This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1986 Mozambican Tupolev Tu-134 crash article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
JMK is to be congratulated for the stirling work done on this article. Phase4 20:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
Some references supplied, more to be done. JMK ( talk) 01:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
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!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
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!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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/?title=Talk:1986_Mozambican_Tupolev_Tu-134_crash&action=edit§ion=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)
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
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. [1] 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. [2] 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. [3] The weather forecast for the flight was favourable, with an estimated time of arrival of 21:25. [3] 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. [4] 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". [5] 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". [6] |
OK, I have a complete version I'm putting up. Why I think it is better:
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)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
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)
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. [1] The Mozambican team provided 11 pages of suggested corrections to the draft, [2] some of which were adopted by the Board. [3] 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. [4] The Mozambican analysis of and findings from the evidence led them to conclude: [5]
|
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)CS1 maint: location (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1986 Mozambican Tupolev Tu-134 crash article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
JMK is to be congratulated for the stirling work done on this article. Phase4 20:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
Some references supplied, more to be done. JMK ( talk) 01:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
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!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
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!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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/?title=Talk:1986_Mozambican_Tupolev_Tu-134_crash&action=edit§ion=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)
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
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. [1] 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. [2] 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. [3] The weather forecast for the flight was favourable, with an estimated time of arrival of 21:25. [3] 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. [4] 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". [5] 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". [6] |
OK, I have a complete version I'm putting up. Why I think it is better:
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)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
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)
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. [1] The Mozambican team provided 11 pages of suggested corrections to the draft, [2] some of which were adopted by the Board. [3] 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. [4] The Mozambican analysis of and findings from the evidence led them to conclude: [5]
|
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)CS1 maint: location (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)