![]() | 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. |
![]() | A news item involving Aria Air Flight 1525 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 25 July 2009. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a map or maps be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Wikipedians in Iran may be able to help! |
The registration quoted UP-16208 does not match Aria's fleet according to Airframes.org. Can anyone confirm which of the three IL-62Ms were involved? Mjroots ( talk) 18:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Report from ICAO:
“ | The average indications of Soviet-manufactured civil aircraft and turboprops flight safety were and remain not worse than the Western manufactured planes. http://www.icao.int/icao/en/dgca/ip/dgca_06_ip_48_e.pdf | ” |
This issue is rises again and again, well I think blaming the crash on soviet is just pushing pov. This time they linked old age of the aircraft to it's Russian origin. I thought Cold War was over 20 years before.
yousaf465'
Overnight an amount of info was added, supposedly supported by the Aviation Safety Network reference. I've marked the unreferenced info as such. If references are not forthcoming for the info I suggest it is removed from the article. We are dealing with known facts here, not speculation. Mjroots ( talk) 05:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the age of the aircraft has any relation to the cause of the accident. The aircraft involved was registered in Kazakhstan and operated by an Iranian airline. Therefore it was not an "Iranian aircraft". Mjroots ( talk) 12:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
It's the law of probability, that when you only have Russian aircrafts to choose from, you are going to end up with higher casualties rates. If Iran had been allowed to buy spareparts for its Boings and other American and European aircrafts, and if they had been allowed to use some of their considerable oilproceeds in recent years to buy brand new aeroplanes (a win-win situation for everybody), they would probably have out-fased many of these Russian. I don't now what it is with these Russian aircraft. Perhaps you can elaborate. But after Russia began market-economics in the beginning of the 90'ies, they suddenly should keep all types off spareparts on their shelves at market rates. It is expensive to have stocks like that. When they were state-companies, no problem. But suddenly they shall hold all these different spare-parts and be supposed to make money. To make money for this kind of thing takes years of training, and I think this is the reason why some (original)spare-parts simply is not available, and then unscrupuleous manufacturers steps in with all kinds of second rate products. Michelle Bentley ( talk) 13:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The BBC, the worlds most respected, objective and trusted news-service, always mentions the sanctions-policy as a reason worth mentioning, when the talk is about the extraordinary many aircarft-accidents that Iran have seen in recent years. And the laws of probability unfortunately tells you that we are going to see more and more, the longer it takes before the West gives up its sanctions policy. Tell me in what way it damages the security of the United States if Boing was allowed to sell hydraulic pipes and fuelpumps to Iran. You say: "We really cannot go into politics." Correct, but we can mention the reason why so extraordinary many accidents happens in Iran. And the intelligent people reading Wikipedia-aricles has a right, and indeed expects to know the context - just as the BBC naturally finds reason to remind readers, but interesting enough not the major American news-media. But it is here that I want to emphatise that we in the free world have a huge responsibility to nervertheless tell cause and effect. This is the responsibility that befalls the Free. Let us then in the Free world pick up the torch and spell out for our less fortunate brethren in societies exempt from accurate reporting what the facts are. Michelle Bentley ( talk) 14:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Current reporting is that 13 crew and 3 passengers were killed. I suspect it was the other way round - 3 crew (flight deck) and 13 passengers (front rows) killed. However, this needs confirmation before it can be added. Are there any reliable foreign language (Russian, Farsi?) references for the accident? Mjroots ( talk) 07:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Aria Air Flight 1525. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Aria Air Flight 1525. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:10, 24 February 2016 (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. |
![]() | A news item involving Aria Air Flight 1525 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 25 July 2009. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a map or maps be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Wikipedians in Iran may be able to help! |
The registration quoted UP-16208 does not match Aria's fleet according to Airframes.org. Can anyone confirm which of the three IL-62Ms were involved? Mjroots ( talk) 18:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Report from ICAO:
“ | The average indications of Soviet-manufactured civil aircraft and turboprops flight safety were and remain not worse than the Western manufactured planes. http://www.icao.int/icao/en/dgca/ip/dgca_06_ip_48_e.pdf | ” |
This issue is rises again and again, well I think blaming the crash on soviet is just pushing pov. This time they linked old age of the aircraft to it's Russian origin. I thought Cold War was over 20 years before.
yousaf465'
Overnight an amount of info was added, supposedly supported by the Aviation Safety Network reference. I've marked the unreferenced info as such. If references are not forthcoming for the info I suggest it is removed from the article. We are dealing with known facts here, not speculation. Mjroots ( talk) 05:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the age of the aircraft has any relation to the cause of the accident. The aircraft involved was registered in Kazakhstan and operated by an Iranian airline. Therefore it was not an "Iranian aircraft". Mjroots ( talk) 12:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
It's the law of probability, that when you only have Russian aircrafts to choose from, you are going to end up with higher casualties rates. If Iran had been allowed to buy spareparts for its Boings and other American and European aircrafts, and if they had been allowed to use some of their considerable oilproceeds in recent years to buy brand new aeroplanes (a win-win situation for everybody), they would probably have out-fased many of these Russian. I don't now what it is with these Russian aircraft. Perhaps you can elaborate. But after Russia began market-economics in the beginning of the 90'ies, they suddenly should keep all types off spareparts on their shelves at market rates. It is expensive to have stocks like that. When they were state-companies, no problem. But suddenly they shall hold all these different spare-parts and be supposed to make money. To make money for this kind of thing takes years of training, and I think this is the reason why some (original)spare-parts simply is not available, and then unscrupuleous manufacturers steps in with all kinds of second rate products. Michelle Bentley ( talk) 13:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The BBC, the worlds most respected, objective and trusted news-service, always mentions the sanctions-policy as a reason worth mentioning, when the talk is about the extraordinary many aircarft-accidents that Iran have seen in recent years. And the laws of probability unfortunately tells you that we are going to see more and more, the longer it takes before the West gives up its sanctions policy. Tell me in what way it damages the security of the United States if Boing was allowed to sell hydraulic pipes and fuelpumps to Iran. You say: "We really cannot go into politics." Correct, but we can mention the reason why so extraordinary many accidents happens in Iran. And the intelligent people reading Wikipedia-aricles has a right, and indeed expects to know the context - just as the BBC naturally finds reason to remind readers, but interesting enough not the major American news-media. But it is here that I want to emphatise that we in the free world have a huge responsibility to nervertheless tell cause and effect. This is the responsibility that befalls the Free. Let us then in the Free world pick up the torch and spell out for our less fortunate brethren in societies exempt from accurate reporting what the facts are. Michelle Bentley ( talk) 14:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Current reporting is that 13 crew and 3 passengers were killed. I suspect it was the other way round - 3 crew (flight deck) and 13 passengers (front rows) killed. However, this needs confirmation before it can be added. Are there any reliable foreign language (Russian, Farsi?) references for the accident? Mjroots ( talk) 07:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Aria Air Flight 1525. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Aria Air Flight 1525. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)