Talk:Iran Air Flight 277

Latest comment: 6 years ago by MilborneOne in topic Iraqi crew?

Citation error?

edit

Can someone fix the citation error in the 7th citation? I can't figure out what's wrong with it. Ashershow1talk 03:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your deletion of the "Aircraft" section broke the ref. Section has now been reinstated as it is accepted practice in aircrash articles to give a brief history of the aircraft involved. Mjroots (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ambiguity

edit

There are ambiguous statements: crashed on final approach, and crashed during a go-around. Final approach is before the runway, and the go-around phase is after the runway (on opposite sides of the airport), unless it had completed the missed approach procedure and was carrying out a second approach already.Nolween (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I believe a go-around was initiated. From the location of the crash in relation to the airport (Aviation Herald) it looks like the aircraft was on the base leg. Mjroots (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Crew

edit

At http://www.iranair.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=1866&lang=fa-IR These are the crew members: I am posting the photo link so web.archive.org will pick them up

It has their names in Persian too WhisperToMe (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Iranian Civil Aviation Organization documents

edit

In Persian:

15:35 1389/10/20

14:421389/10/20

11:171389/10/20

09:56 1389/10/20 WhisperToMe (talk) 09:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Aircraft

edit

"There were also differing initial reports as to the type of aircraft that crashed, with either a Fokker 100 or a Boeing 727 claimed to have crashed,[4] although the aircraft was later confirmed to be a 727."

Speculation that it was a Boeing 727, but was later confirmed to be a 727?

Perhaps it was speculated to have been a 737, 747 etc?

Piant1963 (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The flight would normally have been flown by a Fokker 100, but the aircraft went tech and the 727 was substituted (source for this is non-RS). Mjroots (talk) 07:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Victims

edit

9 + 73 = 77? Can someone please untangle the math there by checking against the official sources? -- Y not? 13:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Did the results come out?

edit

It's been a while; were the investigation results ever published? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iran Air Flight 277. 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:

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) 14:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Iraqi crew?

edit

It is very unlikely to have 5 crew members with Iraqi nationality working on-board an Iran Air plane. The original sources of this information (internet links) are not available at the moment either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeEcho (talkcontribs) 21:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have reverted it back to the original entry, it looks like it was changed/vandalised in 2011 and nobody noticed, it all could do with a reliable reference. MilborneOne (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply