Talk:LaMia Flight 2933/Archive 1

News outlets
It appears a local news site known as MiOriente has been on top of the latest news. I can't help right now though. Raymie (t • c) 07:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Raymie (t • c) 07:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Number of Survivors
Colombia confirms 6 survivors. Are we to go by this or Sputnik News? Coasterghost (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Update to the number of survivors from the site I referenced above (which is apart of the NBC News Group): "Editor's note: There's been a lot of confusion over the number of dead and injured from the Colombia plane crash. A report from AP saying 76 people have died and 5 have survived the plane crash near Medellin, Colombia, is cited to Gen. Jose Acevedo, who is the head of the police in the local area. It conflicts with the country's civil aviation authority which says 2 crew, 3 players and 1 journalist survived for a total of 6. Noticias Caracol, a national news outlet in Colombia, is reporting that 5 people survived of which 4 of them are soccer players. We're waiting for a definitive statement on the number of dead and injured. - David"

- BreakingNews.com

Coasterghost (talk) 10:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Recent photo
Info: The commons speedy-deleted recent photo of the machine was this one, seen at www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=136256623 (URL blacklisted for unknown reason). Also at https://desdeelpatioblog.com/2016/11/06/un-avro-rj85-de-lamia-bolivia-en-ezeiza/ --Itu (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Follman is not dead.
Not as far as we know, as of this writing. For God's sake, wait for confirmation and reliable sources before putting something in the article. The BBC source refers to Danilo's death, not Follman's. WPancake (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Request protection?
This is getting to be a major news event and I am noticing more IP editors. Would requesting some level of protection be useful now? Raymie (t • c) 08:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not unless there is evidence of serious disruption. Edits made by IPs in good faith, even if suboptimal, do not class as disruption. Mjroots (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Since the tragedy occured in Colombia (spanish), involving a Brazilian football (portugese)team on a Bolivian plane for a major South American competition you guys will miss a lot of good information added by IP editors like me, who want to help, if you protect it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:810:4D9:24:E017:CD59:3D75:4BDF (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Survivors
Can we lose this section. Notable survivors can be named in the section of the accident. Mjroots (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Some people(like friends, family, fans) may use this page to know the situation of the survivors. Its a recent event, and the section might be useful for such people. Your request can be done later. Daiyusha (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, leave it for now, but aim for its removal in the next week or so.
 * Also, we have the fatalities to deal with. Those notable enough to have articles can be named as a subsection of the Accident section, if suitably referenced. No need to name those not notable, and we need to keep WP:BLP in mind. Mjroots (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Some people(like friends, family, fans) may use this page to know the situation of the survivors". This is an encylopedia; articles cannot and must not be used for this purpose. I'm not saying the content doesn't belong; only that Daiyusha's reasoning for including it is a clear editing violation. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:98B6:D371:89CE:5E5A (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

All players and Manager of the team are notable, remember they were playing a major South American tournameent final. They are all well known people for football fans, specially in Brazil.
 * Anyone who survives a plane crash from 30,000 feet is notable - it's extremely rare! Fig (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and based on 2 wiki-en articles, (Hannah Luce and 2011 Lokomotiv Yaroslavl air disaster) both surivors and those who perished should be named no matter if they were notable or not before the crash. This crash will be on every single Football fan retina in the world for ever.

What is going on?
I notice that articles are being created for some of the fatalities, as to give the appearance of greater notability. Having been killed in this plane crash is not a justification of notability for any of the victims. Articles may only be created for those who had significant coverage in reliable sources prior to and independent of the plane crash. &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 22:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's the normal editing process. New articles lead to the creation of newer articles. If you have any concerns re the notability on any victim,WP:AFD is thataway --> Mjroots (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Why do you say so? Being killed in the biggest tragedy of South American Football makes you "notable". What would happened if this was in Europe, a modest team from Germany, i.e. Leipzig reached the Euro final and the whole squad, manager and 20 journalist are killed on the way to play against Chelsea near Heathrow? I bet you every single passanger would have his/her whole background on the news and therefore here on wiki-en. It seems some wikipediest turn to bourocratic. Again, we are talking about the biggest tragedy ever in Continental competitions in South America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:810:4D9:24:C477:14EA:B7D8:CD5C (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The footballers are presumed notable under WP:NSPORTS if they've played in the Campeonato Brasileiro Série A. Hack (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed, don't forget Brasilriao B is also a professional league. Now, what about the Bolivian crew that survived? There are people with their own articles just for being a plane crash survivor, see "Category:Survivors_of_aviation_accidents_or_incidents". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:810:4D9:24:C477:14EA:B7D8:CD5C (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Articles about people involved in the crash need to demonstrate that they meet WP:GNG or the requirements of one of the subject-specific notability guidelines. Hack (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So far this is the biggest tragedy involving a professional Football club ever. There is no country in the Wrold that didn't cover the news, Conmebol president has schedueled an emergency meeting to decide the future of the competition. What dou you think of Hannah Luce? Does she deserve a complete wiki article on her name just for being a plane crash survivor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:810:4D9:24:C477:14EA:B7D8:CD5C (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the scale of the incident, the notability requirements must be met. Hack (talk) 08:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Reactions
I think we should erase some of this reactions. Most professional footbal games durying the next week will honour the victims with aminute's silence. Instead of telling every single homage a mention of "several teams honoured....incluiding some big event here" should be enoughBruspek (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC).

Anfecaro, I don't understand the split you made. The "goverment sector" looks like the most reasonable one. But in "private sector" you made a mix between a company who wants to help and the plane owner suspected to have responsability on the crash... Even more confusion with Professional Football. What do you mean to say with it? Are football clubs private, public, companies, owned by its members, goverment?. Please set a better clasification or put everything together. But it just make everything confusing the way it is now written. Thank you, Bruspek (talk) 07:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I've added a new article for reactions due the amount of them. Today the final would took place in Medellin, and you will notice durying this week almost every sportevent will honour the players. Besides I'm based on the Malaysian Flight 17 Reactions section and the main article created to do so. Bruspek (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Ref CNN
Wouls someone please sort this ref out. I've rescued it from the history but there's still an error which I can't work out. In too much pain to think straight tonight. Mjroots (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Fuel
In the main section it says that the plane ran out of fuel while in "Investigation" this is not stated as a secured fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.130.192.244 (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It has been removed. Looking likely, but not confirmed yet. It would help if editors didn't add unreferenced speculation to the article. Mjroots (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, we have a subsection titled Similar aviation accidents by cause which lists two accidents where the aircraft ran out of fuel? Until there is at least an interim report, or an official statement by the investigators, shouldn't these be left out? I'd agree that fuel starvation, caused by too long flying a hold, is looking very likely. But the article isn't consistent. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of the above, and I've removed the "Similar aviation accidents by cause" section as a result. Mz7 (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that: "Fuel starvation is slightly different from fuel exhaustion, in that fuel is in the tank but there is a supply problem which either fully or partially prevents the fuel from reaching the engine.". 187.189.208.118 (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A leaked ATC recording confirms fuel exhaustion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ab5x_C-CFg. --Keimzelle (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just quoted and played, in part, by BBC News at Ten. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Flightradar24
Why is Flightradar24 data used without giving Flightradar24 credits for the data? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.153.185.126 (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no copyright protection for data. There is only a copyright on creative works.--Keimzelle (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * See the explanation on the file File:4U9525 flight path v1.svg. AHeneen (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Rescate de Policía al vuelo 2933 - 02.jpg
This photo File:Rescate de Policía al vuelo 2933 - 02.jpg is stated as being a police helicopter on its description, but it carries an Colombian Air Force registration number. Is this a police copter or a military (air force) one? -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 08:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems like its an air force copter: http://www.fac.mil.co/fuerza-a%C3%A9rea-contin%C3%BAa-operaci%C3%B3n-de-rescate --187.35.199.65 (talk) 11:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've updated the file page to remove the description that it is a police helo -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 05:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't all three of the current images have captions? Or could a single caption be placed for all three? I can't think of any captions that are not obvious and clumsy. It's just a MoS question. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

See also section
Since there is an article List of accidents involving sports teams, should links to "Other aviation accidents involving sports teams" be eliminated leaving just the link to "List of accidents involving sports teams"? AHeneen (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, but maybe for a different reason. The accidents listed in this section seem to over-represent South America. There are 4 South American accidents in the list of 10, and the article itself is about a 5th South American accident, which means over 45% of the accidents covered are South American. The linked list of accidents shows that this is disproportionate, and I wonder if it casts an unnecessary shadow over South American aviation when most of the listed accidents (I did not count them) seem to be European? (Or does it just seem appropriate to list more South American accidents because the article is itself about a South American accident?) A simple link to the list seems appropriate to me for this and for other reasons. When more information becomes available, I can see future links being added to articles and lists concerning crashes caused by fuel starvation, CFIT, aviation emergency procedures, and I'm sure there are others. Making this change right now would prevent future clutter. Dcs002 (talk) 07:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Names of fatalities
Are the names listed here/also here reliable enough? Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 11:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * - both are reliable. The information in either source can be used in summary form - n from the football club, radio X, radio Y, TV station Z, aircraft's crew etc killed. Number of men and women killed, age ranges from xx to yy (see 2016 Croydon tram derailment). Those notable enough to have an article can be named and linked. Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I have removed anybody who is not notable in wikipedia terms (that is they dont have an article) per normal practice, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Please undo and check some of them have Wikipedia articles in portugueese, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:810:4D9:24:E017:CD59:3D75:4BDF (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * If there are any people involved that do not have an article on en-Wiki, but do have an article on es-Wiki or pt-Wiki, please list them here. They can be included by use of ill, but a reference would still be required. Mjroots (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I have just done that as ptwiki had three articles we did not. One has been proposed for deletion and so I have not listed that person (Victorino Chermont). Raymie (t • c) 20:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep an eye on the AfD discussion. If Chermont is kept, then he can be added to the article. Mjroots (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It looks like it's headed for a WP:SNOW keep. Already four "Keep" comments, all of them saying he met the notability guideline. Raymie (t • c) 20:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Nice one, just remember, in portuguese A-Z sorted are by first names. Here you have an example: . Thanks for your cooperation and undertand of this big tragedy for South America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:810:4D9:24:E017:CD59:3D75:4BDF (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I did not know that, but it makes sense given how many single-name celebrities there are in Brazil. However, on the English Wikipedia we do need to conform to generally accepted standards in English, so the lists will be sorted by last name. Raymie (t • c) 20:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I see. Exactly, in fact if you check the team squad wiki site, players are named by their "nicknames". We all learn something everyday, those who don't think so are wasting their lives! Thank you Raymie!

I've restored the ill to the four people who do not have an article on en-Wiki. I suspect the template was removed by an editor who doesn't understand its purpose. If any of the four gets an article, the template automatically converts to presenting a standard wikilink. Having the redlink and link to pt-Wiki is how that person's notability is demonstrated. Mjroots (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Again I've restored ill to two people. One of these needs a citation. Mjroots (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Improving referencing
Now that the article is settling down, it is time to start adding a bit of polish. With an article such as this, it is inevitable that Portuguese and Spanish sources are used. Titles need translating using. Mjroots (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

LaMia or LaMia Airlines?
I think the correct title is LaMia Flight 2933. I do not know where that came "Airlines" as part of air company name. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  17:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does look that way. Shouldn't LaMia appear, linked, in the lead section? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would agree that we should move this to LaMia Flight 2933 and it should be linked from the lead. MilborneOne (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Title
Should Unite with 2016 Colombian plane crash? ביקורת (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * All sorted, article is at correct title now. Mjroots (talk) 07:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to wonder if Chapecoense air disaster may be a more appropriate title than simply the flight. Raymie (t • c) 16:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Using the airline and flight number (like it is right now) is the standard way to title air disaters like this on Wikipedia, KDTW Flyer  (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * LaMia Airlines is a tautology. Hack (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Raymie. Like 1987 Alianza Lima air disaster, 1993 Zambia national football team air disaster, 2011 Lokomotiv Yaroslavl air disaster. Emyil (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of people don't know the name of the airline, let alone the number involved, so its current name is illogical. Jim Michael (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)ee

Cause of crash
As some sources are speculating that fuel exhaustion might be involved in the crash, please do not add fuel exhaustion in the summary in the infobox as the official cause of crash. When the investigation is complete, you may add the cause of crash on the summary entry in the infobox. For now until then, leave the "under investigation" entry on the summary in the infobox. Thank you. - Kevinmuniz115 (talk) 02:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 Copa Sudamericana Finals
a merger discussion is occurring that concerns a related article to this one, 2016 Copa Sudamericana Finals; for the discussion, see Talk:2016 Copa Sudamericana -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Notable fatalities
I think the heading "Notable fatalities" is insensitive. It seems to imply that some people's deaths matter more than others. Couldn't we just have "List of fatalities"? Roberttherambler (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The world "Notable" is based on Wikipedia policies to determine if someone has an article. I think we shouled add every name like it was done on the spanish and portuguese versions of this article. Please read the previous discussions too, regards, Bruspek (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Consensus is that non-notable names are not added unless there is a very good reason. What happens on other language Wikipedias is for the editors there to decide. If anyone wants a full list of victims, it is available only one click from the article. Mjroots (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This can easily be explained in a sentence instead of titling the section "notable fatalities". What other articles use this type of subheading? I cannot think of a precedent for this insensitive approach to the tragedy.-- MarshalN20 T al k 02:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "Insensitivity" seems to be a personal opinion. Wikipedia reports notable events and people. A quick check finds similar reporting of notable victims in LAN Chile Flight 621, Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan, 1948 KLM Constellation air disaster, American Championship car racing, Liverpool Blitz, American Airlines Flight 1 etc. WWGB (talk) 02:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course it's a personal opinion—it's also one not only shared by me. Even the sources predominantly prefer the term "notable victims" (1980 GB results) than "notable fatalities" (76 GB results). How can the death of one individual in the aircraft be more notable than another? To discuss "notable victims" is a little more adequate, but still an ugly way of thinking about life.-- MarshalN20 T al k 03:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Guardian claims
The Guardian reports:

"As the flight neared its destination late on Monday, another flight with problems jumped in front of the team’s plane, leaving it circling while its fuel ran out."

Does anyone have more on this?


 * Aviation Herald says that Viva Colombia flight FC-8170 had already been given permission to divert to Medellin because of a suspected fuel leak. 80.2.106.75 (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The same article also says:

"an inspector had flagged the issue with the aircraft’s fuel and range but the airline went ahead anyway and air traffic controllers had no authority to stop them"

-- Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Stood up
The other survivors were a journalist and two members of the flight crew.[50][51] In an interview with the press, one of the surviving crew members said that he survived because he followed the emergency protocols by putting his carry-on suitcase between his legs and sitting in the brace position,[52] while several other passengers panicked and stood upright before impact, which could have led to their deaths.

Why on earth would anybody want to stand up!!!??????????--Petebutt (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * There might be any number of reasons why some passengers might have stood up. But the article is under no obligation to suggest what these might have been. It's just presenting an eye-witness report. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Petebutt, as it says at the top of thousands of Talk pages (including this one), this is not a forum for general discussion of the subject. YSSYguy (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Those interviews were later refuted by this crew member, he actually saied he never gave any interviews to journalists after the accident. The problem for this accident information is that english newspapers translate almost everything they see to create a sensational story, but don't check if those sources are reliable or confirmed by authorities.
 * There is something else which is very disturbing...one of the Bolivian authorities who approved the flight plan is now seeking political asylum in Brazil because she saied there were "huge pressions" on her to did so dispite of being aware of the big risk of not refueling in Bogota . Sport newspapers are talking about Conmebol responsability and corruption . Bruspek (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you can provide a source for that refutation by this crew member, it should be removed from the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually there is one reference on the survivors section that says what I'm saying. Tumiri, the crew survivor saied "he never used tha brace position cause everything was so quick, so fast". "No one knew what was going on cause the pilot had just anonunced the landing" . On a Bolivian newpaper he also says: "I was not betwen the bags nor were people stood and screaming like some are saying". Also, I know Youtube cannot be used as source for copyright and so on, but here at min 8:00 you have Tumiri saying live what I saied above, that everyone was waiting for a normal landing and he didn't have time to do any emergency protocol. Bruspek (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing that something should be removed from the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

It has already been removed. YSSYguy (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Transcript of communication

 * I removed this from the article as it is either a copyright violation or original research. WWGB (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Uncommented collaspe tag - it cannot be discussed if it is hidden from view. A translation is not original research. It is not a copyright violation if it was released by AirPlan (in Espanol). --73.93.140.236 (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Problem is not translation, but communication itself. Not 70 years after death. Not PD. --Ganímedes (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So, what's the status of the YouTube recording? Also forbidden? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC) .... and of course, if the above is copyvio, it has to be removed and revdel'ed, even if it is of slightly more global interest than, say, a description of some English parish church, eh, Diannaa? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Conversation was recorded (apparently) by the pilot of another plane from the radio of his plane (he was listening the frequence and decided to record the conversation). He then deliver the audio file to a radio station. Very unlikely he's CR holder. Not to mention a free licence. IMHO, there is no doubt it is a copyvio. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If one chooses to broadcast, on an open radio frequency, I don't see how that's not immediately putting one's speech into "the public domain", nor do I see how one can have any say over who listens to, or indeed chooses to record, one's broadcast. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's my understanding that in the US (the only country where I have familiarity with the laws), unless a transmission is scrambled, it is public domain, and any copyright to the recording belongs to the person who made the recording, not the person who spoke the words. (This is how it was maybe 2 decades ago, so this might be dated.) It is the same as taking pictures of people in a public place. The photographer owns the copyright, not the people in the pictures. (For-profit use of such images is controlled, such as using someone's likeness to sell a product, but the copyright is still owned by the photographer, or the person making the recording.) Translations are copyrightable. If an editor creates a translation, that's ok, but if a translation comes from a non-public source, the translation is copyrighted. Dcs002 (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I don't entirely know what I am talking about. One cannot record a commercial radio station, for example, and claim copyright, but the nature of the transmission does determine it somehow. (Senility is a bummer :P )) Dcs002 (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. The exact source of this recording seems rather uncertain, doesn't it. But I see that this YouTube translation has now had over 175,000 views and YouTube doesn't appear to received a copyright claim to remove it? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a few problems with including the translation. (1) The original cockpit conversation may or may not be copyright; my opinion is yes it is. (2) The translation is copyright. It is obvious that it is a quotation, but our fair use policy does not permit large quotations unless there's no alternative. In this instance a good alternative would be to summarize the material in your own words. (3) Who is VAS Aviation? What makes their YouTube channel a reliable source for this wiki? YouTube is not considered a reliable source. I am removing the above quotation from this page. I don't think revision deletion is necessary because it's obvious it's a quotation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be better to find secondary sources that discuss the material. For example I found this one from CNN. Adding: It says "The Colombian Civil Aviation Authority could not confirm the authenticity of the recording". — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for that. It's hardly surprising, is it, that the Colombian CAA would not provide such confirmation, especially as the investigation is still ongoing and there is still the possibility of criminal charges being brought. It would seem to be very unlikely indeed that it's a hoax. The copyright status of the recording itself remains unclear. If it truly has no copyright restriction, and if the Colombian CAA had confirmed its authenticity, there would be nothing to stop anyone producing their own translation and making it available in the public domain. CNN's headline description "Audio recordings capture final minutes of flight carrying Brazilian sports team" suggests that they themselves have few doubts about it's authenticity. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well there's a RS right there for that portion of the recording broadcast (or described) by CNN. That's something at least. Diannaa, to answer your question (3) above, VASAviation is a very, very popular You Tube channel with a reputation for excellence in ATC transcripts and recordings of accidents and incidents, though there is nothing special that makes it a RS any more than any other YT channel. Subjectively, it is a reputable source. I know that's not enough for it to be RS, but out of hundreds of videos, I don't think VASAviation has ever been challenged for accuracy (other than minor transcription errors). It's not journalism, but it's a good reason to begin with the idea that the recording is most likely authentic and most likely not a private, copyrighted work. (VASAviation credits the work of others, and this video is uncredited.) Yes, I'm a fan of VASAviation's channel. Dcs002 (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Image of body bags
I do not see how having this image in the article aids understanding of the subject. The two other images released by the Colombian Air Force show the steepness of the site and the nature of the wreckage, but what is the reason for having the third image? YSSYguy (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Map
I've reverted the deletion of the map from the infobox by. It is much smaller than when I originally added it, but there could be scope for reduction by up to 20px. Mjroots (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Mjroots,


 * There was nothing wrong with having a map of the location in the article. However, not only is it impossible to read the article on mobile devices, it destroys the neatness of an :infobox. Infoboxes are meant to be brief and provide no images other than the one above it. On other aviation accidents and incidents pages, maps are nonexistent in infoboxes and are shown later in the article. Wikipedia articles also need to be mobile friendly. If you can, try putting the image later in the article under the Flight and Crash section. Tntad (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * - ah, so it's an accessibility issue. Pity, because the map actually works better in the infobox IMHO. In that case, the map can go back to the main body of the article. Mjroots (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Co-pilot notability
(Transferred from User talk:WWGB)

I had added this text with two references that state that the co-pilot was "well-known" or "famous", but you removed the text stating it lacked notability:


 * Sisy Arias was reported to be well-known as a model in her native Colombia; she had recently switched careers and served as the first officer of her first commercial flight

Can you tell me whether your reasoning is due to the lack of her notability only in the United States? Does her notability in Colombia not matter? Thank you. --73.93.140.158 (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Let's keep this discussion in one place and keep it on your talk page; my IP address will most likely change after my next reboot. Thank you. --73.93.140.158 (talk) 05:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I am transferring this discussion to the crash article talk page. If it can be demonstrated that Arias attracted media coverage BEFORE her death, then I will accept that she may be notable. Otherwise, she does not become notable just by being a crash victim. If you want to resolve this matter, perhaps you might start an article about her and see if it survives scrutiny. Regards, WWGB (talk) 07:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether or not she is notable in the wider world, she doesn't have a WP article, so on that basis she should not be added. YSSYguy (talk) 11:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you friends, thank you both. I guess your explanation for this situation works me. However, I would take small exception in that Wikipedia usage varies by language and world region. Some countries have such light WP participation that authors would only bother to write articles on essential/general topics, articles on really really super famous people (as opposed to just well-known people), etc. --73.93.142.198 (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

According to this press release from DGAC, the co-pilot was Ovar Goitia. 80.2.106.75 (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Average weight
The suggestion that the pilots misjudged the range based on a misjudgement of the loading of the aircraft is pure speculation.

The average weight of Brazilian players in the 2014 World Cup was 75kg http://visual.ly/age-height-and-weight-players-2014-fifa-world-cup

The Average Brazilian male weight is 15kg less (72.5) than the US equivalent Human body weight

Mattojgb (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Good delete. 80.2.106.75 (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

"Insufficient" flight planning, or disregarded?
Do we have definitive information yet as to whether the crew didn't plan adequately, or disregarded the plan made? YSSYguy (talk) 08:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Per preliminary report, deficient planning all round, aided and abetted by deficient oversight. Mjroots (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Holding pattern
OK so the JACDEC blog states the holding pattern was over the RNG VOR. I can point to another blog which states that the holding pattern was over the GEMLI GPS waypoint, but the usual reliability of the JACDEC blog would probably win. The Flightradar data shows the same but I guess it would be OR to describe it as such.

In fact the observant reader of this article might note an apparent inconsistency between the statement that the holding pattern was over the RNG VOR and the map showing the holding pattern and the description stating that that the crash location was adjacent the RNG VOR.Mattojgb (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * According to Jeppesen, the VOR is 13 miles (11 nm) from the airport, so JACDEC is self-contradictory when it says "LMI2933 ... began to fly a holding pattern ... over the Rio Negro VOR, about 17 miles southeast of their destination airport". 80.2.106.75 (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The preliminary report confirms that the holding pattern was flown well south of RNG VOR, so I deleted the claim that it was over the VOR from the article. 80.2.106.75 (talk) 11:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

As suspected the JACDEC blog was wrong and the holding pattern was flown over the GEMLI RNAV/GPS waypoint.Mattojgb (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Seconds
In the article, times are given as hours:minutes. Most of the sources quote the seconds as well. Should we (a) truncate the seconds; (b) round them to the nearest minute; or (c) include the seconds as well? At the moment, (a) and (b) are used inconsistently. FWIW I favour (b). 80.2.106.75 (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No need to mention seconds IMO, except as text if it improves the narrative, e.g. "at [time], ten seconds after x happened y happened". YSSYguy (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)