Talk:Asiana Airlines Flight 162

Comments
I am unsure why this is notable Andrewgprout (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it does come at a time when both overreliance on automation in general, and Asiana's safety record in particular, are growing concerns. See Asiana Airlines Flight 214 for an example of where the two issues are believed to have intersected in recent times (2013). Ceannlann gorm (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That does still not justify a separate article for this particular event. It could well be included in the Asiana 214 article or simply create a new article from scratch concerning that issue if it really is that notable. 34MSP2108 (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Delta Airlines Flight 1086 was a similar incident but less major, so shouldn't that be deleted as well? I don't think the page should be included into the Asiana Airlines Flight 214 article, because the accidents are unrelated.Iloveplanes2003 (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep This accident will meet 2 of the 3 guidelines in the criteria for Wikipedia articles on aircraft accidents (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Aircraft_accidents_and_incidents) when it needs to meet only 1. Also, how come this is being nominated for deletion when Delta Air Lines Flight 1086 is ok? That aircraft had less damage and less injuries than the Asiana A320. Also this accident is identical to Air Canada Flight 624 and that page is ok. Canadaman001 (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep There are lots of aircraft incidents not notable for an article but I highly disagree this is one of them. The aircraft sustained severe damage, more than 30% (27 from 82) people were injured, a full investigation and enquiry has been opened, plus this might have a connection with Air Canada Flight 624. This accident could have been a lot worse A340swazzen (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Like others have been saying, Delta Air Lines Flight 1086 had less injuries, and they were minor, and that's not up for deletion. This flight had more injuries, and one was serious. I think we should keep the article. 76.16.88.134 (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Commons image
There are a couple of photos of the plane following the accident available on Commons, if someone wishes to add them to the article.

--DAJF (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

"lost height"
This statement implies that the aircraft SUDDENLY lost altitude, this was not the case. Please revert the edit where this was originally adjusted. Based on the information provided from the FDR, the aircraft was flown straight into the ground. 68.144.194.164 (talk) 05:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "Flown straight into the ground" implies an intentional act. No evidence for that at this point in time. - Ahunt (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the change, the wording is now much better. It does not imply intentional, and I also added ACCIDENTALLY to that statement. According to the FDR the aircraft was flown into the ground (no mechanical or weather causes noted) so this will end up being a CFIT crash once the Japanese are finished - however the CFIT is a later determination and cannot be used at this time. 68.144.194.164 (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

What is the exact number of passengers on this flight?
According to some later news about this incident, like by CNN or  by the Japan Times, or even the press releases made by Asiana Airlines,  the exact number of passengers on this flight should be 73, not 74. So which one is correct? --そらみみ (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Korean version
I notice page 44 (PDF p. 25) of this page on the MLIT website states "Distribution of Korean version of HL7762 HIJ accident investigation report to flight crew"

Where is this report located, and how do I obtain it? It would be good for the Korean Wikipedia article ko:아시아나항공 162편 착륙 사고 WhisperToMe (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)