Talk:Aria Air Flight 1525

Aircraft involved
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)


 * Airframes.org doesnt list any Il-62s probably a recent lease (also note it is I(for India)6208 not 1(number)6208. MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears to be one of three on lease, 6208 from Deta Air MilborneOne (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Soviet-manufactured Civil Aircrafts
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'


 * 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) 12:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I dont think we now that spare parts or maintenance has anything to do with this accident. Also note that Iran Air has operated second-hand Airbus and older Boeing aircraft for many years. MilborneOne (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with User:MilborneOne and Tempshill and per discussion on Talk:Caspian_Airlines_Flight_7908. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced info
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)

Iran's ageing fleet
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)
 * I have changed the sections name to 'Cause', BBC cites 'a technical glitch', an mentions again Irans poor aviation safety record.Michelle Bentley (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The addition was removed by an admin. A technical glitch could mean anything. I have lodged a complaint with the BBC about their biased reporting in the two recent Iranian aircraft accidents. Neither aircraft would have been affected by the sanctions as they were both made in the Soviet Union/Russia. Mjroots (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A 1989 built aircraft is not particularly old so I dont think it can be counted as an ageing aircraft, some western flag carriers operate aircraft older than this Il-62. And it is newer than Air Force 1! MilborneOne (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is of course the maintanance that is the problem. The lack of appropiate spareparts, which was available in 1989 from the state-company that made this plane.

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)


 * Not sure repeating word-for-word your earlier comments actually helps, see above for comments. MilborneOne (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Idem and as per comments on Talk:Caspian_Airlines_Flight_7908 -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Even Hitler had to rely on Soviet jets . '''yousaf465'
 * (Note I have moved the above comment down to respect the logical order - MilborneOne was replying to Michelle Bentley - inserting a comment between these two lines changes the sense of his statement and makes it appear that he / she is replying to Youssaf) I'm all for replying in a light-hearted manner, but fanning the flames isn't going to achieve anything. Regards -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 11:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The BBC cites 'a technical glitch' for this 1989-aircraft
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)


 * Your are welcome to start an article on air safety in Iran and link to it from this article. MilborneOne (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that you'll need inline citations of reliable sources throughout such an article or you'll be accused of WP:OR and flagged regularly, as there are other points of view on this. Tempshill (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Idem and as per comments on Talk:Caspian_Airlines_Flight_7908 -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Cause reported as aircraft being landed at too high a speed (rumour on Pprune is that it landed "long" on the runway too). Nothing to do with maintenance or sanctions. Mjroots (talk) 06:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Anomaly?
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)
 * What about - "Nine of the thirteen dead crew members were from Kazakhstan. Aria Air Managing Director Mahdi Dadpay and his son were among the dead". Note that they say sixteen dead in total, whereas the BBC article (which itself admits to figures not being too clear) says seventeen dead in total. Figures vary between sources at the moment, especially concerning the number of injured. I'll keep digging. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 13:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW I read the Russian Wikipedia version of this article and followed the link which states "По сведению информагентства, 13 из 16 погибших были членами экипажа, трое остальных - пассажиры. 21 человек был ранен." - "According to news sources, 13 of the 16 dead were crew members, three others passengers. 21 were wounded." -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I hear what you are saying about what sources are reporting. I'm happy for the article to say 13 crew and 3 passengers per WP:V. It doesn't make sense though, why 13 crew in front part of aircraft? 3 flight deck (Pilot, First Officer and Engineer?) and 13 pax (front 4/5 rows?) killed makes more sense.  Mjroots (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's starting to become clearer. According to Pprune (not for use in article as fails wP:V) there was an extra crew on board, and company CEO. Hence the higher than usual number of crew casualties. Mjroots (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Complete and utter speculation on my behalf, but wouldn't "crew" also include the flight attendants who would have been seated up front during landing? If indeed a second set of crew members were on board, airlines usually seat them towards the front (more WP:OR I know). -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * FA's are included in crew. They are normally positioned throughout the aircraft to be near emergency exits. Mjroots (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Aria Air Flight 1525. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090728072721/http://aviation-safety.net:80/database/record.php?id=20090724-0t to http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20090724-0t
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090729232549/http://news.morningstar.com:80/newsnet/ViewNews.aspx?article=/DJ/200907241359DOWJONESDJONLINE000719_univ.xml to http://news.morningstar.com/newsnet/ViewNews.aspx?article=/DJ/200907241359DOWJONESDJONLINE000719_univ.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Aria Air Flight 1525. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070525051944/http://www.metoffice.gov.uk:80/aviation/news/briefing_charts/abbreviations.html to http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/aviation/news/briefing_charts/abbreviations.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)