Talk:1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision

Cleanup & Polish?
In my humble opinion, this is a relatively poor article in comparison with many others on aviation disasters. Seen as this is the deadliest mid-air collision in history, it seems fitting that the article should be of a slightly higher quality. Something akin to these, perhaps: or.

Another problem I have with the article is that the “history and cause” section doesn’t really have anything to do with that in the subsequent paragraphs.

A golden coin and a kipper to the person who can work on this person’s efforts and produc a polished article... – J.S, 6th May, 2007 02:31am GMT


 * One of the problems is, despite this being one of the worst air disasters in the world, and as compared with other major air disasters, there is an appalling lack of official information on-line about it. The official report from the Justice R. C. Lahoti Court of Inquiry (15 July 1997), which includes the report of the accident inspector, K P S Nair, is no-where to be found. The only sources seem to be press stories. --GregU 17:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Mishap or massive disaster?
Why is this page called a mishap when 349 upper-class people died in the world's biggest mid air collision in history? Tri400 13:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As titling for the page - now sorted (see next section of this talk page). As for the term mishap . . yes, it seems grotesque.  But from a certain standpoint it was a reasonable term to use!  It is / was the traditional term in the aviation world (still in use recently if not currently by the USAF, I believe).  But yes, out of place in an encyclopedia intended for general readership.  84.9.118.19 (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Title
Is this disaster a mishap or a mid-air collision? Most people who'd heard about the disaster will always refer to it as a "mid-air collision". And those people might not know about the name of the location and say that it happened over "somewhere in India, probably near New Delhi". The page should be renamed so it can be more easily identified. 202.95.200.12 05:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree totally. A mishap is when two cars hit each other with minor damage, in other words it denotes a non-major incident. As there seems to be general consensus in other posters, I will be WP:BOLD and move to mid-air collision. --Russavia 07:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This still hasn't been moved. is there a reason? 81.108.183.76 00:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I renamed it from "... air mishap" to "... mid-air collision". --GregU 07:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Improper rename
Now this article has been renamed again, back to one of the two flight numbers (Air Kazakhstan Flight 1907), due to someone improperly listed it in the "clearly uncontroversial moves" section of Wikipedia:Requested_moves [], and then an admin quickly processing it without question. This should have been discussed here. I believe Flight 1907 was the less notable of the two flights, comprising only 10% of the fatalities, and that the previous title of 1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision should be restored. --GregU 13:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Greg's. If no more information is stated here, we shall rename. WhisperToMe 05:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are three naming possibilities in a situation like this - aircraft 1, aircraft 2, or a description. Now, we have precedent - the Tenerife disaster. However, this doesn't have such a name attached to it in culture or media yet, at least not in the English speaking world, that I know of. Either way, naming it after flight 1907 is right out, that's the worst possible name. As for whether it should be named after flight 763 or the (imo clunky) name offered by GregU, I don't know, but the current name definitely needs changing. I wouldn't challenge either way as long as it was done, just offering my opinion. --Golbez 22:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Definitely not 1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision, since both Air Kazakhstan Flight 1907 and Saudi Arabian Airlines Flight 763 are used much much more. --213.155.231.26 12:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I still believe choosing a combined name for the event is better than picking one of the two aircraft involved. Even if the popular media hasn't settled on a memorable name for this event themselves. I'm not convinced on the relevance of the Google counts, as the individual flights are going to show up in articles from the viewpoint of those flights. Only search hits that are trying to document the whole tragedy should be considered. And even then, the numbers are not overwhelmingly different, being in the same order of magnitude.

A less clunky title would be "1996 Delhi mid-air collision", since both planes were in the process of arriving at or departing the main airport in Delhi. But it is less accurate than "1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision" as the planes were 50 miles out, and Google shows it being used even less. So I still vote for the latter. If we can't agree on the best title, let's at least restore the better title that existed before the improper rename. --GregU 18:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to the old name... for now. WhisperToMe 08:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My move request was correct, since the 1907 caused the accident, while that accident was not related to Delhi an airport or Charkhi Dadri (is it a location?) it didnt even happen there... The 1907 is the most prominent flight in this accident and so the article should have its name... A redirect is fine, too, but it doesnt show up in the catergory, which is bad... It is always about the cause and not so much about the effect or the location... Thx. Bye! --Homer Landskirty (talk) 11:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, Delhi's air traffic control system is blamed for the accident. Watch the Head-On Collision episode and you would see why. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The article doesnt say so... And I cannot even imagine how the ATC could cause this deviating altitude... Even if there were severe turbulences it should be possible to keep the plane at the same flight level +/- 200ft... But I dont know much about turbulences (I have just heard, that gas bubbles over the Bermuda triangle can make planes fall down; and I have heard, that pilots r quite eager to avoid lightning and turbulences, which might be the reason why they have an on-board weather radar in their nose)... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will watch "Head-On Collision" one more time and I will explain what the show said about Delhi's air control system (which was altered after the crash). WhisperToMe (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, some of the reasons stated:
 * First mistake: Delhi had departures and arrivals in the same civilian airspace corridor (Much of the Delhi airspace was taken by the military, reducing the space for civilian flights) - The aircraft should never have been assigned to the same airspace in opposite directions. Since the airport has separated departures and arrivals into two separate corridors)
 * Second mistake: The Kazakh radio operator and the navigator hear 15,000 feet and does NOT acknowledge the height. The men had to translate for the captain and other crew because the other men had very limited English.
 * Third mistake: The captain does not tell his crew about the estimated time and assigned flight level.
 * Fourth mistake: The radio operator tells the controller that he is at 15,000, but this is not correct. He may have been unable to see the altimeter.
 * Fifth mistake: Indira Gandhi Airport did NOT have secondary surveillance radar, which gives atcs altitudes of individual aircraft - The controllers used primary radar, which gives approximate headings.
 * Sixth mistake: Both aircraft had no TCAST systems.

This was shown on the show "Head On-Aircrash"

The air traffic controller himself is not to blame. It was the system that failed. So, yes, the Kazakh airliner made a lot of mistakes, but the Indian air traffic control system was also responsible for the crash. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 03:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision → Air Kazakhstan Flight 1907 — Since the ATC orders r imperative and can only be superseded by clear evidence, that they are wrong, we can stick to the common naming policy (deviating plane gives the name...). --Homer Landskirty (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC) — Homer Landskirty (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Oppose - There is no common naming policy to name after deviating plane, and I don't think this would be a good policy. The more important aspect is that it was a mid-air collision, and so that is the naming convention used for articles about two large planes, rather than singling out one of the two planes and having title imply it is a single-plane accident. GregU (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support -- I meant "common" in the sense of a "de facto standard"... For the property "mid-air" and other such properties (accident, plane involved, ...) we have categories... It is not necessary to mention that in the article name... Furthermore the location is _not_ Charkhi Dadri, because air space is (at least in F.Rep.GERM) under federal control, while the city is just (not so) happy to have an airport... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - As GregU said, this is a mid-air collision involving two passenger airliners, and the most important aspect is to show it as such - "1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision" is unbalanced between the two airliners involved. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hajj pilgrims ???
I don't think any Hajj pilgrims would have been on board Saudia 763. The date of the disaster in the Islamic calendar was 2 Rajab 1417, but Hajj is five months later in the month of Dhu al-Hijjah. --GCarty (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * i marked it as questionable (using the template)... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 06:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Summary doesn't make sense
This paragraph:

'Flight KZK 1907 was cleared to descend to 15,000 feet (4,600 m) when 74 miles (119 km) from the airport while Flight SVA 763, traveling on the same airway as Flight KZK 1907 but in the opposite direction, was cleared to climb to 14,000 feet (4,300 m). About eight minutes later, around 6:40 PM, Flight KZK 1907 reported having reached 15,000 feet (4,600 m) but was at 16,000 feet (4,900 m). At this time, Dutta advised the flight, "Identified traffic 12 o'clock, reciprocal Saudia Boeing 747, 14 miles (23 km). Report in sight." '

Doesnt seem to make sense? If KZK 1907 was cleared to descend to 15000 feet, but instead descended to 16000 feet, they couldn't have hit SVA 763 at 14000 feet? The rest of the article make us believe that KZK did something wrong, but if this was what they did wrong - that they didn't descend far enough, the accident shouldn't have happened!!

I don't know enough about the accident to fix this, but someone who knows what happened should probably fix this paragraph. My guess: KZK 1907 did in fact descend to 14000 feet, but reported being at 15000 feet.

--Avl (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for catching that. I've corrected the narrative, citing the Aviation Safety Network. --Itsfullofstars (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I watched the Mayday episode. According to it, it said it was at 15000 when it was actually at 16000. However, it continued to descend after that point, and eventually dropped below 14000. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Dead link
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!


 * http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9611/14/india/index.html
 * In 1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision on 2011-05-25 06:19:05, 404 Not Found
 * In 1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision on 2011-06-08 03:45:46, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2
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!


 * http://www.natgeochannel.co.uk/programmes/air-crash-investigation/india-haryana-1996
 * In 1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision on 2011-05-25 06:19:11, 404 Not Found
 * In 1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision on 2011-06-08 03:45:56, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Flight numbers
I think we should use the official two-character airline codes for the flight numbers - they are SV and K4 - instead of the three-letter ones that are mainly used in flight plans and flight control operations. 67.194.199.224 (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"Kazakh" vs. "Kazakhstani"
"Kazakhstani" is used throughout the article. I was under the impression that the more common word to describe nationals of Kazakhstan (or aircraft originating in that country) is "Kazakh." Does the article need to be corrected, or am I simply confused? 68.116.104.240 (talk) 11:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Both are acceptable, although some draw a distinction between ethnic Kazakhs and the broader class of Kazakhstani citizens. Bernanke&#39;s Crossbow (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in regards to the C-141 Crew.
I was a Loadmaster on the C-141 that witnessed the event. Many sources could prove that A) I was in the Jumpseat that evening, and B)  Captain Timothy Place was not even close to the SOLE eyewitness to the event. He certainly was not the Mission or Aircraft Commander either. Captain Rodney Marks was. That can be proven by simply looking at old footage of CNN International during the accident and listening to Captain Marks giving a Pentagon sanctioned phone statement. Further, it would seem almost silly to think only a single pilot saw the mishap, when two pilots and an engineer are "required" crew.

There is a National Geographic episode on this accident (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LN_aqPSGTCQ) in which Tim Place speaks about what he saw. I can tell you, it was even worse than that. At the least though, listening to what he has to say (start at 7:45 seconds in), it is pretty obvious that if we thought we saw missiles at first, and started "veering" the aircraft out of the way,  that not just one pilot saw the event.

Further, though it would not be unheard of for the Aircraft Commander to be in the right seat,  it is uncommon. In this case, the Aircraft Commander was sitting in the left seat.

I am surprised at the lack of any reference to say Place was the Aircraft Commander and "Sole" observer. I mean if Wikipedia posts schlop like this, which can be defeated by simple logic...what else on here is completely false?

From my perpsective - I will never forget that accident. I remember the planes colliding inside a cloud. All we saw was a light brighter than the sun, at night, joked around about it being aliens. Then the ensuing firebalss falling to the ground clearly looked like missiles coming at us at first. None of us had ever seen real missiles, but there was no mistaking it, until the fireballs hit the ground. Then the levity of the situation really hit. The other thing I would add is that there were ATC tapes people could have listened to. It would clearly show the controller frantically called around trying to figure out who had actually collided, once WE reported it. unsigned post by IP
 * On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. If you're unhappy about uncited material here on Wikipedia, be bold and remove it yourself. Bernanke&#39;s Crossbow (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Latest edits made by 66.114.28.63
Given that refused to cooperate and does not respond to my queries at their talk page, I opted for leaving this message here. will be reverted in a week or so, unless otherwise specified. Thanks.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 19:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I went ahead, as per WP:SILENCE.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 19:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reverted of four edits. The changes are unnecessary and they are much of the same kind of the ones discussed above. Please discuss here before reinstating them. Thanks.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 19:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Archived references not used in the article
--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 14:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Lack of casualties on the ground
Is it correct that there were no casualties on the ground during the Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision?? The totals given imply that there were no on-ground casualties, but do not confirm this.

It would be quite conceivable that casualties could have occurred on the ground since the planes collided in a densely populated, even though rural, area in the Indo-Gangetic Plain, so I would appreciate a discussion and data to show the absence of deaths of people on the ground. luokehao (talk) 11:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

One image only in infobox?
Only the B747 image appears in the infobox, not the Il-76. 137.205.170.150 (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm having the same difficulty. Let's just wait a while just to be sure it's not a temporary issue with any Wikipedia server.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 18:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

"Chimkent" is incorrect
The originating city name from the Kazakh flight is Shymkent. It is not Chimkent. The city was originally Shymkent, was renamed Chimkent during the Soviet era, and officially renamed Shymkent in 1993. This accident took place in 1996. The city is Shymkent now just as it was Shymkent at the time of the accident. Even the link to the airport is correct - Shymkent International Airport. It would be like referring to the 2008 Olympics in "Peking." Wikimandia (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I already told you at your talk page that ″Chimkent″ is the name supported by sources in the article. That's what WP:VERIFY requires. Nevertheless, we can use a piped link, i.e. Chimkent (this links to Shymkent but shows Chimkent). What about this? If it does not please you, we can ellaborate on an alternative solution.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 17:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Naming Convention Issue
Recently someone moved this page in order to include the year the accident has occurred. According to WP:DISASTER, the year of the accident should not be included in the title unless it is needed for disambiguation. In this particular case, it is not needed, along with those of several other similar events. I think we should move the page back to its original title. Funplussmart (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The year in the title is in line with WP:AATF naming conventions. Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision alone seems to be used in some sources, but I'm not sure it could be described as a name popular enough among the broad English readership to warrant an exception to the above. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I took a look at both WP:DISASTER and WP:AATF and they do apparently contradict each other. WP:DISASTER states that the year should only be included if needed, while WP:AATF says the year should always be included. I'm considering bringing this up in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force. Funplussmart (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * MidAirCollision.jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2019
Please change the similar Boeing 747 to the real 747 that involved in the crash because there are many images of the real Boeing 747. Here is one of the example ; Old Image : Boeing 747-168B, Saudia - Saudi Arabian Airlines AN0217717.jpg Old Description : HZ-AIA, a Saudi Arabian Airlines Boeing 747-100B similar to the aircraft involved in the collision.New Image :https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/8/5/1960587.jpg?v=v40 New Description : HZ-AIH,the Saudi Arabian Airlines aircraft involved in the accident, in 1986. Juansipayung (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Before changing the current image to a new one, the new one must be uploaded to Wikipedia (or, better, to Wikicommons), and uploading an image to WP may or may not be allowed depending on the copyright status of the image in question. The onus is on you to ensure that an image can be legally uploaded to WP. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Your request consists only of a vague request to add, update, modify, or improve an image, or is a request to include an image that is hosted on an external site. If you want an image changed, you must identify a specific image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. Please note that any image used on any Wikipedia article must comply with the Wikipedia image use policy, particularly where copyright is concerned. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 16:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The actual report
We still need more evidence to support claims. A lot of it is just news stories. We need the actual accident report. We could email the DGCA. Tigerdude9 (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2020
change the survivor / injury count from 0 to 0 (2 initially) and 0 (4 initially) for the 747 and il-76 respectively 2600:6C40:7800:F5:1CAF:4494:87F1:DA0F (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. But there were no survivors, and it would be unclear what "initially" meant. The article has more detailed information than an infobox can convey. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 02:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020
Change the "world's deadliest mid-air collision" link from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-air_collision#List_of_notable_civilian_mid-air_collisions to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-air_collision#List_of_notable_civilian_and_military-civilian_mid-air_collisions as the header has changed. FozzieHey (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done  &thinsp;Darth&thinsp;  Flappy   '&laquo;Talk&raquo;'  21:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 21 December 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved: Nomination withdrawn per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disaster management/Naming. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 01:33, 25 December 2022 (UTC)  Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 01:33, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision → Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision – Only one notable mid-air collision around Charkhi Dadri. Having the year isn't really necessary, so per WP:CONCISE it should be dropped. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 08:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Proposal not in agreement with other article names: 2002 Überlingen mid-air collision, 1976 Anapa mid-air collision, and so on. Check the list in mid-air collision.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 12:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jetstreamer: I think I see where the current title comes from, is it the guidelines on WikiProject:Disaster management? If so, I'd withdraw this RM. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 00:54, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Withdraw request: Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disaster management/Naming. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 01:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)