above for now, and let me projectile-spew content instead. Here is an example of what I would have for the accident flight. The background that currently exists in the article gives context to the political situation and the reasons for Machel going to Mbala. Good. So then I think we should then establish the aircraft in question, populate it with a flight crew, give the weather, time of day, flight plan and set it in motion up until the crash. The example below needs one or two more paragraphs until impact, but you get the idea, What I want to do here is separate the factual information from the analysis and conclusions. So the first part of article is organized Factual information > Analysis > Conclusions.

This is much the same way as accident reports worldwide are written, and its good practice. The raw data isn't really the cause of disputes, it is the analysis that is. There is no better example than this crash itself, where you have polar opposite conclusions as to probable cause, but the RSA, USSR and Mozambique all agreed and endorsed the findings of the Aircraft Accident Factual Report (the last thing they agreed on). Consequently, it seems to me to only make sense to use the factual findings direct from the Margo Report as much as possible, being the most authoritative and uncontested.

Tertiary analysis of Margo would be great, if it exists. But I would want that to be scholarly analysis, by experts in the field, otherwise you start run afoul of WP:FRINGE. That kind of stuff, like journalists' books about conspiracy theories, should get mentioned later in the article. Don't get me wrong, if they are notable, they should get their due. But it is just better to start with the "official", relatively uncontested facts I think before we start spinning off different scenarios. LoveUxoxo (talk) 11:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

(Old version collapsed for readability)

Accident flight All times in this article are local times of UTC+2. The airplane being used as a Presidential flight for Machel that day, registration C9-CAA, was manufactured by Tupolev in 1980 according to specifications for Mozambique. It had flown a total of 1,105 flying hours since new, and had underwent its last major inspection August 1984 in the USSR. Service records indicated that it had been properly maintained, and data recovered from the Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) showed the aircraft and all its systems were operating normally. The flight crew of five consisted of a captain, co-pilot, flight engineer, navigator and radio operator, who were all USSR State employees operating the aircraft for the Mozambican government. They were well experienced flying in both day and night in Mozambique and in landings at Maputo. Machel boarded the airplane at Maputo on the morning of the 19th, and after a refueling stop in Lusaka, Zambia, arrived in Mbala at 11:00. After the meeting with Kaunda and dos Santos, Machel and his party re-boarded the aircraft and took off at 18:38, intending to return non-stop to Maputo. The weather forecast for the flight was favourable, with an estimated time of arrival of 21:25. At 20:46 the flight made contact with Maputo Air Traffic Control (ATC), reporting their position and intent to continue towards the Maputo VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) navigation beacon while maintaining an altitude of 35,000 feet. At 21:02 the crew radioed that they were ready to begin their decent, and after being instructed by Maputo to report reaching 3,000 feet altitude or when the runway was in sight, began descending. Over the next eight minutes the aircraft maintained its required track to Maputo with minor lateral deviations. Then, at 21:10, the airplane commenced a turn away from Maputo to the right, lasting almost one minute in duration and a resulting heading change from 184° magnetic to 221°. The Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) recorded the navigator stating the distance to Maputo as 100km, a comment from the captain about the turn, and the navigator responding that the "VOR indicates that way". Around 21:15 the navigator stated the distance to Maputo as 60km. Over the next few minutes there were several comments from the crew that the navigational aids at Maputo were not working, including the captain saying "There is no Maputo" and "Everything switched off", and the navigator saying that the Instrument Landing System (ILS) and Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) were "switched off" and that the Non-directional beacons (NDBs) were "not working".

OK, I have a complete version I'm putting up. Why I think it is better:

• EVERY statement of fact is followed by a reference that explicitly supports it. These statements of fact were agreed upon by all parties to the investigation and are not disputed.
• No sub-sections every 2 paragraphs. We should give the reader enough credit to be willing to read 5 consecutive paragraphs of prose, and in return we pledge not to interrupt them repeatedly with bold text.

Well, crud, that didn't work. That was 5 (too) long paragraphs. For readability I split it into 2 sub-sections with general descriptors. What bothered me about the section breaks before were (1) they were inaccurate as to the actual division of information in the text, and (2) they were somewhat editorializing. It's way too easy to over-emphasize the 37 degree turn, when , as the cliche goes, that is just one thing in a long chain of connected events that led to this crash.

• References that point to specific pages instead of requiring the reader to search. Verifiability should be made as easy as possible for the reader for each and every reference.
• Separation of factual information from the analysis for the reasons I stated above.

Whatever information regarding analysis from whomever that was dropped will be added back in later. Nothing is lost on WP. However this article has been tagged for 3 1/2 years for lack of citations and original research, and has been fairly static that entire time. Gotta start somewhere ladies. Next section: Search and rescue (seems only logical). LoveUxoxo (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• English versus Metric notation The Final Report, somewhat uniquely, doesn't favour either English or Metric measurements. That is for a reason: with the different instrumentation on the aircraft using different standards how the flight crew reported distances (i.e., "10km" instead of "6nm") gave clues as to which instruments they were using. We should present the units of measurement as per the Final Report, and then provide the English/Metric equivalent. LoveUxoxo (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

References

Investigations - South African response: use of primary source

As I mentioned before I think its not great that only source provided for this section, http://152.111.1.88/argief/berigte/beeld/2006/10/26/B1/19/polpik.html is just a URL (essentially an anonymous attribution). Contained in it are the personal comments of Pik Botha concerning the crash and continuing controversy, I would assume they appeared somewhere (newspaper Op-Ed or something similar?) but I have not been able to find a different version yet. I do believe they are true, and quite fascinating: here is the Google Translate version in case you don't read Afrikaans. But when using primary sources (which ARE appropriate in many instances) they need to be always presented as (ex.):

According to Pik Botha the black boxes were not handed to the Soviets because "there was suspicion they would be tampered with"

Botha stated that he informed Mozambican representatives to accompany he to the crash site

The whole section is just Pik Botha's version of events, so reliable secondary sources would be far preferred for content here. Not that the source provided, misgivings of reliablity aside, isn't useful, its pure gold really. But we should use it specifically to show his recollections, not factual information. LoveUxoxo (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

"Independent Mozambican investigation" section

I don't see what currently is there that should be kept. It's actually more refuting the Mozambican submission than stating it clearly and fairly. Replace with the following. Err, the placeholder text is filled in easily, a trained monkey should be able to do that from the source material. Sourcing isn't an issue - it's not like I make this stuff up; I read the source material, sleep on it, and when I wake up under my pillow there is a note with 5 paragraphs of prose written on it. (talk) 07:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as explaining the Mozambique Directorate of Civil Aviation's position regarding the results of the investigation I think this is complete: LoveUxoxo (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Collapsed for readability

==Mozambican submission== The Mozambican delegation, representing the state of registry of the aircraft, had a right by international treaty to review a draft of the report and submit their comments for consideration. The Mozambican team provided 11 pages of suggested corrections to the draft, some of which were adopted by the Board. In addition Mozambique provided a technical report from Ron Chippindale of the New Zealand Office of Air Accidents Investigations about the possibility of tampering with or replacing the genuine Maputo VOR signal with a decoy. His conclusions were that it would be "simple" to setup a mobile VOR, however in order to effectively replace the genuine signal the Maputo VOR would have to be turned off. The Mozambican analysis of and findings from the evidence led them to conclude: The accident resulted from a critical situation which originated from the right turn away from the planned route. No explanation for the deviation was agreed upon by the three countries, and there was new evidence that the aircraft turned to follow a false signal. The discrepancies from procedure of the Maputo controller and flight crew were not the main causes of the accident. The investigation should be continued in order to determine the origin of the VOR signal.

References

"Margo Commission"

Technically, its not the "Margo Commission" but the "Report of the Board of Inquiry into the accident to Tupolev 134A-3 aircraft C9-CAA on 19th October 1986". Using "Margo Commission" wouldn't be so bad if that wasn't the exact same term used in this article, creating confusion. LoveUxoxo (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Article title

the current 1986 Mozambican Tupolev Tu-134 crash is complete retardese. The redundant "Tupolev" in there is bad enough, but more importantly the aircraft model involved in the crash isn't notable. The death of the 1st President of Mozambique, widely viewed to have been an assassination, and still having incredibly strong emotional resonance 25 years later is. 1986 Mozambican presidential plane crash, 1986 Samora Machel plane crash, some variation etc. all function better as an article title per WP:TITLE. LoveUxoxo (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

References

I'm going through the refs reformatting them into "Notes" and "References" allowing us to cite multiple different sections of a source without clutter. Mostly this is working fine.

• The http://www.dispatch.co.za/2003/01/13/southafrica/EMACHEL.HTM link isn't working and it think(?) the Dispatch website doesn't allow Wayback Machine bots to crawl and archive, so I can't find another version, so for now I dropped it. Same with http://www.dispatch.co.za/1999/05/17/southafrica/pik.htm ...will keep looking, or at some point hopefully Dispatch fixes it and they can be accessed again

• The Zambeze article was never accessible online, here is a supposed translation of the original (from http://avcom.co.za/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=39549&start=20) So if the information contained inside is worth including in the article (the basic facts are already covered by the Ericka Gibson Beeld story on 26 November 2008) I think a bit of research would need to be done (who translated it?) before including.

• http://www.security.co.za/fullStory.asp?NewsId=10392 has a version of The Citizen article by Paul Kirk. But again, I can't find any better archiving (yet) of the original story, who's URL now doesn't work: http://www.citizen.co.za/index/article.aspx?pDesc=79767,1,22 I've removed it for now, can always be added back in if necessary.

I've found the web versions of the Beeld articles on their website and updated the links accordingly, except for the van Rensburg article from 1993: http://152.111.1.88/argief/berigte/beeld/1993/09/7/8/3.html

OK, I think I finally understand what the website these articles are on is, "Media 24 Archive". "Media24 operates and maintains the Media24 Archive consisting of a web enabled database of articles from the following sources..." http://152.111.1.88/Media24_Archive_Web_Site_Terms_and_Conditions.htm Awesome, sounds like a legit archive of news stories. I saw a wall of Afrikaans text and a non-descriptive URL and assumed the worst. I changed all the references to link direct to the sources, which I think is good. I'll add archive links as backups in those cases, which is better LoveUxoxo (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on 1986 Mozambican Tupolev Tu-134 crash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.polity.org.za/polity/govdocs/commissions/1998/trc/2chap6a.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nber.org/~bolken/leaders.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001024821/http://www.africanstudies.uct.ac.za/postamble/vol2-2/assassination.pdf to http://www.africanstudies.uct.ac.za/postamble/vol2-2/assassination.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/media/1998/9806/s980616c.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://70.84.171.10/~etools/newsbrief/1996/news1018
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://152.111.1.88/argief/berigte/beeld/2003/01/13/2/2.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://152.111.1.88/argief/berigte/beeld/2006/10/21/B1/17/amachel.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://152.111.1.88/argief/berigte/beeld/2006/10/26/B1/19/polpik.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://152.111.1.88/argief/berigte/beeld/2008/11/28/B1/18/tegdias.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.southafrica.info/about/history/machel-monument.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on 1986 Mozambican Tupolev Tu-134 crash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/66oXCZZ11?url=http://www.caa.co.za/resource%20center/accidents%20%26%20incid/reports/OldReports/C9-CAA.pdf with https://web.archive.org/web/20110929030634/http://www.caa.co.za/resource%20center/accidents%20%26%20incid/reports/OldReports/C9-CAA.pdf on http://www.caa.co.za/resource%20center/accidents%20%26%20incid/reports/OldReports/C9-CAA.pdf
• Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/66oXCZZ11?url=http://www.caa.co.za/resource%20center/accidents%20%26%20incid/reports/OldReports/C9-CAA.pdf with https://web.archive.org/web/20110929030634/http://www.caa.co.za/resource%20center/accidents%20%26%20incid/reports/OldReports/C9-CAA.pdf on http://www.caa.co.za/resource%20center/accidents%20%26%20incid/reports/OldReports/C9-CAA.pdf
• Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/66oXCZZ11?url=http://www.caa.co.za/resource%20center/accidents%20%26%20incid/reports/OldReports/C9-CAA.pdf with https://web.archive.org/web/20110929030634/http://www.caa.co.za/resource%20center/accidents%20%26%20incid/reports/OldReports/C9-CAA.pdf on http://www.caa.co.za/resource%20center/accidents%20%26%20incid/reports/OldReports/C9-CAA.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.polity.org.za/polity/govdocs/commissions/1998/trc/2chap6a.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/003355305774268165
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/media/1998/9806/s980616c.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.anc.org.za/show.php?id=4857
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.beeld.com/In-Diepte/Nuus/Die-mites-oor-Machel-20100617
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.beeld.com/In-Diepte/Nuus/Die-mites-oor-Machel-20100617
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.beeld.com/In-Diepte/Nuus/Machel-omstredenheid-20100617
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sardc.net/Editorial/sadctoday/view.asp?pubno=v9n4&vol=474
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iol.co.za/news/africa/how-we-assassinated-a-president-1.419392
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.beeld.com/Wereld/Nuus/Machel-ramp-Vlieeniers-glo-gemuilband-20100617
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.southafrica.info/about/history/samora-machel-25.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 1986 Mozambican Tupolev Tu-134 crash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5iRpLb2Ia?url=http://www.polity.org.za/polity/govdocs/commissions/1998/trc/2chap6a.htm to http://www.polity.org.za/polity/govdocs/commissions/1998/trc/2chap6a.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722023349/http://www.rnf.is/media/eydublod/Annex_13.pdf to http://www.rnf.is/media/eydublod/Annex_13.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111006163629/http://152.111.1.88/argief/berigte/beeld/1993/09/7/8/3.html to http://152.111.1.88/argief/berigte/beeld/1993/09/7/8/3.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5iXTgw3IW?url=http://www.sardc.net/Editorial/sadctoday/view.asp?pubno=v9n4&vol=474 to http://www.sardc.net/Editorial/sadctoday/view.asp?pubno=v9n4&vol=474

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)