![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Note "f" states: His name was only one word, a common practice in Indonesia. That seems like odd phrasing, saying that "his name was one word". Wouldn't it be phrased better to say something like "He goes by only one name, a common practice in Indonesia." Or something like that? No? Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 21:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Good job, Marc Kupper!! ― Mandruss ☎ 00:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to nit-pick. Note "f" now says: Iriyanto's name was a mononym, which is common for Indonesian names.. Shouldn't that verb be "is", not "was"? Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 05:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The best solution is to simply rephrase this. Also, since "mononym" is not a widely-recognized term, but can be described with just a few words, it is best to define the term without readers having to view a separate article. I suggest: "Iriyanto is a mononym (one word name), which is common among Indonesian names." First, as brought up at the beginning of this section, mononyms are extremely uncommon in English-speaking countries (since this is the English Wikipedia), limited to royalty (who ironically are usually given 6-8 names, like Alexander George Philip Andrew Henry Louis, but in practice only use the first) and a few performers and athletes who adopt a single name (like Cher or Ronaldo). I was the editor that added that note because, shortly after the accident, I saw "Captain Iriyanto" and tried to look for sources for his full name. Eventually, I found an article that said he only used one name, which is a common practice in Indonesia. It seems appropriate to mention this as a footnote. My suggestion also uses "one word name" as opposed to "one name" because people in English-speaking countries are familiar with polynyms, like "John Doe", being refereed to as a singular "name", so "one word name" avoids any ambiguity or confusion that would be caused by saying "one name". AHeneen ( talk) 06:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Just when you think you can put something to bed ... you can't. Alakzi, all the definitions I can find online say that a mononym is one word. What's your definition of the word, and can you substantiate it? ― Mandruss ☎ 11:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
82.131.133.198 ( talk) 15:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I propose moving the locations of a couple sections to resemble other aircraft incident articles (a proposed style guideline for such articles never got any consensus to become a guideline) along with a couple other issues:
AHeneen ( talk) 02:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Our Hungarian sock vandal friend is back again today. This section is to increase awareness of the problem, to assist in tracking it, and to coordinate response to it. The person appears to have started on 15 January, using 82.131.225.97. They have since used 87.97.96.122 and 82.131.132.66. None have responded to communication attempts via edit summaries and user talk. All have been warned, the first two multiple times. The first two have received temp blocks and I have reported the third. I have also requested semi-protection, since this person appears to be able to find a new IP when they need it. Apologies to the good IP editors. ― Mandruss ☎ 18:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The admin elected to semi-protect indefinitely, so I guess it's up to us to request unprotection at some point. The request to block 82.131.132.66 was rejected as unnecessary with the page protection. ― Mandruss ☎ 18:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Requested unprotection. ― Mandruss ☎ 00:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Unprotected by Ronhjones. ― Mandruss ☎ 20:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
There's two versions of the story about whether/when Flight 8501 received permission to climb:
I'm cleaning up the disappearance section and going to insert the second story as a footnote. Is it just misinformation? AHeneen ( talk) 05:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The flags in the victims table violate MOS per WP:ICONDECORATION and WP:MOSFLAG. They clearly provide no information not given by the linked country names (showing readers what various national flags look like is not a proper function of this article). When I see this, I generally boldly remove the flags, as I recently did here. However, this usage is not uncommon in aircraft accident articles, so I'm discussing first. What case can be made for this? ― Mandruss ☎ 02:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
This issue has been brought up before at WikiProject Aviation. It was discussed briefly in August of last year, and no consensus was reached for removal of the flags despite the MOS I cited above. One editor said, "Flags are acceptable in certain areas. Tables of victims in aircrash articles. Operators in aircraft type articles ...". I think the editor meant to say, "In my opinion, flags should be acceptable ...", since they didn't cite any policy/guideline support for the statement. As if this were a gray area where our personal opinions and judgment matter. It is not.
It's pointless to fix this article while ignoring the larger issue. It would make no sense to fight the battle one article at a time, on one article talk page after another, with a different group of people each time; that would be an extremely inefficient use of editor time. And I'm not feeling energetic enough to fight the larger fight, so I'll just drop it.
Except in cases where there is a compelling reason to deviate, guidelines should be followed regardless of our own personal preferences. Not because "laws are to be obeyed", but because the guidelines represent community consensus, which is a core Wikipedia policy. If people felt the guideline was wrong, they should have worked to get the guideline changed. Instead, they apparently hoped they would get away with it if they created a sufficient number of violations. So far, it looks like they were correct. That's not how we should be doing things, folks. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@ YSSYguy: edited the "Passengers and crew" section, removing the names of the pilots. The names of the pilots are present in most articles about aviation incidents and, in my opinion, something that should be mentioned. Furthermore, the FO was from Martinique, which is quite far from mainland France and the people are of different ethnicity, so I think it should be mentioned that he's from Martinique. Thoughts? AHeneen ( talk) 10:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Extended edit summary for revert of this edit by Exoplanetaryscience.
Aircraft vertical speed is expressed in feet-per-minute, not miles-per-hour. Further, due to the sloppy wording in the source, it's not clear to me whether the 31 seconds is the time from 36,000 or 37,000, so it's impossible to state a vertical speed with confidence. ― Mandruss ☎ 11:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Very glad that got reverted. It's beyond my imagination why anyone would want to convert the standard reading display of all aircraft vertical speed instruments, since the days of the Wright Brothers, ALWAYS shown in feet per minute. EditorASC ( talk) 05:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
At the present, the article terminates the information part with the following:
On January 30, it was reported that "sources close to the investigation" stated that malfunctioning of the Flight Augmentation Computer (FAC) was persistent enough to cause the captain to take the "very unusual" initiative to pull the circuit breaker for the FAC, cutting power to it. The captain left his seat to access the breaker panel behind the copilot, who was in control of the aircraft at the time.[105] The FAC is the part of the Fly-by-wire system in A320 aircraft responsible for rudder control. It had been the subject of maintenance problems on previous flights of this aircraft.[106] The sudden nose-up climbing condition occurred at this time, possibly because of failure of the copilot to respond to the sudden change in control characteristics due to FAC shutdown, which eliminated protection against control inputs that exceed aerodynamic limits.[105]
To me, the above technical content is an implicit indictment of the airframe and its avionics, yet in our followup section called Reactions there is not a hint of any source questioning the aircraft design and its resulting performance. I have not been in the (editing/news following) loop on this one -- being busy -- so I am asking the active editors and the WikProject as a group -- seriously, is this the current state of the article to the best of our editing ability? -- Mareklug talk 19:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The article includes "Between 06:17:00 and 06:17:54, the aircraft climbed from 32,000 to 37,000 ft" and later "between 06:17:00 and 06:17:54 WIB" with both sourced to this news article.
There's a minor problem in that the source article says "06:17" and not "06:17:00". We don't know if 06:17 is rounded up from 06:16:xx, rounded down from 06:17:xx, or is 06:17:00 exactly. The rate of climb that was computed for this article may be wrong.
The cited news article has a graphic that includes the following detail:
I don't know if the numbers such as 310.44' are the heading or course and so did not label them above.
Of interest is FL 321 to FL 375.5 in 27.321 seconds which works out to a rate of climb of 11,969 feet per minute. Also of interest is FL 375.5 to FL240 which works out to a decent of 6,767 feet per minute.
Issues with the graphic:
Rather than updating the article based on the graphic I'd rather find more reliable sources. Has anyone reported the aircraft was climbing at either 9,000 or 12,000 feet per minute? -- Marc Kupper| talk 00:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey
peaceray, re
diff, there is a more functional archive but the service seems to be controversial. (the subject of a few RFCs which I looked at briefly and an edit filter which seems to be restricted? i.e. the log doesn't tell me which filter it is. also need to file a bug on the way mobile app handles edit filters) Anyway, I'll just leave it here and let someone else decide if it's useful.archive-url=https:// archive dot today/ONTsN|archive-date=29 December 2014
--
Jeremyb (
talk)
21:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
It says: climbing with a ground speed of 353 knots (654 km/h; 406 mph), which is too slow to maintain stable level flight in still air.
This is wrongly worded. Ground Speed and flight have nothing to do with each other I can be flying an airplane with a 150 stall speed, have a zero ground speed, be in "stable flight" and not be stalling. (I would have a 150 headwind) In the same plane I can have a 200 ground speed and be stalling (with a 60 knot tail wind).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.189.101.11 ( talk • contribs)
As my note in the Cause discussion said, the investigators never used the word accident.
AirAsia crash: Faulty part 'major factor' - BBC News - BBC.com www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34972263 AirAsia flight QZ8501: Faulty equipment was a "major factor" in the AirAsia plane crash
I had changed that to crash in a few places in the article, but I see there are still several uses of the term accident. I will revise those to crash, trying not to miss any this time. Peter K Burian 15:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Crashes come in two flavors: deliberate ones and accident(al one)s. As this one wasn't an on-purpose I don't think we need to be too concerned about the use of the latter term. 80.2.106.75 ( talk) 08:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The KNKT report describes a lack of sufficient discussion between the pilots before the circuit breaker was pulled. While this could be described as a miscommunication, I fear that most of our readers will interpret "miscommunication" as "misunderstanding", which is not quite the same thing. The actual report calls it "ineffective communication". 80.2.106.75 ( talk) 08:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
"...there was a nine second delay between the start of the roll and a pilot attempting to take control" is a statement of fact with no indication of its significance. Is the reader supposed to infer that the pilots reacted too slowly, or that they acted too hastily without taking time to properly assess the situation? Either way, it needs to be spelled out. 80.2.106.75 ( talk) 08:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I see that the words centre and behaviour were changed to center and behavior by Ross Green 1979 in a recent edit. My question is, Do Indonesians use American or British Spelling in words in English? Peter K Burian 14:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
www.icao.int/APAC/Documents/edocs/CP_INDONESIA_PARTI.pdf Traffic Services (ATS) for the Upper Airspace of the Jakarta Flight Information ... and support services normally undertaken by the Jakarta Area Control Centre ...
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 5 external links on
Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501. 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 19:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501. 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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
It's interesting that Asia Times' headline claims the cause was a technical malfunction while news agencies in other parts of the world indicate that the malfunction simply started a chain of events .. the pilot's inability to handle them correctly led to the crash. (Removed circuit breaker > disengaged autopilot > did not control the aircraft for 9 seconds > by then, the situation was so problematic, they could not regain control ... plus the mis-communication between the two pilots that I have not detailed in the article....)
Investigator Nurcahyo Utomo said the malfunction by itself should not have been dangerous. But after the fourth time an alarm went off during the flight, a crew member apparently went outside of handbook recommendations and removed a circuit breaker to try to reset the system, he said. http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2015/12/01/airasia-crash-caused-by-faulty-rudder-system-pilot-response-indonesia-says.html
I see that in the box of info near the lede, someone has entered pilot error; hmmm, I have revised that to inappropriate pilot response, to be fair. Peter K Burian 14:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
References
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Note "f" states: His name was only one word, a common practice in Indonesia. That seems like odd phrasing, saying that "his name was one word". Wouldn't it be phrased better to say something like "He goes by only one name, a common practice in Indonesia." Or something like that? No? Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 21:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Good job, Marc Kupper!! ― Mandruss ☎ 00:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to nit-pick. Note "f" now says: Iriyanto's name was a mononym, which is common for Indonesian names.. Shouldn't that verb be "is", not "was"? Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 05:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The best solution is to simply rephrase this. Also, since "mononym" is not a widely-recognized term, but can be described with just a few words, it is best to define the term without readers having to view a separate article. I suggest: "Iriyanto is a mononym (one word name), which is common among Indonesian names." First, as brought up at the beginning of this section, mononyms are extremely uncommon in English-speaking countries (since this is the English Wikipedia), limited to royalty (who ironically are usually given 6-8 names, like Alexander George Philip Andrew Henry Louis, but in practice only use the first) and a few performers and athletes who adopt a single name (like Cher or Ronaldo). I was the editor that added that note because, shortly after the accident, I saw "Captain Iriyanto" and tried to look for sources for his full name. Eventually, I found an article that said he only used one name, which is a common practice in Indonesia. It seems appropriate to mention this as a footnote. My suggestion also uses "one word name" as opposed to "one name" because people in English-speaking countries are familiar with polynyms, like "John Doe", being refereed to as a singular "name", so "one word name" avoids any ambiguity or confusion that would be caused by saying "one name". AHeneen ( talk) 06:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Just when you think you can put something to bed ... you can't. Alakzi, all the definitions I can find online say that a mononym is one word. What's your definition of the word, and can you substantiate it? ― Mandruss ☎ 11:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
82.131.133.198 ( talk) 15:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I propose moving the locations of a couple sections to resemble other aircraft incident articles (a proposed style guideline for such articles never got any consensus to become a guideline) along with a couple other issues:
AHeneen ( talk) 02:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Our Hungarian sock vandal friend is back again today. This section is to increase awareness of the problem, to assist in tracking it, and to coordinate response to it. The person appears to have started on 15 January, using 82.131.225.97. They have since used 87.97.96.122 and 82.131.132.66. None have responded to communication attempts via edit summaries and user talk. All have been warned, the first two multiple times. The first two have received temp blocks and I have reported the third. I have also requested semi-protection, since this person appears to be able to find a new IP when they need it. Apologies to the good IP editors. ― Mandruss ☎ 18:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The admin elected to semi-protect indefinitely, so I guess it's up to us to request unprotection at some point. The request to block 82.131.132.66 was rejected as unnecessary with the page protection. ― Mandruss ☎ 18:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Requested unprotection. ― Mandruss ☎ 00:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Unprotected by Ronhjones. ― Mandruss ☎ 20:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
There's two versions of the story about whether/when Flight 8501 received permission to climb:
I'm cleaning up the disappearance section and going to insert the second story as a footnote. Is it just misinformation? AHeneen ( talk) 05:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The flags in the victims table violate MOS per WP:ICONDECORATION and WP:MOSFLAG. They clearly provide no information not given by the linked country names (showing readers what various national flags look like is not a proper function of this article). When I see this, I generally boldly remove the flags, as I recently did here. However, this usage is not uncommon in aircraft accident articles, so I'm discussing first. What case can be made for this? ― Mandruss ☎ 02:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
This issue has been brought up before at WikiProject Aviation. It was discussed briefly in August of last year, and no consensus was reached for removal of the flags despite the MOS I cited above. One editor said, "Flags are acceptable in certain areas. Tables of victims in aircrash articles. Operators in aircraft type articles ...". I think the editor meant to say, "In my opinion, flags should be acceptable ...", since they didn't cite any policy/guideline support for the statement. As if this were a gray area where our personal opinions and judgment matter. It is not.
It's pointless to fix this article while ignoring the larger issue. It would make no sense to fight the battle one article at a time, on one article talk page after another, with a different group of people each time; that would be an extremely inefficient use of editor time. And I'm not feeling energetic enough to fight the larger fight, so I'll just drop it.
Except in cases where there is a compelling reason to deviate, guidelines should be followed regardless of our own personal preferences. Not because "laws are to be obeyed", but because the guidelines represent community consensus, which is a core Wikipedia policy. If people felt the guideline was wrong, they should have worked to get the guideline changed. Instead, they apparently hoped they would get away with it if they created a sufficient number of violations. So far, it looks like they were correct. That's not how we should be doing things, folks. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@ YSSYguy: edited the "Passengers and crew" section, removing the names of the pilots. The names of the pilots are present in most articles about aviation incidents and, in my opinion, something that should be mentioned. Furthermore, the FO was from Martinique, which is quite far from mainland France and the people are of different ethnicity, so I think it should be mentioned that he's from Martinique. Thoughts? AHeneen ( talk) 10:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Extended edit summary for revert of this edit by Exoplanetaryscience.
Aircraft vertical speed is expressed in feet-per-minute, not miles-per-hour. Further, due to the sloppy wording in the source, it's not clear to me whether the 31 seconds is the time from 36,000 or 37,000, so it's impossible to state a vertical speed with confidence. ― Mandruss ☎ 11:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Very glad that got reverted. It's beyond my imagination why anyone would want to convert the standard reading display of all aircraft vertical speed instruments, since the days of the Wright Brothers, ALWAYS shown in feet per minute. EditorASC ( talk) 05:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
At the present, the article terminates the information part with the following:
On January 30, it was reported that "sources close to the investigation" stated that malfunctioning of the Flight Augmentation Computer (FAC) was persistent enough to cause the captain to take the "very unusual" initiative to pull the circuit breaker for the FAC, cutting power to it. The captain left his seat to access the breaker panel behind the copilot, who was in control of the aircraft at the time.[105] The FAC is the part of the Fly-by-wire system in A320 aircraft responsible for rudder control. It had been the subject of maintenance problems on previous flights of this aircraft.[106] The sudden nose-up climbing condition occurred at this time, possibly because of failure of the copilot to respond to the sudden change in control characteristics due to FAC shutdown, which eliminated protection against control inputs that exceed aerodynamic limits.[105]
To me, the above technical content is an implicit indictment of the airframe and its avionics, yet in our followup section called Reactions there is not a hint of any source questioning the aircraft design and its resulting performance. I have not been in the (editing/news following) loop on this one -- being busy -- so I am asking the active editors and the WikProject as a group -- seriously, is this the current state of the article to the best of our editing ability? -- Mareklug talk 19:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The article includes "Between 06:17:00 and 06:17:54, the aircraft climbed from 32,000 to 37,000 ft" and later "between 06:17:00 and 06:17:54 WIB" with both sourced to this news article.
There's a minor problem in that the source article says "06:17" and not "06:17:00". We don't know if 06:17 is rounded up from 06:16:xx, rounded down from 06:17:xx, or is 06:17:00 exactly. The rate of climb that was computed for this article may be wrong.
The cited news article has a graphic that includes the following detail:
I don't know if the numbers such as 310.44' are the heading or course and so did not label them above.
Of interest is FL 321 to FL 375.5 in 27.321 seconds which works out to a rate of climb of 11,969 feet per minute. Also of interest is FL 375.5 to FL240 which works out to a decent of 6,767 feet per minute.
Issues with the graphic:
Rather than updating the article based on the graphic I'd rather find more reliable sources. Has anyone reported the aircraft was climbing at either 9,000 or 12,000 feet per minute? -- Marc Kupper| talk 00:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey
peaceray, re
diff, there is a more functional archive but the service seems to be controversial. (the subject of a few RFCs which I looked at briefly and an edit filter which seems to be restricted? i.e. the log doesn't tell me which filter it is. also need to file a bug on the way mobile app handles edit filters) Anyway, I'll just leave it here and let someone else decide if it's useful.archive-url=https:// archive dot today/ONTsN|archive-date=29 December 2014
--
Jeremyb (
talk)
21:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
It says: climbing with a ground speed of 353 knots (654 km/h; 406 mph), which is too slow to maintain stable level flight in still air.
This is wrongly worded. Ground Speed and flight have nothing to do with each other I can be flying an airplane with a 150 stall speed, have a zero ground speed, be in "stable flight" and not be stalling. (I would have a 150 headwind) In the same plane I can have a 200 ground speed and be stalling (with a 60 knot tail wind).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.189.101.11 ( talk • contribs)
As my note in the Cause discussion said, the investigators never used the word accident.
AirAsia crash: Faulty part 'major factor' - BBC News - BBC.com www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34972263 AirAsia flight QZ8501: Faulty equipment was a "major factor" in the AirAsia plane crash
I had changed that to crash in a few places in the article, but I see there are still several uses of the term accident. I will revise those to crash, trying not to miss any this time. Peter K Burian 15:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Crashes come in two flavors: deliberate ones and accident(al one)s. As this one wasn't an on-purpose I don't think we need to be too concerned about the use of the latter term. 80.2.106.75 ( talk) 08:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The KNKT report describes a lack of sufficient discussion between the pilots before the circuit breaker was pulled. While this could be described as a miscommunication, I fear that most of our readers will interpret "miscommunication" as "misunderstanding", which is not quite the same thing. The actual report calls it "ineffective communication". 80.2.106.75 ( talk) 08:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
"...there was a nine second delay between the start of the roll and a pilot attempting to take control" is a statement of fact with no indication of its significance. Is the reader supposed to infer that the pilots reacted too slowly, or that they acted too hastily without taking time to properly assess the situation? Either way, it needs to be spelled out. 80.2.106.75 ( talk) 08:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I see that the words centre and behaviour were changed to center and behavior by Ross Green 1979 in a recent edit. My question is, Do Indonesians use American or British Spelling in words in English? Peter K Burian 14:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
www.icao.int/APAC/Documents/edocs/CP_INDONESIA_PARTI.pdf Traffic Services (ATS) for the Upper Airspace of the Jakarta Flight Information ... and support services normally undertaken by the Jakarta Area Control Centre ...
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 5 external links on
Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501. 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 19:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501. 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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
It's interesting that Asia Times' headline claims the cause was a technical malfunction while news agencies in other parts of the world indicate that the malfunction simply started a chain of events .. the pilot's inability to handle them correctly led to the crash. (Removed circuit breaker > disengaged autopilot > did not control the aircraft for 9 seconds > by then, the situation was so problematic, they could not regain control ... plus the mis-communication between the two pilots that I have not detailed in the article....)
Investigator Nurcahyo Utomo said the malfunction by itself should not have been dangerous. But after the fourth time an alarm went off during the flight, a crew member apparently went outside of handbook recommendations and removed a circuit breaker to try to reset the system, he said. http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2015/12/01/airasia-crash-caused-by-faulty-rudder-system-pilot-response-indonesia-says.html
I see that in the box of info near the lede, someone has entered pilot error; hmmm, I have revised that to inappropriate pilot response, to be fair. Peter K Burian 14:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
References