Talk:Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501/Archive 3

Single name
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)


 * In my opinion, no. You and I go by only one name consisting of multiple words. In fact, virtually everyone goes by only one name, except in cases like aliases and pen names. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, no one ever has more than one name at Wikipedia, do they? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * When someone asks me for my name (outside a social situation), I don't reply, "Which one?". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * What's striking to a Western reader is that it's a single word. There's two-word Javanese names, but the second word still isn't a surname. Just like your average (American) Joe won't know how to parse a Korean name, they won't really know what to make of an Indonesian name either, no matter its length. Unless we wanna give people a lecture on naming practices in Indonesia, the current wording is fine. Alakzi (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Quite frankly, if there had been no note, I would not have given it a second look. I suspect most readers would not care how many names he did or did not have. I guess it's respectful to make sure it's right. But I'd be tempted to hide that note. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I think that to most people it is rather "jarring" to see only one name.  And the first thought is "Oh, this must be a typo.  They forget to put his last name."  Change it to a common every-day Western name.  The pilot of the plane was Mike, who had 30 years of experience.  That would strike anyone as odd.  And everyone's first thought would be that it's a typo and they forgot to put in Mike's last name.  The first thought would not be, "Oh, some guy named Mike only goes by a mononym."   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But it's not "Mike", is it? And it's not even "Iriyanto", it's "Captain Iriyanto", which sounds like a perfectly good name for an Indonesian pilot to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Lol. I think the note is already fairly well "hidden" as a superscripted footnote. That's what footnotes are for. On the other hand, it should not be so hidden that it's invisible to a non-editing reader. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Good job, !! &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * A person is mononymous, not their name. Alakzi (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * A good point. Fixed, I think. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:49, 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)


 * Depends on whether your name dies with you. I don't have a particular opinion. Suggest Reference desk/Language and get back to us. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I dunno. Richard Nixon's name is always going to be "Richard Nixon", whether he's dead or alive. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I dunno either. Which sounds more natural?
 * Tricia Nixon's father's name is Richard Nixon.
 * Tricia Nixon's father's name was Richard Nixon. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. Tough call.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:30, 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)


 * Ok, so you favor something of a compromise between what we have now and what we had six hours ago. It's true that "Iriyanto" is a more concise way of saying "Iriyanto's name", and it's also true that removing the person from the sentence eliminates any verb tense issue. I have no problem with that, with the addition of a hyphen between "one" and "word". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, a hyphen is needed. AHeneen (talk) 06:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ - Can't imagine any objection. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Yet another nit-pick.  Note "f" now states: "Iriyanto is a mononym (one-word name), which is common for Indonesian names."  The first word in that sentence (Iriyanto) can either refer to (1) the man who bears that name; or (2) the name itself.  So, we should adopt whatever is the correct format for indicating that a word is a word (and not the physical object that word represents, in this case, a man).  Usually, one uses quote marks or italics.  Thus, namely, "Iriyanto" or Iriyanto.  As it stands now, a reader can easily confuse the sentence "Iriyanto is a mononym" with something analogous, such as "John is a doctor".  (Even more so due to the fact that "mononym" will be a foreign word to most people.)   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call it a nit, exactly, as nothing is too minor to get right. You're just wrong. We say that Iriyanto is a mononym, and then we say that a mononym is a one-word name. By inheritance, then, Iriyanto is a one-word name. A man cannot be a name, or vice versa, so there is no ambiguity, and there is no need for quotes or italics. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ambiguity is not the issue. Adherence to style convention is.  MOS states what I stated: for words mentioned as words, use italics.  See Manual of Style.  It's not a guideline.  It's a directive.   It's not discretionary.  It's a consistent style convention put forth by Wikipedia (and many others, also).  I would take issue with calling my position "wrong".  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅, not that anyone can tell the difference at that tiny font size. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well that escalated quickly. If you would have mentioned the relevant MOS policy in your previous comment, then this comment would be justified. However, without knowing of this obscure MOS policy, I would have agreed with Mandruss that it should be quite clear that when saying "Iriyanto is a...name" it should be quite clear that Iriyanto means the name, not the person. Since you've pointed out the relevant policy, I understand why you raised this issue (and think italics are the best option). However, it would have sufficed to simply say: Ambiguity is not the issue. According to the MOS, "for words mentioned as words, use italics" (see Manual of Style). There are lots of style guidelines discussed in the MOS and very few know all of them. Also, not to nit-pick, but it is a guideline. The first sentence at the top of the page, entirely in bold, says "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style." But I digress... AHeneen (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Just when you think you can put something to bed ... you can't., 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? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That Alakzi... such a pest. Putting aside the fact that the term mononym is extremely obscure and shouldn't have been used in the first place, there can be a person with/known by only one name, consisting of two words, e.g. 'Anna Maria'. Alakzi (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well you've pretty much brought us full circle. If you re-read the beginning of this thread (way, way up there), I objected to the use of "one name" as a description of a name consisting of one word. I still do. But now we have "a single name". If "mononym" is so obscure, why is the "Anna Maria" distinction so important to the average reader? How about we keep scratching this scab until it becomes infected? &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  12:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And way, way up there I'd said we should stick to the then-current wording. There was absolutely nothing wrong with saying his name is one word, full stop. Alakzi (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well I've reached my limit, the rest of you can battle it out. But you might want to check out WP:CONSENSUS when you get some time. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If there's any sort of consensus with regard to the content, I must've missed it. Most of what's been said is about whether to italicise his name, hyphenate some words and change the tense of a verb. Alakzi (talk) 12:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to have misinterpreted my use of 'full stop'. I meant that the sentence in the footnote should end there. Alakzi (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This thread has been a continuous process of negotiation between the five or so participants, although none of us was here for the whole thing. Each little point was hammered out with a fair amount of give and take. Based on what the participants had said, there was no reason to believe that anyone but you had any problem with what we had when you reappeared. But you unilaterally pretty much threw the result of that process in the trash and replaced it with your view of correctness (thanks for keeping the italics). I don't know how anyone could ever reach a resolution on anything when people do that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did that. Marc Kupper also did that. The conversation that ensued revolved around stylistic and minor grammatical changes to his wording, which I took into consideration when I rephrased the footnote again. If you believe my changes to be incorrect or unhelpful, you can revert. Alakzi (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Now is when you explain your revert. And no, perceived consensus on a matter that's hardly been discussed isn't an excuse. What do you disagree with, specifically? Alakzi (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * More than half of my objection was about respect. Respect for process, and respect for other editors whose work product you threw away without discussing it with us first. That said,
 * There was nothing wrong with using the correct word, mononym, especially since it was explained in brief and linked to a Wikipedia article.
 * By including the word "his", you reintroduced the verb tense issue, a step backward.
 * Your version needed two occurrences of "Indonesia". Minor but significant. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct? Correct according to whom? What's so correct about it? The OED says mononym is used chiefly in medicine and is obsolete.
 * A non-issue.
 * A non-issue.
 * You appear to be too caught up on correctness of language than conveying the right message in simple terms. Alakzi (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For reference, here's the current text:
 * Iriyanto is a mononym (one-word name), which is common for Indonesian names.
 * If a reader encounters a word they don't recognize (and don't feel inclined to learn), they skip over it without missing a beat. This gives:
 * Iriyanto is a one-word name, which is common for Indonesian names.
 * That is no less simple terms than yours, but without the problems I cited and you dismissed. We appear to be stalemated, but we know that Marc Kupper sides with me on "mononym" since he added it. Now what? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing. Let's just leave it the way it is now. Alakzi (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Still think that this is a dispute manufactured by wiki editors over what they expect to see in a wiki article. The name "Captain Iriyanto" is entirely unabmbiguous in this context and looks entirely normal. The world's press seems to be quite happy to use it without any added explanation. The fact that it's common practice for Indonesian people to go by a single name, and that his name was an example of this, does nothing to aid an understanding of this accident. If the article was about him, that would be different. Sorry to be so negative. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Captain" was his title. It was not part of his name, so let's leave that word out of any discussion about his name, ok? "Iriyanto" does not look normal where one expects to see a full name. I haven't lived under a rock for the last 50 years, but I had never heard of this Indonesian mononym thing until it came up in the context of this article. If an average Westerner would reasonably expect to see at least two words there for a name, then it is our responsibility to explain why there is only one. But if you feel strongly about it, anyone can start an RfC. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't feel strongly about it, alas. I am deeply uninspired. I just don't see it's a problem. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2015
82.131.133.198 (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  16:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup
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)
 * Move "Recovery effort" to follow "Disappearance", because of chronological order...it just flows better to discuss the accident and then the search/recovery...these two sections belong together.
 * Rename "Recovery effort" to "Search and recovery"...a much better term for the contents of this section.
 * Swap position of the "Investigation" and "Response and reaction" sections. Response/reaction is usually placed at the end of articles like this.
 * Adjust the location of the images. The current position of the flight path & radar image is really awkward. The flight path can be left-aligned at the top of the disappearance section, with the weather radar image moved to the "investigation" section.
 * The 'leaked' ATC radar image is on this page because of fair use. The information conveyed by this image is now available from the image in the "Investigation" section. The image did appear in a publication by the Indonesian government (I think it was the meteorological analysis by the Indonesian weather agency). Since works by the Indonesian government are public domain, the radar image doesn't need to be deleted, but I don't know if it is necessary any longer.
 * Is the timeline table really necessary? I think the content is better explained by prose. The timeline table doesn't really have much precedence in aviation incident articles (it was probably an idea copied from MH370, where a timeline table was very necessary to make sense of lots of events).


 * I'm all for inter-article consistency, consensus or not. If there's no applicable guideline, I'm more than willing to go with the closest thing we have. You have more experience in this area and I'll defer to your judgment on layout. As for the timeline, unless you're going to eliminate quite a bit of the information in the table, it's not going to work in prose; just look at it and try to imagine that. The question, then, is how much of that information are we willing to give up? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with all the cleanup items except the timeline.
 * The timeline should remain because it summarizes a lot of details in a useful form. It is okay for an article to have both a summary and extended details, even though one can be found from the other.  But with so many details, it would be difficult to see the changing pace of events (for example).  —EncMstr (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I know the timeline removal would not likely be approved by others. I am currently re-writing the disappearance section, so maybe when that's done, there may be a difference in opinion. In the meantime, I am removing this information because it doesn't seem relevant (ref is hidden by wiki code): "The total aircraft weight at take-off, including 8296 kg of fuel, was 63624 kg. The estimated fuel consumption for the trip was 5121 kg." AHeneen (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No complaint here, we're not an almanac of obscure details. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * All the proposed changes have been made (except changes to the timeline and the radar image is still in the article). I placed three images in a gallery at the end of the "Investigation" section. This may not be the best way to handle them, but it works for now. The second half of the Investigation section (time & altitude) is information that belongs in the "Disappearance" section. AHeneen (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Current vandalism
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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested unprotection. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Unprotected by Ronhjones. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Conflicting story about clearance to climb
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)
 * 1) The pilots contacted Jakarta at 06:12, requesting to deviate left, followed by a request to climb to FL380, which was denied. This is the story that appears in most media accounts.
 * 2) The pilots contacted Jakarta at 06:12, requesting to deviate left, then the captain said "Request to higher level". ATC asked for clarification, but did not receive a response. A couple minutes later, ATC cleared Flight 8501 to FL380, but again did not receive a response. This version is told by the Malay Insider (I don't feel like searching the web for more similar stories)


 * I'm fine with how the article is now and don't see the need for a footnote. The bit about "ATC asked for clarification, but did not receive a response" is a detail that was so inconsistently reported that we'll need to wait until investigators release the transcript before we can improve that part of the article. The discouraging part is that if you search for "Wisnu Darjono" "Request to higher level" you get about 3,160 articles with little to no consistency on what Darjono said at the press conference.


 * There is a detail that crops up in many articles which was that the aircraft traveled seven miles on the new heading before requesting a higher level. The cruise speed for an A320 is 447 kts meaning the "Request to higher level" came about 56 seconds after the request to turn left. I suspect we should mention that the aircraft traveled 7 miles. The 56 seconds bit is my own computation to get a sense of what the delay was before QZ8501 asked for a higher level. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 09:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried to clean up the "disappearance" section, but half-way through came across an article that Indonesia will issue the first interim report today (27 January) and deferred further changes until details of the report are available (it's not clear whether the full report will be released publicly). AHeneen (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Use of flags
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? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Do we need a victims table at all? It's like some grotesque parody of an Olympics medal table. It makes no difference whether the victims are Indonesian or Korean or whatever, it's still 162 people . 82.16.87.209 (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I note that four of the five aircraft accident articles you have edited have an equivalent table (the remaining one being a relatively minor accident that had only seven fatalities). It seems clear that there is community consensus for these tables, although you are free to initiate an RfC to seek a different consensus (good luck). Although the flags are also very common in these tables, that's a different situation because there are guidelines that clearly say flags should not be used in that manner. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Names of pilots
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)
 * Why is the fact that they're of different ethnicity important? Alakzi (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not true that crew are named in most air crash articles and my opinion is that the names of crew should not be mentioned anywhere in any such article, except in exceptional circumstances - Chesley Sullenburger for instance. I also think that their ethnicity is unimportant. YSSYguy (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not that the FO is of different ethnicity, but that he was from Martinique. Saying he's a French national is like saying before being returned to China that a Hong Kong resident of Chinese ancestry is a British national. It's just something that could be pointed out. The names are mentioned in most articles about major aviation accidents that aren't short or well developed (like Air Algérie Flight 5017 or Lao Airlines Flight 301): Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, Asiana Airlines Flight 214, Red Wings Airlines Flight 9268, Qantas Flight 32, UPS Airlines Flight 6, Air France Flight 447. The only major accident in recent years that doesn't name the pilots is Dana Air Flight 992, which isn't a well-developed article. AHeneen (talk) 10:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The only reason I can see why ethnicity of the flight-deck crew might be useful is if a reader might mistakenly assume, from their unfamiliar names, that they were the same nationality of the airline. This might be made clear in the "persons on board" list, if they, and the cabin crew were separated out. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * During my pilot training c. 1990, Al Haynes came to my city to speak at an aviation convention about his perspective on the recent United 232 crash. To this day, I easily remember his name and use that to find the flight article.
 * Ethnicity isn't as important as potential language barriers, though one might suggest the other. What would be more relevant is how much time they had spent together as a crew.
 * I was surprised to see someone taking out the pilot names. At this point, what purpose would doing so serve?  —EncMstr (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Those are very good points. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The most basic bio facts about the pilots seems encyclopedic to me. In any case, the removal is a disputed change by virtue of this thread, and, per WP:BRD, should be reverted until consensus is reached for it. In the interest of process, I will make an attempt at that revert. But, as the edit included changes that are not disputed, it won't be as simple as an undo, and it may need to be tweaked. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Revert of mph vertical speeds
Extended edit summary for revert of this edit by.

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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I havent looked but is the vertical speed mentioned in the article, if it is not we shouldnt make things up. MilborneOne (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In the "Investigation" section. It's a rate that has been quoted in several sources, although there's just one inline citation for the statement in this article. Furthermore, the climb rate of 6000 ft/min occurred when the aircraft climbed from FL320-FL370 in 54 seconds. A comparison should be given for readers unfamiliar with commercial aviation, one official described it as (paraphrased) acting like a military jet not a passenger aircraft. A few articles have described it as being about three times the normal climb rate for this aircraft. The climb rate and altitudes/times should probably have another reference or two, plus a comparison. AHeneen (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In the case I reverted, it was descent rates, not climb. As per, the editor apparently calculated the mph, which seems ok to me per WP:CALC. I just had a problem with the unit and the ambiguity of the source information for one of the rates. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:43, 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)
 * I didn't know that until I took private-pilot training, some 20 yrs ago. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, this is all we have/this is where we left things, for a week now running?
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)


 * I think this has been somewhat neglected in favor of TransAsia Airways Flight 235. It's more current and things are happening faster there. We're waiting for something more from the investigation here. But if you think there's something important that needs done now, I doubt anyone would object if you took a shot at it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Time stamps and rate of climb/descent
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.
 * 23:16:11.577 - FL 320, 310.44'
 * 23:16:33.882 - FL 320, 310.50'
 * 23:17:1?.7889 - FL 321, 288.25' - I will guess the time should be 23:17:17.889
 * 23:17:45.210 - FL 375.5, 252.1'
 * 23:19:45.352 - FL 240, 197.04' - End of detection

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:
 * The time 23:17:1?.7889 is blurry. I used 23:17:17.889 as a best guess.
 * 23:17:45.210 may have a transposition error and should be 23:17:54.210. If that is true then the computed rate of climb is 9,003 fpm, and descent is 7,315 fpm.

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&#124;talk 00:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Good catch. There does not appear to be a number where you have placed a question mark...it appears to be 23:17:1.7889 (based on the same graphic included in the article). That is a climb of 5450 feet in 43.4211 seconds, which converts to a climb rate of 7531 ft/min. If there was a transcription error as you suggest, then the climb rate for the entire period would be 4762 ft/min and thus an "initial climb rate of 6000 ft/min" would make sense. The information and graphic were originally from a presentation given by the Transportation Minister to a committee of Indonesia's legislature. According to the Aviation Safety Network description: "According to the Wall Street Journal the climb rate was 8000 ft/min at some point." I'll try to find a better source of data. AHeneen (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Browsing the web, the 6000 ft/min figure is widely quoted. There are many articles that say the flight recorder data won't be included in the preliminary report (which hasn't been publicly released). Again, the graphic comes from a presentation given by the Transportation Minister.
 * However, I forgot to point out that the graphic comes from radar data (from the aircraft's transponder), not the flight recorder (although this conflicts with earlier statements that radar contact was lost at 23:17 or 23:18). Perhaps there is a discrepancy between what the transponder reported and what was recorded by the flight recorder. I don't have any knowledge of exactly what the FDR records, but it's quite likely that the FDR records the position based on GPS and that this is what was used to provide the 6000 ft/min rate. I also don't understand how variable the pressure altitude can be compared with the actual altitude, but considering that they were flying into a storm, the outside pressure may have varied relatively significantly, causing a large and/or highly variable difference between the actual altitude and pressure altitude (flight level sent by the transponder). While doubtful, the design of the altimeter/barometer could also contribute to the discrepancy between actual and pressure altitudes. This isn't an attempt to get off-topic and start a forum-like discussion, but rather an attempt to explain the difference.
 * I think the best thing to do for now is leave the values in the article, since they come from reliable sources and we don't want to introduce original research, but could insert a footnote after the climb rate about the discrepancy. AHeneen (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Googling for "23:16:33.882" which is one of the less blurry time stamps finds http://news.detik.com/read/2015/01/21/181101/2810101/10/airasia-naik-cepat-capai-37-ribu-kaki-dan-hilang-di-ketinggian-24-ribu-kaki. The graphic looks like an earlier revision of the one we have on Wikipedia. The data we care about seems to be the same. That article noted the time stamp as "23:17:1,7889". I also saw that I misinterpreted some of the blurry figures earlier. Here's the time stamps again:
 * 23:16:11.577 - FL 320, 310.44'
 * 23:16:33.882 - FL 320, 310.50'
 * 23:17:1.7889 - FL 321, 288.25'
 * 23:17:43.210 - FL 375.5, 252.1' (I had this as 23:17:45.210)
 * 23:19:46.352 - FL 240, 197.04' - End of detection (I had this as 23:19:45.352)
 * Interpreting 23:17:1.7889 as 23:17:01.7889 results in:
 * A rate of climb of 7,895 fpm in 41.421 seconds.
 * A rate of decent of 6,602 fpm in 123.142 seconds.
 * I'm pretty sure all of the data in the chart comes from the radar transponder and does not include anything from the FDR. However, the transponder returns the same information that would be recorded in the FDR. Transponder (aeronautics) says it returns the pressure altitude. For now, I don't think we need to update this WP article. We can do that if a preliminary or final report is released that includes both radar plus FDR data, transcripts, etc. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 21:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

flightradar ref (archive dot today)
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. --Jeremyb (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , I am unable to access that archive dot today address from my work location. I will have to try it elsewhere when I get a chance, which might be a few days. I have a meetup tonight & am traveling this weekend to & from edit-a-thons. Peaceray (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Ground Speed and flight have nothing to do with each other
It says: climbing with a ground speed of 353 knots, 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)


 * Looking at the sources, including this from Aviation Herald, it appears that is in fact a ground speed, and I assume they could estimate IAS using altitude, ground speed, heading, and winds aloft data. I don't know what stall speed for an A320 is at that altitude, and it's also possible that a good IAS would be impossible with that ground speed, even with the maximum headwind. I assume that we would say the specific IAS if we had it. If it were up to me, we wouldn't even state the exact speed, as for perhaps 90% of this article's readers that's nothing but arcane trivia and distracting noise. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's fair to say that "Ground speed and flight have nothing to do with each other." Ground speed only has a meaning relative to flight. But I tend to agree with User:Mandruss, this fact seems a bit irrelevant. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless, even with a hurricane-force tail wind, the plane would still have a airspeed of greater than 250 knots - which is well above the level-flight stall speed of an A320 (about 140 knots?), so the whole sentence is wrong and needs to be edited but not by me. One would think most aviation-accident related Wikipedia articles would be written by air line pilots experienced in the equipment in question.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.6.135.231 (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Crash, not accident, per investigators
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)


 * I suspect that many popular media sites, like the BBC here, will also use the word "accident" just to avoid repetition. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The official term is crash, not accident. e.g. Djoko Murjatmodjo, acting director general of air transportation, ″...the air crash investigation″ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/05/airasia-flight-qz8501-search-to-resume Peter K Burian 17:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Did I dispute that? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No you did not dispute that Martinevans123 but I suspect some other editors might initially wonder what convinced me to remove the word "accident" in this entire article. I felt that proof was required (that this term was never used by the authorities), so I added that quote and citation. Peter K Burian 17:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. Looking at the Categories listed at the bottom of this page, you might well get a few more questions. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 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)

Miscommunication ?
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)

Nine seconds
"...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)
 * The report does not state the consequence of that delay but leads most readers to wonder why it took so long for the pilots to take control. Peter K Burian 18:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

American Spelling in article about Indonesia?
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)


 * I researched it; all Indonesian publications refer to it as CENTRE ... e.g. indonesia air traffic services contingency plan jakarta ... - ICAO

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 ...


 * Not sure why someone would arbitrarily change the spelling used in a country to American spelling. (Not every country in the world uses American spelling; in fact, most do not! Especially of a local facility, that is officially called a CENTRE. Anyway, I revised it to the original spelling. Peter K Burian 14:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm a native Indonesian and we use the British one rather than the American. PapaPaPaRoony12:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If Indonesia uses BrE and not AmE, the British English template should be included in the article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The template   has been there, since February 2015? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 one external links on Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501. 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/20141228170401/http://asiancorrespondent.com/129391/flight-qz8501-live/ to http://asiancorrespondent.com/129391/flight-qz8501-live/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20151117024948/http://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20141230134301-20-21330/serpihan-tersebar-di-selat-karimata-akan-diangkat-basarnas/ to http://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20141230134301-20-21330/serpihan-tersebar-di-selat-karimata-akan-diangkat-basarnas/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20151120052029/http://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20141230124459-20-21314/badan-sar-telusuri-tiga-lokasi-ditemukannya-serpihan/ to http://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20141230124459-20-21314/badan-sar-telusuri-tiga-lokasi-ditemukannya-serpihan/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141228084918/http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/liveblog-airasia-qz8501/1553132.html to http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/liveblog-airasia-qz8501/1553132.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150104062758/http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/airasia-surabaya/1565758.html to http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/airasia-surabaya/1565758.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 19:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150103210431/http://itar-tass.com/en/world/770275 to http://itar-tass.com/en/world/770275

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Cause of the Crash - pilot response
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


 * AirAsia crash: pilots' confusion recalls 2009 Air France www.theguardian.com
 * Pilots responding to malfuctioning plane part caused AirAsia crash which killed 162 passengers off Indonesia, The Guardian
 * Pilot response led to AirAsia crash into Java Sea - CNN.com
 * CNN || Error in pilot response led to Air Asia crash
 * AirAsia crash caused by pilot response to computer failure www.kgw.com
 * Technical fault, pilot response blamed for AirAsia crash www.ctvnews.ca/ Peter K Burian 17:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Also interesting that the AT article has no Byline - ie no journalist is willing to put their name to the story. Everywhere else the reports are that a faulty component (which was "fixed" on 23 previous occasions, presumably by switching it off and on) followed by inappropriate pilot action in resetting the FAC in flight and a subsequent failure by the co-pilot to deal with the alternate flight law controls caused the crash. The Asia Times story is at odds with the general concensus on this one.. 101.98.248.252 (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I revised it again with additional new information. Perhaps Asia Times has a more recent article about the NTSC report with better information. Or not. Peter K Burian 19:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay so I'm an Indonesian and I just want to tell you that NTSC and all Indonesian media clearly stated that pilot error wasn't the cause of the crash. The cause of the crash was a cracked solder in which it interrupted the signal in the rudder. This caused the plane rudder to deflect, both pilots confused of this situation and tried to recover. But I do agree that it did, eerily, quite the same as what Bonin did in Air France 447. Iriyanto make a nose up input while Plesel make a nose down. But clearly that wasn't the main cause, but the rudder was. (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * On the second thought, I've read the report once again and I found that hadn't he pulled the circuit breaker off, all of them would be happily holidaying in Singapore with smile rather than screaming to death while plunging into the Java Sea. After all, all Indonesian media agree that this is what will happened when a pilot got "too creative" while handling a flight emergency. Because this is a disaster that will changed our (Indonesian) aviation surely and I hope that this is a wake-up call for everyone of us. Oh and one thing I added the "storytelling" part but I realized it had gone like poof. I just want you to know that I hope someone, could give the sequence of events in the final report but in "wikipedia style" as everyone know this is Wikipedia not a story book. However those "storytelling" part was there so people would be attracted to read what happen in this flight. I need someone ASAP to made a good minutes-by-minutes of the last moments, how Iriyanto got exposed for the first time by the fault and causing it to crash so it will never happened again. Thanks(PaPa PaPaRoony|talk) 06:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In my edit, I had added a sentence indicating that the report did NOT say pilot error but pilot response .... although the quote from the Investigator makes it clear that the pilots should have been able to recover, had they followed procedure. e.g. after the autopilot went off, they did nothing for 9 seconds. etc. etc. etc. ........ (If your car blows a tire when you are driving on the highway, should the car flip over and kill everyone? Well, that might happen, if the driver response is inappropriate.)
 * LOL yep that's correct.. (PaPa PaPaRoony|talk) 06:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * CNN's aviation correspondent Richard Quest summarized the chain of events as follows: "it's a series of technical failures, but it's the pilot response that leads to the plane crashing." (see ref. 131 http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/01/asia/air-asia-crash-report)

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)


 * The word "accident" had been used a few times. This is layman's term, and not a term that investigators used. Since the aircraft fell apart when striking the water, it is a crash. e.g. See Peter K Burian 14:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/05/airasia-flight-qz8501-search-to-resume


 * The official term is crash, not accident. e.g. Djoko Murjatmodjo, acting director general of air transportation, ″...the air crash investigation″ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/05/airasia-flight-qz8501-search-to-resume Peter K Burian 17:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia subscribes to the ICAO Annex 13 definitions of "accidnet" and "incident," and so do all countries and investigative bodies that are ICAO members, which includes almost all of them.


 * Here are the ICAO Annex 13 definitions, reaffirmed in Wikipedia:


 * "An aviation 'accident' is defined by the Convention on International Civil Aviation Annex 13 as an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft, which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until all such persons have disembarked, where a person is fatally or seriously injured, the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure or the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible.[1] If the aircraft is destroyed or severely damaged so that it must be written off, it is further defined as a hull loss accident.[2] Annex 13 further defines an aviation "incident" as an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft which affects or could affect the safety of operation." [] EditorASC (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)