Talk:US-Bangla Airlines Flight 211

Kathmanu airport

A quote from the source about the airport, for those who cant be bothered to read the source (4:11pm):

Aircraft crashes common in Nepal's Kathmandu airport
The airport in Kathmandu has been the site of several plane crashes in the past.Small aircraft often run into trouble in the mountainous region. A Thai Airways flight from Bangkok crashed while trying to land in Kathmandu in 1992 killing all on board. n September 2012, a Sita Air turboprop plane carrying trekkers to Mount Everest hit a bird and crashed shortly after takeoff, killing all 19 on board.

Surely the source does not mention the word MOUNTAINOUS even once. You are just proving your ingenuity. Lihaas (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The source does not state that it's difficult to land due to it being a mountainous region. Just that it is a mountainous region. Lightbloom (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

BACKGROUND see below. BTW- I was with 3 emirates pilots in Bali 3-4 months ago who had years of experience behind them and they said the hardest place they have landed in was said reason, No they are not wp speculators.Lihaas (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Calmness in editing re: mountains

I think rather than revert wars, everyone involved should just step back and breathe and talk, before editing. Or this might just draw the attention of the moderators. If there is dispute it should be discussed nicely in the talk page. From what I understand (because everything seems to be reverts on the article page), the dispute is over whether Kathmandu airport is mountainous or not and if that is the cause of crashes. From the PressTV article that seems last cited, it does not suggest that this is the issue at Kathmandu airport but rather in Nepal in general. Another article suggests it could be a specific Kathmandu airport issue - as a suggestion maybe this article should be cited instead? - Master Of Ninja (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I cited the source above and he refuses to discuss it when it is a clear and direct quote from the source itself. I am trying to discuss it. Please help me. I do not what to do. I have directly cited the words here and linked to the source. Feel free to take over as I have given the sources just above.Lihaas (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Fixed i.t. Yet he has still refused to come here to discuss it after tell him so.Lihaas (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

What we had here is an editor who kept putting absolute bullshit into the article and calling me pigheaded for repeatedly stating that his reference didn't back up what he was writing. I've seen this crap editing done too often. Bullshit with a reference, and here are two[1] examples[2] involving aviation crash articles one of which got to good article status with absolute bullshit in it. I've learned around here to verify that references state what is written in the article. Lihaas behavior was vandalism because the article said Nepal aviation not the airport but he kept stating it in the article when they knew it was wrong....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I have removed it - pure speculation there is no evidence that the terrain featured in the accident, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Transcript of the conversation between BS211 and KTM Tower here. 37.117.118.138 (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It is background. One can rephrase it. The source does say so as opposed to WP editors speculating either wayLihaas (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Removing unverified claims

The claim regarding Prithula saving passengers is unverified and uses a news article that uses a Facebook page as source. Therefore, redacted the lines. Please do not re-add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esha795 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Appendices

The accident report has appendices but they're not shown for some reason (unless they are in another document. If they are it would usually state that, but in this case it didn't). I tried looking for other copies of the report that had the appendices or separate documents that contained them, but to no avail. Does anyone know where they could be? This could increase the chances of becoming a GA. Tigerdude9 (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Just an idea but have you tried looking for the document in Nepalese rather than English to see if that has the appendices with it. MilborneOne (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I tried hunting for them as well when I was working on the article, but could not locate them anyplace. I think I remember that there were autopsy details in the appendices, which may be why they have been withheld from the public releases, but I might be wrong. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC) Chat on pprune.org about the accident had some comments about how the appendices weren't included as well, and someone else commented "Looking at other Nepalese CAA reports, it seems that is their SOP." so I doubt we'll ever be able to locate them. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Well I took MilborneOne's advice and I was unsuccessful. However, we could email the TSB, as they analyzed the flight recorders, and at least get the CVR transcript and FDR readout. Tigerdude9 (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The Nepali Times published a transcript of the CVR in March 2019. The link is attached to the article as reference 5. It is quite a read. That article also has the videos of the flight. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:US-Bangla Airlines Flight 211/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 17:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• "from Dhaka, Bangladesh to Kathmandu, Nepal that" commas after country names per MOS:GEOCOMMA.

  Done.

• Probably needs to note in the first sentence that it crashed "on landing".

  Done.

• "and the deadliest accident involving " repeats "accident" in the same sentence, any hope for replacing the second with "incident" for instance?

  Done.

• " pilot disorientation and a loss of situational awareness on the part of the pilots" again, pilot repeated here, could refactor to say it just once, e.g. by simply dropping the first "pilot".

  I wanted to make it clear that the pilots were the ones disoriented and had lost situational awareness, so I replaced the second use with "flight crew".

• "The flight was a regularly scheduled flight that operates ..." flight repeated unnecessarily and present tense here, it is still the same flight number operating the same schedule?

  Changed the wording and changed to past tense

• "high traffic " volumes of?

  Done.

• "2 nautical miles away" convert etc.

  Done.

• "right hand main wheels" right-hand would normally be hyphenated in this use.

  Done.

• "65 adult passengers, two children, and four crew members, for a total of 71 " per MOSNUM, spell out, or enumerate, comparable figures, so 65/2/4/71 or sixty-five/two/four/seventy-one.

  Done.

• "51 passengers and crew ... " avoid starting sentences with a number.

  I haven't heard of that one. I changed the start of the sentence to "There were..." but my old English teacher would cringe about that.

• "20 passengers survived..." likewise.

  Same.

• "pilot.[12][1] " refs in numerical order.

  Done.

• "it over 100 times" more than.

  Done.

• "He had resigned from the airline before the..." any reason given?

  It was explained later in the article in the Investigation section; there were rumors that he had had an extramarital affair with one of his trainees; that was one of the explanations of why the pilot was so out of his mind. He explained to his co-pilot that he was extremely sleep deprived as a result of the accusations.

• "day.[10][1](p15)" numerical order.

  Done.

• "her head.[16][1](p15)" ditto.

  Done.

• "As of March 2019..." is it still the case?

  I haven't found anything newer than that reference to confirm.

• "22 passengers survived " avoid starting sentences with a number.

  Done.

• "to area hospitals" is an "area hospital" the same as a "local hospital"?

  Done.

• " impact.[5][1](p16)" numerical order.

  Done.

• " for identifying" -> "to identify".

  Done.

• "Dash 8-Q400" I think that's the first time you put a hyphen between the 8 and Q400.

  Done.

• "indefinite period of time" "of time" is unnecessary.

  Done.

• Any update on if the airline can fly to Kathmandu now?

  I had done a lot of digging to see if there was any sources about that, to find if there had ever been a formal application, denial, or approval, but could never track anything down when I was working on this in May. As of today, the airline's website doesn't list Kathmandu as a destination, so I assume not.

• " Kathmandu Post " should be in italics.

  Done.

That's everything I can find on a quick run through, so it's on hold. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it. I've made some changes outlined above. RecycledPixels (talk) 01:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome, it was another interesting read. Your changes are great and I'm promoting. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hindsight bias?

Recently I came across the phenomenon of hindsight bias and I wondered whether this bias might also be present in this Wikipedia article... According to the hindsight bias, in retrospect it is overestimated how likely, predictable and/or inevitable an event was, and obviously a study has even found it in Wikipedia articles on accidents/catastrophes: doi:10.1007/s00426-017-0865-7 So I wondered whether that could be the case with this article, too, – and whether the disaster is presented as more predictable and inevitable than it actually was before. Maybe we should search again for information that would have spoken against its occurrence? Apparently, the hindsight bias occurs because of a retrospective focus on information that spoke FOR the event while ignoring (or not taking seriously) information that would have argued for another outcome, which then, of course, leads to the impression of inevitability and foreseeability... This is why I wondered whether this article might also be affected by hindsight bias and should thus be checked again for this? --2A02:810D:1300:38E5:A195:7F94:49ED:A9DC (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Rather than post the same observation on a number of articles we really need to know what you think is an issue with this article, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. You are absolutely right. So I try to explain my intention: most recently I've read this study about the hindsight bias in Wikipedia articles, mentioned above. Following this I surched out some articles about disasters, trying to find the hindsight bias. But I think it is very hard finding out a hindsight bias because of it's robustness. Even experts succumb the hindsight bias. But (!) I found another study titeld: „Wikipedia outperforms individuals when it comes to hindsight bias“ doi: 10.1007/s00426-019-01165-7. So my idea was to discuss about it in the talk of the articles and maybe find some people who are also interestet in this topic. Because I believe in the „collective intelligence“ and maybe together we will find the hindsight bias in Wikipedia articles and eliminate it.--2A02:810D:1300:38E5:8926:5C56:DB71:CF17 (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

OK so you have not got anything specific to improve this article, this page is not for collective thinking. Perhaps try one of the projects connected to Hindsight bias. MilborneOne (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Hindsight bias has been found to be greater, or to be more likely to occur, when the outcome of an event is negative. However, studies show that cases ending in severe negative outcomes such as death result in higher levels of hindsight bias. Besides the hindsight bias is not a unitary phenomenon. It consists of three components, namely memory distortions, impressions of necessity and impressions of foreseeablility (doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.007 ). The specific point in this article might be the impression of necessity. If somebody reads the article, the impression of inevitability quickly arises. Well, researches suggest that there is no solution to eliminate hindsight bias in totality, but there are possibilities to reduce it. One of it includes considering alternative explanations ore opening one's mind to different perspectives. Le contribution „Kathmandu airport“ in the talk might be such an alternative explanation or a different perspective and might be an attempt to decrease the hindsight bias in this article.--2A02:810D:1300:38E5:CDB2:B2D7:777C:68B2 (talk) 08:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

OK but you still have not said what you dont like in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 09:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I miss different perspectives or alternative explanations. These might be metreological phenomena, the special terrain arround the airport, the large number of accidents at the airport, the wind... According to studies, a possibility to reduce the hindsight bias.--132.176.134.62 (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

We tend to stick to reliable facts mainly from the inquiry and try not to speculate on what might have been, if other factors have not been mentined by the sources then we shouldnt, do you reliable sources that link the cause to the terrain or previous accidents? I presume you have read the report which clearly says the pilot lost it and was the main cause of the accident, other contributing factors but none relate to the location or the weather. MilborneOne (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

There are approaches for different perspectives and alternative explanations in the inquiry too. Perhaps omissions before the disaster. Take a look at „Safty Recommendation“.--2A02:810D:1300:38E5:ED8E:C7A5:DC7C:50BD (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but if you cant come up with something in the article that needs to be improved then we can close this discussion, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)