Talk:Lion Air Flight 610/Archive 1

Archive 1

Image

I added File:20180825 SP-LVD Radom Air Show 1111 4948 DxO.jpg to the infobox because it was the only quality image of a 737-8 MAX on Commons. There was one in Lion Air livery, but it wasn't very good quality and could be cropped: File:PK-LQJ.jpg AHeneen (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

After cropping the other PK-LQJ image, it looks better and, while not as nice as the LOT image, is more appropriate to include in the article. AHeneen (talk) 02:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Image (II)

I believe that an image of PK-LQP, the aircraft involved in the accident, can be found here:

https://airwaysmag.com/industry/lion-air-boeing-737max8-crashes/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ten The Mapper (talk • contribs) 10:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ten The Mapper:Do not do it! I was not intended to bite you, but the file is all rights reserved by Airways International Inc (Airways International, Inc © 2018. All Rights Reserved.). As it is copyrighted and unfree, Wikimedia Commons cannot accept this file and such files will be deleted on sight. You may want to read c:COM:L for more licensing information. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my Commons' talk page, thank you.廣九直通車 (talk) 11:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the information. User:Ten The Mapper (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Deadliest in 2018

Is this the deadliest aircraft crash in 2018 ? 46.70.130.85 (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Based on List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft § 2018 the answer seems to be yes. /95.166.232.165 (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• This is the deadliest commercial crash in 2018. The deadliest crash was the 2018 Algerian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 crash, which was not a commercial flight.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 15:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Is this a 737 Max 737-8-200?

According to the Boeing page, the 737 Max 8 seats up to 178, but there were more than that on this flight. It seems to list a 210 seat variant the 737-8-200. 737 Max page 216.208.41.198 (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The 200 is a special version for Ryanair, I dont think they have built any yet. MilborneOne (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

There were 178 passengers plus a child and two infants. There were likely more children, but the reason for specifically mentioning the child and two infants was that they were probably lap children that were not assigned a seat and had to fly in the lap of an adult. Crew are included in figures for how many seats are in an aircraft. AHeneen (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

That seating range is listed as "2-class", and you have to take such figures as typical, not absolute limits. An airliner's seating configuration is a matter of negotiation between the manufacturer and the airline, and some airlines may choose something outside the normal range. As long as the configuration doesn't violate regulations or the manufacturer's design limits, there's room for variation. The 210-seat limit is probably single-class, and Lion Air, being a low-cost airline, might have ordered the plane in such a configuration. But I wouldn't assume that it's a "737-8-200" without further explanation of what that designation really means and more information about the specific aircraft Lion Air purchased. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 11:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

BBC News report "Boeing ditches 737 Max name on new Ryanair plane" here: [1]

... parked 737 Max aircraft awaiting delivery to Ryanair are marked "737-8200". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.8.163 (talk) 08:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Not suprising as they are a sub-variant of the 737-8 with 200 seats as already mentioned above. MilborneOne (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Pitch/velocity graph

Pitch and Total Velocity of Flight 610

User:Rwolf01 added the graph with the unsourced sentence: "Real time flight data indicates the plane entered the water at an angle of approximately 40 degrees nose down, and a speed of approximately 550 MPH." I think this graph, while well-intentioned, should not be included because it is inappropriate synthesis. The "pitch" was calculated from the horizontal & vertical speeds, but this confuses the aircraft's pitch with its direction of movement and in the case of a stalled aircraft, that is (almost) never the case. An infamous example is Air France Flight 447, which stalled and in the confusion of a storm, darkness, and an unreliable air speed reading (at times), the copilot kept the nose up at full throttle as the aircraft plummeted from cruising altitude to the Atlantic Ocean...the pitch of the aircraft was up, but if you calculated pitch from the horizontal and vertical speeds, it would be nose down (from thelast paragraph of this section of the article: "At [the moment of impact with the ocean], the aircraft's ground speed was 107 knots (198 km/h; 123 mph), and it was descending at 10,912 feet per minute (55.43 m/s) (108 knots (200 km/h; 124 mph) of vertical speed). Its pitch was 16.2 degrees (nose up), with a roll angle of 5.3 degrees left. ... The aircraft crashed belly-first into the ocean at a speed of 152 knots (282 km/h; 175 mph), comprising vertical and horizontal components of 108 knots (200 km/h; 124 mph) and 107 knots (198 km/h; 123 mph) respectively.")

The accident could have been caused by a bad instrument, so for now the graph with the ADS-B altitude/speed should be presented as such and there shouldn't be any interpretation/analysis by Wikipedia users. AHeneen (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I strongly concur with AHeneen's compelling observations. The graph is worthy only so long as its axis are labeled in a manner which reflects the true nature of the data. Currently the pitch axis labeling is wholly presumptuous, quite possibly or perhaps even likely wholly incorrect, and thus fatally flawed. I was deceived by it, and suspect many other readers have been misled as well. --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is actually wrong. What AHeneen refers to as the calculated pitch, is actually referred to as the flight path angle over ground. The term "pitch angle" is uniquely reserved to the pitch attitude over ground which (given no winds) differs from the flight path angle by the angle of attach AOA see figure. I am studying aerospace engineering and having not yet read that there was analysis of any on-board data yet, I was also deceived by it. The axis should be re-labled "flight path angle" and the sentence pointed out must be removed since it is plain wrong. Till Blaha (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I removed the graph from the article as it was WP:SYNTH and definitely did not show the aircraft's attitude. If a version of the graph is restored then I believe that we should also not show the velocity until we knew for certain which speed was reported. It could be the airspeed, groundspeed, or even a calculated value based on GPS positions and speed of altitude changes. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I think we can say that unfortunately they have all passed away.

I think we can confirm that all the passengers and crew have unfortunately died. If the force was so rough to the point that body parts ended up being scattered... We can confirm that the force would cause major injuries and death to all onboard. especially if it has sunk (of which it has.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planefam (talk • contribs)

Why Death Project?

It seems inappropriate to include this article in the 'Death' project. Events such as this are not what that project is all about. Should we remove it? 31.52.165.201 (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I stand corrected. I just noticed the project includes "Man-made disasters: Transportation disasters (when at least one person died)". To me, that's wrong anyway, but I suppose the issue should be addressed at that project. However, do we have to have the project here? 31.52.165.201 (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not OK - per several past discussions - to litter the talk page of this article with a picture of a human skull. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

"Events such as this are not what that project is all about." - What is the project all about? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

You know you're wrong in claiming that, Andy. The Death project covers all transport accidents in which people died. We've discussed this on several talk pages after you removed the banner - and there's never been a consensus to not include the banner on relevant articles' talk pages. I don't know why you continue to remove it because of your irrational aversion to a picture of a clean skull. A skull is an extremely appropriate pic because it's a very well-known symbol of death; it certainly isn't litter. People who are squeamish about such things will definitely not choose to read the talk page of an article about a fatal accident. Jim Michael (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

While I would mildly be interested to know the basis for your claiming to have an insight into what I know; I would be even more strongly delighted if you would refrain from claiming to do so again, since you are clearly unable to do so with any semblnce of truth. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

In response to Martinevans123, the project is about the items listed at the project itself, and these include - as I pointed out - "Man-made disasters: Transportation disasters (when at least one person died)". Personally, I wouldn't have such a category in that project, but it is there at the moment. However, we do have some latitude as to which projects are applied to an article, and again, I would not assign the Death Project to this article. 31.52.165.201 (talk) 10:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I tend to agree with you. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Andy, you must remember that you've removed the Death banner from other articles on many occasions and triggered discussions like this one on several occasions. Never has there been consensus to remove the skull from the banner, nor to not include the banner on the talk pages of such articles. You must know that, so you know that your claim that a ruling against the skull or banner has been established is untrue.

31, why would you not include this article in the Death project, when it clearly is within the project? Why would you not include transport accidents in which people died in the Death project? Jim Michael (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't include it because I don't think the category in question should be in the Death project. If you look at that project, the in-scope/out-of-scope lists leave a lot to be desired. It seems the overall scope of the project is far too large. Also, why are man-made disasters in scope and natural disasters out of scope? The project needs a good looking at. When I've some time, I might put some comments to the project. I acknowledge that, as it stands, this article is within the scope, but Wikipedia does allow for flexibility in these matters; hence my No vote. 31.52.165.201 (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Why shouldn't disasters in which people are killed be within the scope of the Death project? Personally, I think all fatal incidents should be within the scope of the project. However, regardless of what any of us think the scope should be, the fact is that this article clearly is within the scope - hence the banner should be here. Jim Michael (talk) 10:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

How about all serial killers? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Quite. The scope of the Death project is inconsistent in many ways. Essentially, its scope is way too big. However, this article is within it, as the project currently stands, so I'll be bold and put it back. 31.52.165.201 (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that squares with your !vote below. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Fair comment, but it seemed like the !vote was going nowhere. Revert it if you want. 31.52.165.201 (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I think you should self-revert and wait for consensus (if any) to develop. Or else open an RfC. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I just did. RfC seems like a good idea - you mean about the Death project scope, or its application here? I'll look at it tomorrow. Thanks. 31.52.165.201 (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I meant just here. But there may be larger questions to ask over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Death. It seems that Jim Michael also wants to discuss such a question, as he suggests "all fatal incidents should be within the scope of the project." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Serial killers are excluded from the Death project, due to the rationale that they are covered by the Serial Killer project.

There has already been a discussion at the Death project, as well as discussions on several talk pages of articles of fatal transport accidents. All or most were triggered by Andy removing the project banner from talk pages of articles which clearly fell within its scope - followed by other editors reinstating it. None of the discussions resulted in a consensus for any change in scope, application etc. The only change that was agreed on was for the misleading skull and crossbones portal logo to be changed, so it was substituted for a coffin this year. Over 99% of our readers & editors never mention any problem with seeing a clean skull on the banner, so Andy's perception of oversensitive/squeamish people choosing to come to talk pages of articles about fatal disasters & being offended by a clean skull is unsupported. Jim Michael (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a !vote? Here goes:

Should the Death Project be assigned to this article?

• No. The subject matter of this article is not fundamentally about the subject of death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.165.201 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Abstain. I don't think it affects the reader. But I'm not sure it helps improve the article - has anyone from Project Death come here simply because of that tag? I doubt it. But the real issue (only issue) is the skull. Even if it is nice and clean. To me it looks like a childish distraction - I'd be happy to see a tag without any skull. Ideally that would be an option for each Talk page to determine locally. But am not that bothered, as it is normally hidden anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The skull is visible on page-load, and only hidden subsequently. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, for most people on a PC or laptop maybe. My zoom level is typically set so that I don't usually see all the project banners. So it depends on the order in which they are stacked. And if I do ever see it, I'd estimate it's for about 250-300ms? I realise platforms and settings will vary widely. Maybe the short flashing is more unnerving/disturbing? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
• Wrong question - the issue is not whether this article is within the remit of the project, but whether it is right to plaster an image of a human skull on articles about recent tragedies. It is, of course, not acceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - it is clearly, indisputably within the scope of the project. Being recent or not is irrelevant. I'm certain that anyone who is squeamish or overly sensitive about death would not choose to visit the talk page of articles about disasters in which people were killed. Being vicariously offended on behalf of people who would never visit such articles is preposterous. Death is a major aspect of this crash and there's nothing childish or inappropriate about a clean skull. If the pic were of a rotting corpse with flies on it, I'd understand the objection to the image - but even then not to the presence of the banner. Jim Michael (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Not an animated rotting zombie image, emerging from a grave, with maggots as well as flies, then? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Graphs and altitude data not reliable sources

Flightradar24 / Flightaware are not reliable sources to use as facts on an article on Wikipedia. Please do not add them back. Bohbye (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The followings are reliable sources citing the graphs of FlightRadar24. I recreated them using raw data preventing the copyright violation. I restored with these sources.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Indonesia's Lion Air Flight JT-610 crashes into the sea with 189 on board, officials say". CBS News. October 29, 2018.</ref>
• "Lion Air crash near Indonesian capital". Asia News Network. October 29, 2018.</ref>
• "La búsqueda para recuperar 189 cuerpos en el mar tras el accidente aéreo en Indonesia". Huffpost. October 29, 2018.</ref>

NYT Article

Why do we care about the New York Times' speculations? This journal is not an aviation authority and the author of the article is even less so. The article title is a question (in such cases, the answer is more often than not a resounding 'No'), the author sites vague 'experts', draws parallels to an almost decade-old Air France Flight 447 accident without knowing the slightest detail about the current event. Can we at least wait for the recovery of black boxes before building hypotheses? I believe this section should be removed.192.222.134.89 (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

So what about the Daily Telegraph: [2]? Should we not add that either? The hypothesis is attributed to "Gerry Soejatman, an Indonesian aviation expert." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

At least this one states a fact, the order to inspect all aircrafts of this type. It souldn't be in a section labeld 'Investigation' though. In my opinion.192.222.134.89 (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair point. Perhaps it should be in "Reactions"? It is pure speculation, I guess, even if from "an expert." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I would also add, regarding 'experts', anyone with an aviation related website calls themselves some sort of expert. In cases of fatal accidents, no one is to be trusted outside of aviation authorities of the country (or countries) investigating the accident. Perhaps the aircraft OEM if they do make a statement (which they rarely do, before the investigation is well underway or their experise is required). The people who have access to the crash site and flight recorders.192.222.134.89 (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Those two sources are WP:RS. We generally assume they check the quality of their sources. It seems likely that the flight recorders will be recovered before too long, but I don't think they have yet been found. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: Soejatman appears in sources at 2012 Mount Salak Sukhoi Superjet crash and Adam Air. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Removed speculative text. If we list spaculations, we might as well list to all hypothetical info listed on PPRUNE and airliners.net Bohbye (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

So far this is the best (and only) information we've got. Well done.192.222.134.89 (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that Professional Pilots Rumour Network has fewer readers than NYT and Daily Telegraph. Both of those sources seem give Soejatman some credence. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that Copernicus had fewer followers than the Catholic Church when he put the Sun, rather than the Earth at the centre of the Universe.192.222.134.89 (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Very good. But I doubt airliners.net got there 18 centuries earlier. Yours, Clementevans VII (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Clever :). Look, all I'm saying is let's stick to the few facts we know so far and let the investigation run its course. They will find out the real cause soon enough.192.222.134.89 (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, the NYT article also has the flight path. Those data are facts. Should we include the raw data without any distracting and speculative interpretation? (but see thread on "Pitch/velocity graph" above). Martinevans123 (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

BOTH the Nytimes and Telegraph articles are further examples of the kind of garbage "reporting" that so much of the MSM engages in, during the early stages of a crash investigation. "Experts say..." WHAT experts?

The NYTimes should NOT be treated as a WP:RS for this article. They are no better than the typical sensationalist tabloid, when it comes to this kind of subject matter. Picking out an accident like AF 447, and then to try and insinuate some kind of nexus to that accident, is totally irresponsible. They are just trying to keep the paper's name in the headlines, even though they have no news on the subject that is fit to print.

It was clear, VFR weather. If the Lion Air pilots were getting erroneous readings, then competent pilots would have turned off the autopilot, auto-throttles and flight directors and just fly the plane manually back to the TO airport. However, if the pilots of third world airlines are not properly trained, so that they can fly the plane manually in good weather, then you end up with crashes like Asiana B-777 at SFO on July 6, 2013, Tatarstan Flight 363, November 17, 2013, Fly Dubai 981, March 19, 2016, and now Lion Air Flight 610.

Until these third world airlines start training their pilots to the same kind of standards that are required in North America, Europe, Australia/New Zealand, et. al., then we will continue to see these kinds of needless tragedies.

I will be extra extremely surprised if they find there was a defective pitot tube. But, even if there was, that shouldn't have prevented the pilots from safely returning to the TO airport. Not if they had been properly trained and certified. I think the most important part of the investigation is to find out the position of the Horizontal Stabilizer trim, when it hit the water. EditorASC (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You are making a whole lot of assumptions yourself. 'Thirld world country', 'untrained pilots', etc. etc. This is not the 1950's anymore, come on now. Indonesia is a big, important country, not a banana republic. Agreed about the NYT bullshit article though, which was also my first though.192.222.134.89 (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they are not "assumptions." The facts speak for themselves when those accidents have been investigated. For instance, the flight before Lion Air 610, in the same airplane, also had the same kind of dangerous control anomalies yet that Capt, instead of immediately returning to the departure airport, continued up to his planned cruise altitude and flew on to the original destination airport, with a plane full of trusting passengers. Then, to avoid revealing what he had done, that Capt did not record the true and complete story in the logbook. If he had, then that plane would have been grounded and none of those innocent folks on Flt 610 would have died. Any captain in the Non-Third-World countries who behaved like that would lose his license and job.

Take a look at the crashes of Indian Airlines Flight 605 (Feb, 1990) and Asiana Flight 214 (July, 2013). There can be no doubt about the incompetence of the pilots that traces directly to wholly inadequate training. Any pilot who is incapable of flying the plane manually, in VFR weather, has no business being in command of any airliner. EditorASC (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

This is not survival memory unit from FDR but memory block from Cockpit Voice Recorder

A flight data recorder (left) and a cockpit voice recorder (right) installed on their mounting trays in the rear fuselage of an aircraft

https://twitter.com/Enchev_EG/status/1057921128159600640?s=19

83.148.76.78 (talk) 09:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The Guardian says: "It is not yet clear whether they have picked up the cockpit voice recorder or flight data recorder, or both." and also ""This is most likely the FDR. We are still looking for CVR," Bambang said." But the video from SkyNews does seem to show part of the CVR. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The current source is this one, the Indonesian language detiknews. Google translate shows it very clearly saying "What has been found is a flight data recorder (FDR)." But this seems to be contradicted by a number of English language sources. CNN also says it's the FDR: [3] but the picture looks like part of the CVR. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Note that exact designs vary (see examples in image). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

They just lie. This is positively (100%) Survived Memory Unit from Cockpit Voice Recorder. The problem for them is that if they tell it is CVR the pilots conversation can be retrieve within hours and questions will follow. Questions that someone don't want to answer. That's why they just chose to lie. FDR can be analyzed months. https://twitter.com/Enchev_EG/status/1057962280955101189?s=19 83.148.76.78 (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

And do not worry I'll make them admit that it is CVR. But they started with lies from the very beginning. A terrible investigation is emerging. 83.148.76.78 (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Your Twitter image shows a L3/ Fairchild model FA2100. The FA2100 is optionally available as either a stand-alone Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) or a dedicated Flight Data Recorder (FDR). Do you know what the equipment fit is on the Boeing 737 MAX 8? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

FDRs and CVRs vary in design. For example, this image here clearly shows a FDR and CVR that are of similar design, with memory units that look just like the one in the sources. Besides, if one wishes to claim that they misidentified it (or even deliberately covered it up), such assertions need to be backed up by reliable sources. —Madrenergic^talk 15:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

They already admit that they are not sure what type is this memory unit - FDR or CVR. Perhaps we will never find out because they are rumors they find and the second data recorder a few hundred meter away. I can't tell you what I know about B737max8 because I don't want to make them more profound liars from what they are now. Wait and you will see. 83.148.76.78 (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

You can't tell us what you know, eh. Lol. If both recorders are found, it won't really matter. But that video clip of the item being recovered seemed to show it was damaged. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/Enchev_EG/status/1058051310002561024?s=19 83.148.76.78 (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

It seems the mysterious Twitter user, otherwise known as IP /83.148.76.78, is now no longer a Twitter user, and all of the above links are dead. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

11 minutes

The lead section says that the aircraft "crashed 13 minutes after takeoff" and is supported by the clear statement here. How can this claim be reconciled with the data graph File:JT610 Pitch and Total Velocity; Total duration of the flight.png which clearly shows a flight duration of 11 minutes? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm no expert in air crash investigations, but there could be differences in determining the start of the flight timing, as the 0 minute mark on the graph already places the velocity of the aircraft at more than 200 mph and positive pitch, which suggests to me that this graph begins well beyond the start of take-off, and the plane could even already be airborne at this point in time. Whether this is an error in data selection or completely normal is unknown to me, but it is quite likely this would not match up exactly with the start time of the flight used in the statement you referenced. Furthermore, there may be a protocol that requires a certain amount of time to pass before determining that a plane has "lost contact" (note that the reference specifically says that it lost contact after 13 minutes, not crashed after 13 minutes), even if the ADSB has already stopped broadcasting. In other words, I imagine it is entirely possible that the two figures can differ. —Madrenergic^talk 16:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

A 737 can easily exceed 220 kts at take-off. The graph showing altitude File:Lion Air Flight 610.svg is more convincing, I think. Perhaps the news source used scheduled departure time? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, but until the news source clarifies or we get an official investigation report, we'll have to go with whatever these news reports say. —Madrenergic^talk 17:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately yes. I have been unable to find an alternative source. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

It depends on the aircraft but the timer for flight duration usually starts when power is applied to the flight deck, the engines are started, or the brakes are released to pull away from the take. See the FAA's 14 CFR 1.1 (definition for Flight time) and also the Hobbs meter. There's also the issue in that this is an Indonesian airline flying out of Indonesia. They may well have their own rules and definitions of flight time. I resolved the 11 vs 13 minute issue by removing the graph. See the #Pitch/velocity graph talk thread which is above about the removal. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Well thanks for reconciling the article, although the graph seems to have been removed for a different reason? My question remains, however, whether the graph is in the article or not - I didn't think a graph like that could be so "wrong" in terms if time. To me it looks very much like the aircraft crashed 11 minutes after take-off, but the press report says 13. I'm sure an official report will make this clear, but we'll have to wait, at least until an interim one is published. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Properly, flight time starts with brakes release at the commencement of the take-off run. That's why the British Airtours Flight 28M was classed as an 'air accident' even though the aircraft never left the ground.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.6 (talk) 10:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes ok, fully agree. But 2 minutes seems a little long for a take-off run, unless it was interrupted or aborted? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The airline may have used a different time for the start of the flight within their organisation, possibly when the aircraft left the terminal or even the time that the doors were closed. Different organisations may use different start times but the one I outlined above is the one used for legal purposes, i.e., in case of an accident the flight time will be measured from brakes off and prior to this point in the journey the event will be classed as a 'ground incident' or 'ground accident'. Once the aircraft commences its take-off run any such accident then becomes an 'air accident'. At brakes release full power is applied and at this point the potential energy of the aircraft increases thus changing the dynamics of any likely event or accident and making the consequences much more serious if anything does go wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.6 (talk) 10:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure you are completely right. Thanks for clarifying. But the existing source says "Lion Air flight loses contact 13 minutes after Jakarta takeoff". That seems somewhat specific. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about the time stated as without knowing which start time was used it may well be at variance with other sources at this early stage of the investigation. The reports issued by the Indonesian equivalent of the AAIB will likely use the correct time when they are published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.6 (talk) 11:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the National Transportation Safety Committee, perhaps aided by the U.S NTSB? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I should think so. The manufacturer, Boeing, will also probably participate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.6 (talk) 10:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Latest BBC news update on the accident here: [4]

It appears a faulty angle-of-attack sensor may have caused the aircraft's new anti-stall system to operate preventing the crew from raising the aircraft's nose. Apparently the sensor had been playing up on the previous flight.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.137 (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think this his now common knowledge. It doesn't help to resolve the apparent conflict we have between "11 minutes" and "13 minutes." I think we'll need to see an official report for that. The BBC graphic clearly show a 06.20 departure. My guess is that this was the scheduled departure time and the aircraft was 2 minutes late taking off. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The preliminary report (pages 1 - 3) says "At 2320 UTC, the aircraft departed from Jakarta using runway 25L" and "At 23:31:54 UTC, the FDR stopped recording." So that's almost 12 minutes, in fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I would use the time in the linked pdf. It would appear the problem was more systemic than a faulty AofA sensor as it is unlikely two sensors in a batch would be faulty, and the AofA sensor wouldn't account for the additional discrepancies in airspeed and altitude indications unless they were all affected by extremely severe icing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.137 (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Please use English language sources wherever possible

Please use English language sources throughout the article wherever possible. Using foreign language sources makes it much more difficult for English language editors to verify statements in the article. English language news sources have ample coverage of the crash.—Finell 17:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

As much as this is enwiki, sometimes international news (read: English-language sources outside The Jakarta Post, Tempo and Jakarta Globe) simply doesn't go into more specific details. Though, I'll see and scan the article for possible replacements. Juxlos (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:NONENG, "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance", which clearly gives priority to quality and relevance over the language. This is important because this incident occurred within Indonesia and primarily involved Indonesians, so most direct coverage will come from the Indonesian press, which overwhelmingly use the Indonesian language, while English language reports will often be non-Indonesian agencies rehashing information given in Indonesian media. This reduces the quality of the source and also omits many details that would otherwise be useful to the article. While I will try to substitute sources where possible, I think we need to be prepared that most sources will still end up being in the Indonesian language. —Madrenergic^talk 07:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Including the death of a "rescue" diver in the fatality count

Including the unfortuate death of a diver taking part in the crash investigation (not the rescue by the way) in the infobox fatality count appears to me to be inappropriate. The death is only tangentially related to the crash. The fact is mentioned sufficiently in the body of the article. Andrewgprout (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout: I don't see any reason why it shouldnt be included in the infobox. Multuple incidents like this have occurred involving shipwrecks, where the deaths of recovery divers were included in the infobox. See Costa Concordia disaster, Sinking of MV Sewol, etc. Undescribed (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence is quite clear and says this: "ground_fatalities: Number of deaths caused by the accident among people who were not on board the aircraft involved." I would argue that the diver's death, very regrettable though it is, was not caused by the accident. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

So the current consensus seems to be to not include this detail. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Whichever way this goes, we should not have separate standards for air and sea incidents. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

IMvHO, it should be included, with an explanatory note. Pretty sure this is the norm in these situations and that it has been done for other accidents which involve the death of those involved in rescue/recovery operations. Mjroots (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Reinstate current event template?

I wonder if we should have waited longer before removing the current template, because stuff still seems to be changig rapidly (mostly in the "Recover operations" and "investigation" sections. Should we add it back? We can either add it back to the entire article, or just to an important section such as the two aforementioned sections. Tigerdude9 (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

What other updates are we expecting? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The "current event" tag is not applied because stuff is happening. It is used when the article is being heavily edited, and content may be subject to frequent change. That is no longer the case. WWGB (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh ok. I got a bit confused there. Since it's no longer the case, I won't add it. Tigerdude9 (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Alert to Editors: Incredible alleged statement by Boeing

If Boeing really did make such a statement, then we should post it in this article (along with WP:RS, of course), ASAP. If that statement exists, I am hoping some other editor can find it, since my own search has been futile.

In her NYTimes article [5], Christine Negroni makes this statement:

"Boeing says “there will be no indication to the pilots that the stabilizer trim is activating.”

That is in her article that discusses the BULLETIN that Boeing issued.

I read that bulletin several times, but couldn't find that statement in it. Such a statement, if it actually exists, is rather astounding, since 737 pilots have ALWAYS been aware of HS Stab Trim operating because the two manual trim wheels on both sides of the center pedestal, have ALWAYS rotated accordingly, no matter the source that commands such HS trimming, in either direction.

I wrote to Christine, asking her where that statement came from. She did not answer. So, I wrote her again, and this time she did answer:

"Robert J. Boser: it is not in the bulletin. It is in Boeing guidance to operators."

She did not provide a link. I then tried every way I know to search for that alleged additional Boeing document, but I cannot find it anywhere. If Boeing actually did say that, it would be of profound significance to the accident investigation.

If true, it means the manual trim wheels in the cockpit won't always move like they always have in the past, whenever the HS Stab trim operates. That means there must be some new part (along with a necessary algorithym) of the HS Stab trim system which some how DISCONNECTS actual movement of the HS Stabilizer, from those manual rotating wheels in the cockpit.

But WHY? Why would Boeing change the design of that HS Stab trim system in that manner? How on earth could that be deemed as a design improvement, if it would then be possible for that HS Stabilizer to move WITHOUT the pilots being aware it was happening?

I find it very hard to believe that Boeing would do that; I can see nothing to be gained by denying the pilots that kind of critical information. It has ALWAYS been the movement of those manual trim wheels that have alerted the pilots to the need to IMMEDIATELY respond to a "Runaway Stab Trim" and carry out the first required memory steps, of that EMERGENCY procedure. EditorASC (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

EditorASC, two questions arising from your post, which you may be able to answer, just to give some context here: 1. how easy is it to see those wheels rotating (e.g. do they have any passive reflective markings? 2. are they continuous rotaries or do they have end stops? Sorry to indulge in such blatant WP:FORUM here. I assume these are the controls in question on the 737-300: [6] [7] Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Just to note it is very hard NOT to notice these wheels moving as they are inches from your left/right knee/leg. MilborneOne (talk) 13:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Is it just the wheels that no longer move, or the scale indicators on each side also? Can those two even be disconnected? Martinevans123 (talk)

Yes, the link above does show how those wheels rotate each time the HS Stab trim is activated. It is also evident how noisy they are. While that does appear to be a cockpit of the 737-300 model, another video of a 737 MAX 800 (A Lion Air plane, BTW), shows the wheels rotating rapidly, starting at about 16 seconds into the film. [8]

As you can see, they are black in color and each has a white stripe on the wheel indicating where the pilot is to reach for the 90 degree, fold-out handle, if they need it to give them more leverage to turn the wheel manually.

When the two trim switches on the pilot's yoke are activated (both in the same direction, at the same time), those wheels rotate rapidly and you can see the white stripe on each one, as it flashes by during each 360 degree rotation of the wheel. And, they are noticeably noisy when they turn. There is no mistaking what that noise is, when they are rotating.

When the AP directs some trimming of the HS Stab, the rotation rate is much slower, but you can still hear and see them rotating. The only "stops" on those wheels, are when the HS Stabilizer reaches its full nose down or nose up limit.

Since those two manual trim wheels are connected to the HS itself via cables, I don't see how they could be disconnected from it. That is why I find it highly unbelievable that Boeing ever made such a statement, yet Christine Negroni has that in her article and she is one of the few reporters that has a reputation for doing her homework before writing her column.

As to WP:FORUM, or any other guidelines for Talk Page content, I think this discussion is within proper boundaries. I started this section for the sole purpose of alerting other editors to this new, alleged issue, which was raised by Christine Negroni in her NYTimes column (which, presumably would be a proper WP:RS). I think it essential that editors of this article understand this kind of new issue, that has never before been part of previous "sudden high dive" types of accidents.

If they know about this historically new issue, they will be better armed to discern the multitude of "garbage reporting" articles (that are so frequently written during the early stages of airliner accident investigations), from legitimate ones, which would be proper WP:RS for this Wiki article. EditorASC (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I am now posting additional clarifying information, for the SOLE PURPOSE of improving the ability of editors of this article, to discern which articles and/or individual comments in press media, should be treated as appropriate WP:RS citation support for statements made in the article. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES, should any of this information be posted in the article itself, UNLESS some legitimate WP:RS source publishes the same or similar information.

----------

SWA, AA & UAL all have some 737 MAXs in their fleets. Those airlines indicate the bulliten simply highlights what they have already covered in their operations of that 737 (including sim training of their pilots). In short, their pilots have been properly trained to handle such a situation. [9]

Christine Negroni has finally responded to my further inquiries:

a) The "no warning" comment means the pilots will not receive any specific EICAS alert, which indicates the SOURCE of the unwanted HS Stab trimming.

b) There is no change in the manual trim wheels being connected by cables to the HS itself. They will still turn, as they have always done, whenever there is ANY movement of the HS itself.

TO ME, that SHOULD warn the pilots of a "runaway stabilizer" situation and they should IMMEDIATELY carry out the first MEMORY items for that EMERGENCY procedure. The lack of a NEW EICAS warning alert, which explains WHY there is "uncommaned" HS movement, has no relevance when it comes to how pilots have always become immediately aware that the HS Stab IS moving without the pilots or the AP commaning such.

According to the AA pilots union:

-- The 737 MAX has a "MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System)." It is designed to improve pitch attitudes with FLAPS UP and when "elevated angles of attack" are a sensed. MCAS will then activate nose down stabilizer trim, during steep turns with heavy load factors, when airspeeds are sensed as too low. MCAS only operates during manual, flaps up flight. Pilots can override inputs from MACA with the trim switchs on their contol columns, OR by using the pedestal Stab Trim cutout switches.

-- HS Stab movements directed by MACA, are limited to 2.5 degrees at a rate of 0.27 degrees per second.

-- The MACA function is reset IF the AOA falls below the AOA triggering limit, OR if the pilots counter with their own HS Stab trim commands via their yoke switches.

-- If the elevated AOA condition persists, the MCAS will command another incremental HS Stab nose down trim.

---------

I am thanking all of you for your understanding of why I think it extremely important that Wiki editors become aware of this kind of new and unprecedented information, which has never been relevant to previous 737 accidents of planes that did not have this new, MACA-AOA software system.

Hopefully, reputable sources like Aviation Herald and/or the ASN Network will eventually have this clarification too, but I doubt that most of the other MSM will get it correct, even then. EditorASC (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah right, so nothing new on EICAS. Do you want to make any specific comment about the AOA sensors as such? Did you ask Christine Negroni about those at all? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I have no personal knowledge about that new AOA system which Boeing added to the MAX Models, other than its malfunction requires a separate pilot response (QRH-AOA), from the response required when airspeed information is suspected of being unreliable (QRH-UAS).

I don't think it advisable that I push my luck with Christine Negroni any further. While she is one of the top aviation reporters in the MSM (in terms of apparent devotion to accuracy in her article), she might suspect me of trying to publicly embarrass her for quoting that Boeing statement out of context, in her article. That was NOT my intent at all. I simply was trying to understand how Boeing could suddenly deny the pilots any awareness of a HS stabilizer runaway trim episode, which was the clear meaning of that quoted statement, without any contextual explanation to prevent such a misunderstanding.EditorASC (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I too have not been unable to understand why various pilots are missing the runaway stab trim situation and failing to execute the memory items (which by all accounts disables the MCAS). But today maybe the first clue in a new Bloomberg report that says a 3rd pilot was dead-heading in the previous flight to Jakarta before the Lion Air crash. They talk about the memory items, apparently neither pilot recognized the runaway stab trim issue but the 3rd pilot did and run the checklist which fixed it and they continued the flight. Something about the audio and visual cues must be different to some of these pilot's training. If any difference in how the problem manifests is found it will not be good for Boeing, since they did not include it in difference training - unless some of the previous (non Max) causes of runaway trim appear identical. Greenbe (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

MCAS system issue

The discovery that this system was hidden from manuals and retraining procedures should be added to main 737 max article. The lack of documentation is clearly a major fault from Boeing affecting all pilots currently flying this aircraft. This may become a very expensive error for Boeing, especially if found to be a major contributor to this sad crash.--Denniss (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Why is nothing of this present in the 737 Max article? This is a major issue affecting all Max aircraft that even led one (or played a major role) into a crash. I'm not a native english speaker otherwise I would have added it myself.--Denniss (talk)

@Denniss After reading the Leeham in-depth article more is becoming clear to me on this confusing story. Many things have come to light including MCAS documentation, a 3rd pilot on the Jakarta flight, and that Ethiopian pilots were briefed on MCAS prior to the second accident. All need to go into the relevant Wiki pages when I get my thoughts together I'll give it a try on your behalf. One thing that doesn't seem to get mentioned in all the repeated media articles about AoA is that an AoA disagreement can lead to Altitude and Airspeed (IAS) disagreement. It's right in the 737 QRH. So maybe the pilots (in all 3 incidents) were running the "wrong" checklist. Wrong in hindsight but right from the most obvious/loudest symptoms and alerts they would see. The Alt or IAS disagree checklists do not turn off stab trim (only way I know to turn off MCAS). Maybe the checklist needs extra steps. But that would require simulator time for the pilots... --Greenbe (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

After learning more about this whole topic I think the entire Investigation section needs a rewrite, since the chronology does not make sense any more. Not simple, because there is a chronology of events of the previous and accident flight, and a chronology of when and what information drips out. Unfortunately the chronology of when information is published is important because it impacts the second accident and subsequent grounding. I think it should be grouped into two main sections: The sequence of events leading up to the crash, and the chronology of when various pieces were disclosed. Thoughts? --Greenbe (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Cockpit Voice Recorder

Seems the search for the CVR may have been abandoned: [10] Although that CNN source says: "Syaugi said that the search operation had been extended and would continue through Wednesday. The focus of continuing efforts will be to recover additional victim remains and to locate the CVR". Should this be added? Have there been any later news updates since 4 November? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Martinevans123 there are many updates.. the CVR search is still continued for indefinite time, the FDR has been successfully downloaded and a preliminary report will be published in a few days.. however they are all in Indonesian.. I will try to add them to the articles when I'm not really busy PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  • My concern here was only with CVR. By "update", I guess, I meant any reports of it being found. If the locator has now died, it will be a very challenging task. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The see also section

It seems to me that this could do with a trim. I suggest removing the bottom three entries. XL Airways Germany Flight 888T could be added, as it appears that there are many similarities between them on the face of it. Mjroots (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The current list is a bit tenuous, in terms of similarites with other accidents. I would suggest removing all but the first two, and then adding XL Airways Germany Flight 888T, which is highly relevant.

Current list:

   List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 737
   List of aviation accidents and incidents in Indonesia
   List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft
   List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities
   List of unrecovered flight recorders

EditorASC (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Change wording?

The current article states:

"The impact was so powerful that the strongest part of the aircraft was obliterated."

This is however untrue and poorly worded. The FDR and CVR survived. I would also bet the landing gear, fan disk, and several other parts (the strongest parts) are still intact.

Change to:

"the high speed impact caused complete destruction of the airframe." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.217.214.194 (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Separate page to address the MAX 8 crisis

Created the page 2019 Boeing 737 MAX crisis to address the aftermath of the recent two major air disasters. I invite you all to edit and improve the page. Since someone already nominated it for deletion, I will say that this will dominate the aviation industry news for a long time, similar to the Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery problems that affected that aircraft and manufacturer for a long time. The situation with the aircraft and the end result of two major air disasters cannot be properly covered in the disaster pages --Bohbye (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Third pilot and failure in previous flight

Not sure if the detail is worth adding, but https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lion-air-boeing-737-pilot-20190319-story.html Juxlos (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes very much, see my comment in the Alert to Editors section above. I made the edit earlier in main article under "Previous Flight Problems". I think it is a key item if true, why some pilots are able to recognize it and others not. They can interview the crew and hopefully look at tape. Greenbe (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

WikiHannibal should be forbidden from editing this page

I request that users keep careful attention of WikiHannibal's edits (and reverts) as he tends to be a bit biased in his edits, removing valid facts, which tends to paint Boeing in a negative manner, without cause. I sense a pro-Boeing agenda from his edits. WatchFan 07 15:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I "request" you familiarize yourself with WP:PERSONAL, and if you want to discuss, provide specific examples of my edits you do not like/sense pro-Boeing agenda from, including in what way you think they are biased. UPDATE: Perhaps the differences are more on the level of critical reading than facts; what you wrote in your (three-times reworked) edit above is that removing valid facts tends to paint Boeing in a negative manner... I point this out only after I have made my edits regaring your edits, and because they share some stylistic features... WikiHannibal (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Total hours flown

The article contains a contradiction. The "Aircraft" section says: "At the time of the accident, the aircraft had flown about 800 hours in service", referenced to statement by a safety official indirectly quoted by CNN. In the "Recovery operations" section, there is the quote: "investigators were able to recover data from the aircraft's previous 19 flights spanning 69 hours", referenced to Wall St Journal (and also shown in a Quartz article). Airplane went into service in August and was lost at end of October, so let's call it 90 days of service. Assuming a rough approx duration of 4 hours per flight, then 800 hours works out to roughly 200 flights in 90 days. Seems unlikely. The 19 flights (and 69 hours) given in Wall St Journal/Quartz is very close to 17 flights in 90 days that would be calculated using 69 hours divided by the assumed duration of an average 4 hours per flight. Article needs some kind of modification: either drop the 800 hour figure and don't show a number at all, or use the 69 hour figure, perhaps with a footnote to mention an 800 hour figure was attributed to a govt official. DonFB (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

ADD: Possibly the safety official referred to total hours by all MAX aircraft in his country or worldwide; still needs clarification. DonFB (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

This seems to me a lot of specualtion and "assuptions" ("Assuming a rough approx duration of 4 hours per flight, then 800 hours works out to roughly 200 flights in 90 days. Seems unlikely.") I am no expert but I suppose, economically, such aircraft do not make "17 flights in 90 days"... Time since new was 895 hrs 21 mins and 443 cycles per preliminary report. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

A flight recorder space is limited, so only the most recent records are kept. 800 h/ 90 days = 8.9 h / day, a perfectly reasonable usage for a modern narrowbody, e.g. in Airbus_A220#Operational_history Swiss initially flew [...by July 2017] up to [11.25 h] a day [...] Air Baltic's [...] average fleet daily utilisation is 14 h [...] most used are up to 17 hours per day [...] By June 2018, Air Baltic reached a maximum utilisation of 18.5 h a day.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for info. I made small change to text to clarify what download represents. DonFB (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Passenger Flags

I have challenged the addition of flags being added for decoration by User:Felviper - Please note I have raised this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force#Passenger Flags for a wider input. MilborneOne (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't really directly address the flags issue, but we don't need a table with only three rows in the article. My opinion is to replace it with prose in the passengers section. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree, seems a reasonable point with only one foreign passenger and one foreign crew member. MilborneOne (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

This is true, and I consider reasonable to eliminate the table in this specific case. Felviper (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

User:MilborneOne seems to think that the addition of flags is being done for decorarion. This is not the case, the use of flags adds to the information of the article by being beneficial to each and every reader, as it makes the process of gathering information most relevant to them quicker and easier. Felviper (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Final report

The final report has been published. There is much to read and digest. Mjroots (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Km, miles or nmi?

Throughout the article, the unit of distance switches between kilometres, miles and nautical miles. I think it would be easier to understand if we adopted one uniform unit. Thoughts? Naihreloe (talk) 12:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Indonesian units of measurement: metric first, then nmi (customary units in aviation). Miles should not appear.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)