Talk:Interstate Aviation Committee

Stuff to archive
http://www.mak.ru/english/english.html http://www.mak.ru/english/info/info.html http://www.mak.ru/english/certificates_all.html

http://www.mak.ru/russian/russian.html http://www.mak.ru/russian/o_mak.html http://www.mak.ru/russian/info/info.html http://www.mak.ru/russian/certificates_all.html http://www.mak.ru/russian/investigations/investigations.html WhisperToMe (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Older investigations
http://web.archive.org/web/20041204205655/http://www.mak.ru/russian/rassledovania/glavniy_freim.html - Links work

http://web.archive.org/web/20030214023519/http://www.mak.ru/new/investig/investig.htm - This works, but links within this one don't work

http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://www.mak.ru/new/investig/tu154_85693.htm for Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 doesn't work... WhisperToMe (talk) 06:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

News
http://www.mak.ru/russian/info/news/main_frame.html
 * http://www.mak.ru/russian/info/news/2011/news_2011.html
 * http://www.mak.ru/russian/info/news/2010/news_2010.html
 * http://www.mak.ru/russian/info/news/2009/news_2009.html
 * http://www.mak.ru/russian/info/news/2008/news_2008.html
 * http://www.mak.ru/russian/info/news/2007/news_2007.html
 * http://www.mak.ru/russian/info/news/2006/news_2006.html

Alternate Chinese names
WhisperToMe (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "波蘭專家稱俄路斯不應為波總統墜機事件受指責." Sina Hong Kong. 2011-01-21 = "俄路斯洲際航空委員會"

Pronunciation of: Межгосударственный авиационный комитет
Can a Russian speaker please add the Anglicized pronunciation of the Cyrillic text as is usual for Wikipedia? Thanks Pmarshal (talk) 06:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Moldova
There's a possibility that Moldova may not be a part of the IAC anymore: WhisperToMe (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Okay, Moldova attempted to withdraw, but it hadn't finished... WhisperToMe (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.mak.ru/english/english.html says it still is, but...
 * http://lex.justice.md/index.php?action=view&view=doc&lang=1&id=301489 says it withdrew
 * http://www.ipp.md/public/files/Publicatii/2001/integrarea_europeana/CAPITOLUL%20%20IV-IPP.doc

Being correct
Ladies and gentlemen, I suspect that the current role of the Committee is not as blanket as it is stated. Perhaps now its a body that authorized by somebody to authorize something somewhere for common good. Similar to many private certification authorities that function worldwide. For instance, Ukraine is most certainly not supervised by it. But Ukrainian airlines and aircraft-maintaining companies (and possibly Boing) may well be regulated by the IAC concerning their operation inside Russia and its dominions. It's a global market we're talking about. If so, we will need comprehensive corrections. Happy edits, Ukrained2012 (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly like I thought . Ukrained2012 (talk) 05:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I made a post on Ukrained2012's page, These are his edits, which said that Georgia and Ukraine had withdrawn from the IAC with no sources explicitly saying so named. Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind the official IAC website still identifies Georgia and Ukraine as members. Thie Russian and English sites do this.
 * Within the article, the edits did not provide sources saying that Ukraine and Georgia left the IAC. Because the IAC website still says they are members, the Wikipedia article should continue to say they are members. V states clearly that verifiability and not truth is the criterion for inclusion. Wikipedians have written the essay Verifiability, not truth explaining the policy some more. So if Georgia left the IAC (and a source simply saying they left the CIS is not sufficient because that happened years ago and the IAC still says Georgia is a member) then we need a source saying that explicitly. Same with the Ukraine.
 * It is not necessary to add a  tag to a quote within a citation.   tags belong in the article body to indicate a lack of clarity in a passage within the article itself.
 * First of all, thank you for going extra length to notify me of your edits to this article. Your factual objections look very reasonable though I insist on new rewording the article according to them. Essentially, we should implement the thesis stated by me above: the IAC has varying authority in different countries, not a unified one.
 * Done. Ukrained2012 (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As for verifying of Ukraine's current relation to the IAC, we could use plenty of official comments about recent air accidents here with no mentions of the IAC as an investigating body. Instead, the national aviation authorities under the Ministry of Infrastructure are named.See, for instance, refs for this incident article. I believe this is proving enough)


 * You should also keep in mind that organization's own web site is in no way a sufficient source on its membership and authority over other organizations and countries. Especially when it comes to organization in Russia - a country notorious for its lawfullness, transparency and non-interference. Or in Ukraine for that matter( Thus, we need sources explicitly stating that the IAC continues to issue rulings over particular country' aviation and that those rulings are recognized. Ukrained2012 (talk) 09:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I think on Wikipedia most people do rely on an organization's website for a simple list of members. Perhaps in some countries there may be issues with reliability with certain sources, but in this case I would only dispute the membership list if perhaps there is an explicit claim made in a source that "we are not a part of the IAC" or something to that effect. Remember that WP:V establishes that "verifiability" and not truth is the guiding criterion for inclusion of content, and statements need to be taken from material explicitly stated in sources, as Wikipedia forbids WP:Original research. Since it appears the IAC authority does differ within different member states, it would be nice to ask them to post a chart in Russian and English explaining its authority in its various member states. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

For Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 the IAC had an investigation page at http://web.archive.org/web/20040908181843/http://www.mak.ru/russian/rassledovania/informatsia/2001/4_oktiabria_2001.html WhisperToMe (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Good for them: an extra investigation never hurts. But, as one can see from the aforementioned article, that IAC investigation had no legal influence on either the court procedures or criminal cases in Ukraine (or in Israel for that matter). Ukrained2012 (talk)
 * Technical accident investigations routinely have no influence in court procedures or criminal trials in any country. Those agencies in fact discourage use of their investigations in criminal proceedings. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not in "any". In the former Soviet Union, all technical investigations have purely legal nature: they are not conducted or regarded unless their results can be used for criminal or disciplinary actions. Nobody here is interested in improving something purely technical YET( Hope you won't ask refs to prove this saddening reality. Ukrained2012 (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * To see if the IAC/MAK says the same things about the purpose of the investigation as do the NTSB/BEA/etc, I did some digging, the English report on the Smolensk crash says on the first page: "In accordance with ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices the sole objective of this Report is air accident and incident prevention. The investigation conducted within the framework of this Report and suggested recommendations does not apportion blame or liability. The criminal aspects of the accident are investigated within a separate criminal case.", and Russian "В соответствии со стандартами и рекомендациями Международной организации гражданской авиации данный отчет выпущен с единственной целью предотвращения авиационных происшествий. Расследование, проведенное в рамках настоящего отчета, и предлагаемые рекомендации не предполагают установления доли чьей-либо вины или ответственности. Криминальные аспекты этого происшествия расследуются в рамках отдельного уголовного дела." - if the reports are used as part of the criminal case proceedings despite what is said here, how would this be documented? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, an a-ha moment for me. It is very important for the sake of WP-postSoviet articles, so many thanks to you. Hope to make good use of it with that Black Sea crash. Wishes, Ukrained2012 (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Sealle said that this mail.ru (2011/12/3) article says: Mikhail Saakashvili could withdraw from the CIS, but the Georgian aviation professionals continue to communicate with the IAC. If Mail.ru's news page is a Wikipedia reliable source, we should cite it to clarify Georgia's role within the IAC. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It most certainly not: Mail.ru is a local Google-wannabe, not a govt or journalist organization. The text looks like copy-paste from the Vesti (Russian state TV news), but it is awfully unreliable in itself, regardless of the source:


 * it explicitly says that Georgian aviation experts seek unofficial help from the IAC as private individuals - which is legally irrelevant
 * there's some morbid rant about humble IAC chief directly negotiating certification of particular airplanes with the Presidents of Ukraine (in her own words) - which only adds to stereotypes about blond women) Ukrained2012 (talk) 09:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Turns out the Russian Wikipedia editors did say ru:Википедия:Форум/Технический Mail.ru isn't a reliable source, but that was a repost from Vesti which is a newspaper. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It may be helpful to post the Russian statement in question so everybody may see it. Also as stated above, technical investigations are routinely omitted from criminal or civil trial proceedings in all countries, and technical investigation bodies discourage the use of their reports in such proceedings. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The unreliable text literally rants the following:
 * Сертифицируя совместные российско-украинские самолеты, будь то грузовик-гигант Ан-124 “Руслан” в компании с Виктором Ющенко или пассажирский Ан-148, на который она зашла уже вместе с Виктором Януковичем, Анодина действительно сохранила единство не только воздушного пространства, но и авиапромышленности.
 * "Anodina certified the joint Russia-Ukraine planes accompanied by (President) Yuschenko and (President) Yanukovych, preserving the unity of not only the airspace, but also the aerospace industry
 * As for the Vesti, that government-controlled news organization is discredited by hundreds of independent investigations and media researches as one widely routinely practicing censorship and unbalanced news coverage with regards to corruption, civil rights abuse and international affairs. Therefore, and unreliable source. Wishes, Ukrained2012 (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I could start a thread about Vesti in the RS notice board. Wikipedia can and does use other state owned media like Xinhua but is careful on how it is used. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * According to this regulation of the Ministry of Transport of Ukraine, Ukraine did communicate with the IAC at least as of 2011, and there is no information that this clause was withdrawn since that time — NickK (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Thank you for digging, Ukrained2012 (talk) 09:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Ladies and gentlemen, I removed the section listing the particular accidents investigated, as a redundant. The text above that section now clearly states that the IAC investigates all accidents in Russia. And we have all necessary categories and lists for them elsewhere. No objections on restoring the section of course. Whoever insisting otherwise should probably take the gruesome responsibility of updating the list(


 * On a side note, the IAC appears not to be an official CIS body. I tried to link an official CIS web site' page here, but found none of the kind. Ukrained2012 (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason why I included the list was because someone included a list for the Air Accidents Investigation Branch of the United Kingdom, and it is relevant to see the work the agency did. While it investigates all accidents in Russia it also investigates outside of Russia; the recent SCAT Airlines crash in Kazakhstan is being investigated by the IAC. There was also the Belavia crash which happened in Belarus. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Tatiana Anodina, Does Kommersant or a person quoted in the article allege a conflict of interest? If so, it can be mentioned in an appropriate section "In 20XX, WXY said that ABC relationship is a conflict of interest". For the bit about the Smolensk crash, it may help to elaborate on how/why it was controversial without duplicating too much from the Smolensk article. Mention briefly the differing conclusions with the Polish government. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Some updates: A Russian Wikipedian said that the Kommersant article said that there was speculation that conflict of interest may be a reason why the 777 wasn't being certified.
 * - The B777 ended up getting permits and going into flight
 * ) - The Federal Air Transport Agency issued the permit and did not receive documents from the IAC
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks for digging. Ukrained2012 (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Interstate Aviation Committee. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aviation.am/eng/qart/history.htm

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 20:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Ukraine
I am aware Ukraine and Russia are in a huge diplomatic tiff (over territorial stuff - Crimea and the Dombass), and apparently Ukraine de facto doesn't participate in CIS matters anymore. However the IAC official site still lists Ukraine as a participating country, so it should be in that column until the IAC removes Ukraine and/or a reliable source explicitly states that Ukraine no longer participates in IAC matters. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems you refer the wrong source (IAC official site still lists Ukraine as a participating country) because IAC is obviously interested party in keeping his own status higher. However, I won't insist, such details is not important now when the IAC is very close to the end of its mission in the post-Soviet countries and the article will become a historical outline soon. Apetrov09703 (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Remember that Wikipedia is based on written, published sources, and so far IAC is the only known source on the matter (the article explicitly says these are participants named by the IAC itself). If the IAC collapses it will be reflected in what's published. Alao note the IAC has de-listed Georgia so I presume the same will happen to Ukraine WhisperToMe (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems on the Ukrainian Wikipedia they cited a notice from Zelenskyy that Ukraine officially was to withdraw from the treaties that made it a member of the IAC. https://www.president.gov.ua/news/ukrayina-vihodit-z-dvoh-ugod-ukladenih-u-mezhah-snd-ukaz-pre-66733 If this is accurate please feel free to cite this page WhisperToMe (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Also the IAC website now no longer lists Ukraine as a member country https://mak-iac.org/en/ WhisperToMe (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)