Talk:Alrosa Flight 514

Inconsistent information with regard to Aviation Herald
Aviation Herald gives FL 347, not FL 370 as given in our article. Ditto, it gives the take-off distance that a Tu-154M needs as 2100 m, not 2500 m as given in our article. Link: http://www.avherald.com/h?article=430a1d01&opt=0 --Mareklug talk 19:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * So fix it then! If you check the discussion at the bottom of the article, it is clear that the source has been edited by its owner in light of further info received. Mjroots (talk) 11:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've altered the FL. ToD is 2,500 per the source used (Komi). The Tupolev Tu-154 article states 2,600m at MTOW, so I think Komi is the more accurate of the two. Of course, it may be possible to completely strip the aircraft's interior and get it off in 2,100m, but that is OR and possibly CRYSTAL too. Mjroots (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Notability, Notability, Notability,
Speedy delete winging this way. Just not notable. Nobody died and tha aircraft wasn't even written off!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Petebutt (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * PROD contested. Nobody died in British Airways Flight 38, US Airways Flight 1549, British Airways Flight 9 or China Airlines Flight 006 either. It is the circumstances that give the notability, not the outcome. Mjroots (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What is notable about this accident? I cannot see anything notable other than the passengers collected mushrooms while waiting for the emergency services! I still contest the notability of this article and the others you quoted.Petebutt (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have just scoured through the notability guidelines and cannot find any part of this article passing themPetebutt (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have nominated this article for deletion at AfD. This is not personal, i just cannot for the life of me see what is notable about this incident. And as you rightly query the other articles I shall assess them for notability tooPetebutt (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * British Airways Flight 38 is notable as it was the first Boeing 777 hull loss and the aftermath of the accident had wide ranging safety issues, some of which are still not fully resolved.Petebutt (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * US Airways Flight 1549 was notable in that it is one example of a very rare occurrence:-a successful ditching of a passenger airline with no loss of life, not to mention where it was ditchede and the fact that it was front page news world-wide.Petebutt (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * British Airways Flight 9 was particularly notable as it was the first heavily documented incidence of an airliner losing all four engines simultaneously (fro reasons other than fuel starvation), and the first time an ash cloud penetration was fully documented and investigated and the fact that the crew were able to re-strat their engines and return to Jakarta safely. This article is so notable it almost tops the notability scale.Petebutt (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * China Airlines Flight 006 is barely notable for revealing possible jet lag problems. I shall propose it at AfDPetebutt (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this really needs to be taken to WP:AfD to get a community consensus, discussion here is not going to achieve anything as the article prod was removed it is the only way to go if you think it is not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Reasons this accident is notable -
 * Complete and total loss of electrical systems. Not a partial loss with basic systems available via a RAT, they lost all electrics.
 * Hydraulic systems affected due to being operated by electric switches
 * A successful emergency landing, without radio or flaps...
 * ...at a closed airport that was not marked on aviation maps.
 * All on board survived.


 * How many other aircraft accidents do we have where there has been a complete and total loss of electrical systems. This is a very rare event indeed. Mjroots2 (talk) 06:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Mjroots2, you forgot to add "... on a runway that was half the length necessary to land this type of aircraft".


 * Well, also when I think about this runway, I remember hearing about this incident on a Bible conference where the speaker pointed out that "the pilots told 'yes, we did the job, we landed the aircraft but it was only possible because the runway was clean'". It turned out that somebody was taking care of that abandoned runway despite the fact that he was fired because there was no more job for him and he was not paid for this care. He did not allow people to come and produce mess on that runway. He did not allow the trees around the runway to grow (this was very important as big trees would cut the wings and cause a big fire because the wings were full of fuel that could not be used because the electricity was dead). They even showed the picture of this guy. I don't remember his name but when I pull out the recordings from the conference, I will edit this to add the name here. They also pointed out that this man refused to accept any money for his work on the runway when it turned out to be critical for saving this plane and he told "buy rather some landing lights for the airports so that when a helicopter is landing, we don't have to use fires to show the landing place to it and risk that the helicopter will blow them off. Yet in this article I saw nothing about this. And THIS is particularly notable. How many people you know that take care of abandoned runways using their own time and money ??? Jozue (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Flight number
Please, rename this article - flight number is 516, not 514. This information is absolutely true - it was checked by russian national airline tickets reservation system "Sirena". --Grig siren (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * names it 514. Can you provide any reliable sources with "516" number? `a5b (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%A2%D1%83-154_%D0%B2_%D0%98%D0%B6%D0%BC%D0%B5_7_%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%8F%D0%B1%D1%80%D1%8F_2010_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.164.25.204 (talk) 08:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The current version of article completely misses the point
This article managed to achieve the unachievable: it took an aviation event, where nobody died only due to great pilot skill, dedication, and unbelievable combination of circumstances, and turned it into the most boring description of "yet another emergency landing" I have ever seen. (No wonder people have suggested to delete it for lack of notability!)

Here is what happened: the plane lost a lot of equipment, including the fuel pumps, and thus the plane had to make an emergency landing ASAP. However, there were no airports reachable from their position, and there was a layer of clouds below the plane, obscuring the view of the ground. The crew initiated a descent, which included flying through the cloud layer without the instruments for IMC - that's already a life and death emergency by itself. Nevertheless, the crew succeeded, and once they got out of clouds at 3000m, they found themselves over the endless forests of taiga, with no place to even attempt an emergency landing. Thus, the crew decided to follow the river, looking out for a relatively straight river bank, which could serve as a potential emergency landing spot.

And then the miracle happened: all over sudden, they saw a runway! A runway which wasn't marked on the maps, within their reach. Unmarked runways are usually not the best place for landing (they are unkept and often have dangerous obstacles like fallen trees etc), but the crew had no choice. They made 2 low passes, checking the runway for any debris, found it to be in acceptable condition, and decided to land. The runway (1300m long) was twice as short as needed for their type of the plane; furthermore, they had to land at higher speeds due to flaps failure, and because of electrical failure, the control over the plane was reduced. They successfully performed the landing, and the plane only overrun the runway by 160m, cutting some trees and bushes in the process (look up the picture). Nobody got hurt. To get a idea of how much skill that took, let me mentioned that the plane later managed to take off from that same short runway - but to achieve it, it took one of the best Russian test pilots (Ruben Esayan), and everything was done to reduce weight, including partially dismantling the interior.

And here is the cherry: why did that god-forgotten runway was in a good shape, after all these years, to allow a big passenger plane to land on it? Well, because the airport superior, Sergey Sotnikov, on his own initiative (!) was himself cleaning the runway (!) and maintaining it in a good condition (trust me, it takes a lot of effort), and he was doing it for 13 years (!) despite the airport to be long closed without any hope of revival. When asked "why", he basically said that it was painful for him to see the runway in a bad shape. So just imagine, you maintain the runway for 13 years just because your heart tells you so, and then a plane is about to crash in the middle of taiga, and all over sudden they happen to be near your runway, and they make it and no one dies. Isn't this a miracle? The guy quickly became a national hero, and Russians gifted him a snow scooter, to help with his job.

Hope this explains what was so unique about this event, why so many people got medals, and why this article has to be rewritten. I will do this if no one does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.214.179 (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopedia, not a print version of Mayday: 'boring' here means well written. Before you start editing the article, please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's manual of style, in particular regarding puffery, impartial tone and editorialising. --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment - but I didn't mean to put the above text into the article exactly because of the reasons you mentioned. It was intended as a reply to the comments above, regarding why this was a remarkable event, and it is obviously not written in the "encyclopedia" language. However, I don't agree that the current article is well-written. As I said, it fails to mention crucial points in the narrative. Even the translation of the Russian version would be a big step forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.214.179 (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alrosa Mirny Air Enterprise Flight 514. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100912020536/http://www.newsbcm.com/doc/220 to http://www.newsbcm.com/doc/220

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Mushrooms?!
First sentence in section 'aftermath': "After evacuating the aircraft and while awaiting rescue, some of the passengers searched for mushrooms, a popular pastime in Russia."

Seriously? What does it matter that some of the passengers searched for mushrooms? --136.29.99.30 (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)