![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Aeroflot Flight 593 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
March 29, 2021. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a child in command of the controls
crashed an airplane, killing all seventy-five occupants on impact? | |||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on March 23, 2010, March 23, 2018, March 23, 2021, and March 23, 2024. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The account given in the article actually appears to be from the episode of "Air Crash Investigation" (mentioned at bottom of page) in which this flight was shown, but as far as I know, there's no real way to show that this is true. I'm not too sure on the reliability of the show, but it did also mention the reason the plane dived was due to a safety mechanism trying to prevent the plane from stalling, and not due to the actions of the co-pilot/captain's son. Again, don't know quite how to cite this, though. -- Jsloan31 10:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
As well, the show stated that the son was not in control when it crashed. Initally, the G-Forces were too high for the captain to take over, but once the co-pilot had the plane climbing, the Captain pushed the son out of the way and sat back down. WestJet
"45-degree bank ... twice as heavy?"
This is incorrect. In constant-altitude turn, a 45-degree bank results in 1.41g (sqrt(2)). A 60-degree bank is a 2.0g turn.
As an aside, the AirDisaster reference cites 4.8g, but this occurred later in the flight, not during the initial turn. --
203.14.101.3
21:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
National Geographic Channel has another dramatization of this event as part of their Air Emergency series, titled Kid in the Cockpit. Broadcast in the U.S. begins 10 July 2006. — Quicksilver T @ 02:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The language in the main article is unclearly written, with slight gramatical incorrectnesses... Should be changed. -- 67.49.215.31 02:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The following sentence appears in the article: "Unlike his sister, Eldar applied enough force to the steering column to contradict the autopilot for 30 seconds." I believe it ought to say "yolk" or "stick" rather than "steering column." David F ( talk) 20:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Um, was it the child of the relief pilot or the captain?!?: "..his increased the g-force on the pilots and crew, making it impossible for the Captain to replace his son at the controls." Phobal ( talk) 07:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
This is a little known fact, and is one which I will properly reference in the coming days, as I am waiting upon the book arriving from Moscow. Aeroflot was not the operator of the aircraft, nor were the crew members employees of Aeroflot. In order to import the aircraft into Russia, Aeroflot set up a subsidiary which was known as RAL Russian Air Lines. All aircraft and crews belonged to RAL, whilst all RAL operations were on behalf of Aeroflot. I will be writing more on this in the near future as part of edits to Aeroflot -- Russavia 11:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
This "fact" is "little known" because it's not true. Another "conspiracy theory"? What I especially like is "I did wonder". Well, wonder no longer. RAL stands for Russian Airlines, which IS Aeroflot. The full name of the company is (and has been since 1991) "Aeroflot - Russian Airlines". The airplane had French registration to avoid paying the enormous import duties, which at the time amounted to 80% of the cost. Most Aeroflot (as well as other Russian operators) airliners these days have Bermuda registration for the same reason.
PS I wonder if you received "the book arriving from Moscow"? For Pete's sake, it's been decades since the cold war is over but you still think we have bears walking in the streets? GOSH! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo711 ( talk • contribs) 21:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I've watched the "Kid in cockpit" Mayday-Episode and read the article, both of which state that if the pilots had taken their hands off the controls, the plane would have levelled itself out. Alternate solution: What about shutting off the autopilot completely? It seems three "people" were "flying" the plane simultaneously when it crashed, with the human "pilots" only controlling the ailerons. The co-pilot should have been able to control the plane any time once he'd shut down the autopilot and told the kid to take his hands off. Am I right? I wonder why that never occured to the pilots, or was it just left out of the documentary? 88.217.73.30 ( talk) 13:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
In the Air Crash Investigation episode of this crash at one point they mention a flight attendant still wearing an oxygen mask and also unbroken bottles of champagne.. They never come back to these points for the rest of the episode so is it just because they are irrelevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.41.130 ( talk) 14:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
An assertion has been added that this crash sparked outrage in the aviation community, and caused significant changes to flight deck protocol and sterile cockpit environments. I've asked for sources that verify these assertions. A Times article was added that was generally about Russian aviation mentioning this flight, but doesn't verify the assertions. We then have some youtube video of unknown source which also doesn't verify the material, and may not even meet WP:RS standards. Tagging with {{ cn}} does not mean that I think the statement is false. What it does mean is that these are strong assertions about the outcome of the crash and needs sourcing to meet wikipedia's policy of verifiability. Sticking in sources about the flight, but that do not verify the assertions isn't useful. -- Whpq ( talk) 15:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The article states: "After the plane banked to 90 degrees, the remaining functions of the autopilot tried to correct its plummeting altitude by putting the plane in an almost vertical ascent, nearly stalling the plane." What is the source for this? The AP disengage warning sounded a good time before then, according to the CVR. I believe the official investigation concluded that the first officer had control of the plane when it stalled. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Rather than reverting again the unexplained edits made by EurovisionNim ( talk · contribs), I will let this go for a week or so and will allow other users to post their comments regarding the matter. As to reliability, it's clear that YouTube cannot be over Flightglobal. Furthermore, the changes the user has been making had no sources at all. A reference was provided in the above diff, but an inline citation has not been attached. After the week had passed, the modifications will be reverted unless otherwise specified. Thanks.-- Jetstreamer Talk 13:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I would like to confirm that this is the final accident report:
I want to find an English version too WhisperToMe ( talk) 15:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
This [1] edit has been reverted, as the source added does not support the facts. <ref name="ASN" /> says "The bank continued to 90deg, the aircraft pitched up steeply with +4,8g accelerations, stalled and entered a spin." This is in contradiction with "the remaining functions of the autopilot tried to correct its plummeting altitude by putting the plane in an almost vertical ascent, nearly stalling the plane". Nearly stalling a plane does not mean the plane effectively stalled. Furthermore, there is no mention in the ASN reference that the autopilot took the actions described in the text firstly quoted. This is original research.-- Jetstreamer Talk 20:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I removed the CVR transcript—which seems to make up the bulk of this article—because it seemed un-encyclopedic to include it based upon the direction given at WP:LONGQUOTE. Samf4u added it back, but I am unconvinced that it does still not violate WP:LONGQUOTE. Looking at relevant FAs in the aviation accident category, it seems that my assumptions were correct and that it is not standard to include overly long quotations from the CVR (For example. see GOL1907 or UAL93). Unless good reasons are given as to why it is better for us to go against the WP:MOS, it should be removed. Tkbrett (✉) 16:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Agree that the full CVR transcript is inappropriate, in this case. If miscommunication among the flight crew or ATC had played a part in the accident (as it did e.g. in the Tenerife disaster), then it would make sense to quote in full the relevant portions of the recording, but all it does here is adding a dramatic effect that the article doesn't need.-- Deeday-UK ( talk) 07:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
According to the Russian and Chinese articles there were 52 Russians, 6 Chinese, 6 Hong Kongners, 5 Taiwanese, 4 Brits, one Indian, and one American. But I can't find its source. 73.87.74.115 ( talk) 19:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Of course there is no sources. I am just saying how did they know who was on board without a freaking source? 73.87.74.115 ( talk) 22:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
How about you ask them where they found that source(s). 73.87.74.115 ( talk) 17:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
https://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/23/world/75-dead-in-a-crash-of-a-russian-airbus-on-hong-kong-run.html How about this? TrueLightningStriker ( talk) 21:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Reading this article for the first time, I found myself left with a question: since the accident appears to have been caused by having children in the cockpit, did this result in any policy changes at the airline or industry level related to having non-crew, particularly children, on the flight deck? 70.73.90.119 ( talk) 22:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs) 22:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Comments
That's all I have. What a tragic accident, especially when you read that leaving the whole thing to itself would have worked out... On hold. The Rambling Man ( Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
07:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Thanoscar21 ( talk). Self-nominated at 22:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC).
The article currently says Eldar was 16 and Yana was 12. This is supported by three of this article's sources. [5] [6] [7] But the final report, both in Russian [8] and English [9], gives Eldar's age as 15 and Yana's as 13. Interestingly, another source [10] gives Eldar's age as 15 (and doesn't mention Yana's) but also states that Russian TV has given his age as 16 instead. A discrepancy like this probably comes from ambiguity if only their birth year is given (1978 in the case of Eldar, which could make him 15 or 16 in 1994). For now, I think it might be best to go with what the official report says. ThatFlyingSquid ( talk) 19:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Aeroflot Flight 593 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
March 29, 2021. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a child in command of the controls
crashed an airplane, killing all seventy-five occupants on impact? | |||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on March 23, 2010, March 23, 2018, March 23, 2021, and March 23, 2024. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The account given in the article actually appears to be from the episode of "Air Crash Investigation" (mentioned at bottom of page) in which this flight was shown, but as far as I know, there's no real way to show that this is true. I'm not too sure on the reliability of the show, but it did also mention the reason the plane dived was due to a safety mechanism trying to prevent the plane from stalling, and not due to the actions of the co-pilot/captain's son. Again, don't know quite how to cite this, though. -- Jsloan31 10:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
As well, the show stated that the son was not in control when it crashed. Initally, the G-Forces were too high for the captain to take over, but once the co-pilot had the plane climbing, the Captain pushed the son out of the way and sat back down. WestJet
"45-degree bank ... twice as heavy?"
This is incorrect. In constant-altitude turn, a 45-degree bank results in 1.41g (sqrt(2)). A 60-degree bank is a 2.0g turn.
As an aside, the AirDisaster reference cites 4.8g, but this occurred later in the flight, not during the initial turn. --
203.14.101.3
21:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
National Geographic Channel has another dramatization of this event as part of their Air Emergency series, titled Kid in the Cockpit. Broadcast in the U.S. begins 10 July 2006. — Quicksilver T @ 02:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The language in the main article is unclearly written, with slight gramatical incorrectnesses... Should be changed. -- 67.49.215.31 02:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The following sentence appears in the article: "Unlike his sister, Eldar applied enough force to the steering column to contradict the autopilot for 30 seconds." I believe it ought to say "yolk" or "stick" rather than "steering column." David F ( talk) 20:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Um, was it the child of the relief pilot or the captain?!?: "..his increased the g-force on the pilots and crew, making it impossible for the Captain to replace his son at the controls." Phobal ( talk) 07:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
This is a little known fact, and is one which I will properly reference in the coming days, as I am waiting upon the book arriving from Moscow. Aeroflot was not the operator of the aircraft, nor were the crew members employees of Aeroflot. In order to import the aircraft into Russia, Aeroflot set up a subsidiary which was known as RAL Russian Air Lines. All aircraft and crews belonged to RAL, whilst all RAL operations were on behalf of Aeroflot. I will be writing more on this in the near future as part of edits to Aeroflot -- Russavia 11:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
This "fact" is "little known" because it's not true. Another "conspiracy theory"? What I especially like is "I did wonder". Well, wonder no longer. RAL stands for Russian Airlines, which IS Aeroflot. The full name of the company is (and has been since 1991) "Aeroflot - Russian Airlines". The airplane had French registration to avoid paying the enormous import duties, which at the time amounted to 80% of the cost. Most Aeroflot (as well as other Russian operators) airliners these days have Bermuda registration for the same reason.
PS I wonder if you received "the book arriving from Moscow"? For Pete's sake, it's been decades since the cold war is over but you still think we have bears walking in the streets? GOSH! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo711 ( talk • contribs) 21:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I've watched the "Kid in cockpit" Mayday-Episode and read the article, both of which state that if the pilots had taken their hands off the controls, the plane would have levelled itself out. Alternate solution: What about shutting off the autopilot completely? It seems three "people" were "flying" the plane simultaneously when it crashed, with the human "pilots" only controlling the ailerons. The co-pilot should have been able to control the plane any time once he'd shut down the autopilot and told the kid to take his hands off. Am I right? I wonder why that never occured to the pilots, or was it just left out of the documentary? 88.217.73.30 ( talk) 13:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
In the Air Crash Investigation episode of this crash at one point they mention a flight attendant still wearing an oxygen mask and also unbroken bottles of champagne.. They never come back to these points for the rest of the episode so is it just because they are irrelevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.41.130 ( talk) 14:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
An assertion has been added that this crash sparked outrage in the aviation community, and caused significant changes to flight deck protocol and sterile cockpit environments. I've asked for sources that verify these assertions. A Times article was added that was generally about Russian aviation mentioning this flight, but doesn't verify the assertions. We then have some youtube video of unknown source which also doesn't verify the material, and may not even meet WP:RS standards. Tagging with {{ cn}} does not mean that I think the statement is false. What it does mean is that these are strong assertions about the outcome of the crash and needs sourcing to meet wikipedia's policy of verifiability. Sticking in sources about the flight, but that do not verify the assertions isn't useful. -- Whpq ( talk) 15:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The article states: "After the plane banked to 90 degrees, the remaining functions of the autopilot tried to correct its plummeting altitude by putting the plane in an almost vertical ascent, nearly stalling the plane." What is the source for this? The AP disengage warning sounded a good time before then, according to the CVR. I believe the official investigation concluded that the first officer had control of the plane when it stalled. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Rather than reverting again the unexplained edits made by EurovisionNim ( talk · contribs), I will let this go for a week or so and will allow other users to post their comments regarding the matter. As to reliability, it's clear that YouTube cannot be over Flightglobal. Furthermore, the changes the user has been making had no sources at all. A reference was provided in the above diff, but an inline citation has not been attached. After the week had passed, the modifications will be reverted unless otherwise specified. Thanks.-- Jetstreamer Talk 13:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I would like to confirm that this is the final accident report:
I want to find an English version too WhisperToMe ( talk) 15:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
This [1] edit has been reverted, as the source added does not support the facts. <ref name="ASN" /> says "The bank continued to 90deg, the aircraft pitched up steeply with +4,8g accelerations, stalled and entered a spin." This is in contradiction with "the remaining functions of the autopilot tried to correct its plummeting altitude by putting the plane in an almost vertical ascent, nearly stalling the plane". Nearly stalling a plane does not mean the plane effectively stalled. Furthermore, there is no mention in the ASN reference that the autopilot took the actions described in the text firstly quoted. This is original research.-- Jetstreamer Talk 20:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I removed the CVR transcript—which seems to make up the bulk of this article—because it seemed un-encyclopedic to include it based upon the direction given at WP:LONGQUOTE. Samf4u added it back, but I am unconvinced that it does still not violate WP:LONGQUOTE. Looking at relevant FAs in the aviation accident category, it seems that my assumptions were correct and that it is not standard to include overly long quotations from the CVR (For example. see GOL1907 or UAL93). Unless good reasons are given as to why it is better for us to go against the WP:MOS, it should be removed. Tkbrett (✉) 16:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Agree that the full CVR transcript is inappropriate, in this case. If miscommunication among the flight crew or ATC had played a part in the accident (as it did e.g. in the Tenerife disaster), then it would make sense to quote in full the relevant portions of the recording, but all it does here is adding a dramatic effect that the article doesn't need.-- Deeday-UK ( talk) 07:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
According to the Russian and Chinese articles there were 52 Russians, 6 Chinese, 6 Hong Kongners, 5 Taiwanese, 4 Brits, one Indian, and one American. But I can't find its source. 73.87.74.115 ( talk) 19:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Of course there is no sources. I am just saying how did they know who was on board without a freaking source? 73.87.74.115 ( talk) 22:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
How about you ask them where they found that source(s). 73.87.74.115 ( talk) 17:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
https://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/23/world/75-dead-in-a-crash-of-a-russian-airbus-on-hong-kong-run.html How about this? TrueLightningStriker ( talk) 21:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Reading this article for the first time, I found myself left with a question: since the accident appears to have been caused by having children in the cockpit, did this result in any policy changes at the airline or industry level related to having non-crew, particularly children, on the flight deck? 70.73.90.119 ( talk) 22:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs) 22:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Comments
That's all I have. What a tragic accident, especially when you read that leaving the whole thing to itself would have worked out... On hold. The Rambling Man ( Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
07:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Thanoscar21 ( talk). Self-nominated at 22:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC).
The article currently says Eldar was 16 and Yana was 12. This is supported by three of this article's sources. [5] [6] [7] But the final report, both in Russian [8] and English [9], gives Eldar's age as 15 and Yana's as 13. Interestingly, another source [10] gives Eldar's age as 15 (and doesn't mention Yana's) but also states that Russian TV has given his age as 16 instead. A discrepancy like this probably comes from ambiguity if only their birth year is given (1978 in the case of Eldar, which could make him 15 or 16 in 1994). For now, I think it might be best to go with what the official report says. ThatFlyingSquid ( talk) 19:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)