Talk:Sriwijaya Air Flight 182/Archive 1

Too much edit conflicts
It is better if we do a queue.... Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 11:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Aircraft History
I put a picture of The aircraft involved when it was in Continental Airlines. Work By Colin Brown Photography on Flickr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monxrchyy (talk • contribs) 21:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123
Wikipedia has long had to get rid of moderators like Martinevans123. This man doesn't understand anything about plane crashes. He has no technical aviation literacy. Blocks any attempt to discuss even on the Talk page. Let us come together and file a collective complaint against him. 87.126.18.56 (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why do you think he must be blocked? Expertise does not limit editors from editing, by the way.  Gerald WL  15:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why exactly do you think "this man doesn't understand anything about plane crashes"? Why do you think that I'm "a moderator"? How do you know I have "no technical aviation literacy"? Where exactly have I "blocked any attempt to discuss even on the Talk page"? Kindly strike out or remove the personal attack above, or else take to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks so much. Kind regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - if you have a complaint against they you should discuss it with him first, either here or at his talk page. If you think the complaint is a very serious one, then WP:ANI is available. But be aware that if you go to ANI, your own editing will likely be scrutinised too. Boomerangs don't half hurt when they hit you. Mjroots (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to note, this IP has so far made one single edit. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I suspect this is the same person: Special:Contributions/87.126.16.150. I removed his two past attempts to present his own personal, unsubstantiated theories on this crash, here on this talk page, because his posts violated our policy WP:NOTFORUM. He seems to mistakenly think that Wikipedia is the place for him to to solve the mystery of why this aircraft crashed. - Ahunt (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, quite likely. I see both IP addresses locate to Sofia, Bulgaria. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noted that, too on whois. - Ahunt (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

More sources
Edit conflicts are tough to compete, so here are sources:
 * https://tekno.kompas.com/read/2021/01/09/17331497/posisi-terakhir-sriwijaya-air-sj182-yang-hilang-kontak-terekam-flightradar24?page=all
 * https://www.tribunnews.com/nasional/2021/01/09/pesawat-sriwijaya-air-sj182-jakarta-pontianak-hilang-kontak-angkut-59-penumpang
 * https://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20210109180800-20-591574/sj182-hilang-warga-pulau-seribu-dengar-dua-kali-ledakan
 * https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20210109-0
 * https://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20210109181048-20-591575/sj182-hilang-tiga-kapal-sisir-laut-temukan-rambut-dan-kabel
 * https://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20210109172716-20-591568/flightradar24com-catat-sj182-turun-drastis-dari-10-ribu-kaki
 * https://tekno.kompas.com/read/2021/01/09/18214267/spesifikasi-pesawat-sriwijaya-air-sj182-yang-hilang-kontak
 * https://tekno.kompas.com/read/2021/01/09/18214267/spesifikasi-pesawat-sriwijaya-air-sj182-yang-hilang-kontak
 * https://www.kompas.com/tren/read/2021/01/09/183418265/pesawat-sriwijaya-air-hilang-kontak-tagar-sj182-trending-di-twitter
 * https://www.jpnn.com/news/sriwijaya-sj182-hilang-kontak-setelah-melewati-ketinggian-11000-kaki
 * https://flightaware.com/live/flight/SJY182

 Gerald WL  12:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Map
A flight path map would be a good addition, and an update when they find the crash site to indicate that -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is, actually, the flight map from Flightradar24, however I'm not sure if I can give critical commentary in the caption, as United States fair use requires that. Usually we just wait for the govt to release a map, on which it could be under public domain. As of now, various editors are sticking to news updates.  Gerald WL  14:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone with graphic skills can edit one of the base maps for the region, if it is available on COMMONS, to put in a flight path, in a new image file -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * https://geohack.toolforge.org/geohack.php?pagename=Pulau_Laki&params=5.9575_S_106.52139_E_type:isle for coordinates. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 15:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Passenger list
according to The Aviation Herald, there were 56 passengers onboard, with 6 being non-active crew for a later flight. Would we include this in the crew section in the infobox? I wouldn't say so because they were (from my understanding) passengers waiting to be crew on a later flight. I don't think we should value primary sources over secondary sources either, does the official statement say that there were 6 inactive crew? FozzieHey (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It was from the official statement of Minister of Transportation himself, Budi Karya Sumadi. I think we shouldn't change the number since it IS the official number given from the government. If the final report stated differently, however, THEN we may change the number.(talk) 23:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In your citations it says that there were specifically 6 active and 6 inactive crew. Unless you can cite the exact statement from the government saying there were 12 crew total then I don't think we should include the 6 inactive crew in the crew section? FozzieHey (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The citations did state 6 extra crews but nevertheless they were included as crew members by the airline and the government. Technically, they were included in crew members, not passengers.(talk) 23:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Where does it say they were included as active crew members on the flight by the airline and the government? Do you have a link to the actual government statement rather than a mashed up syndication of it on other news sources? If the 6 inactive crew were simply just passengers waiting to start being crew on a later flight then I don't feel like we should include it in the crew infobox section. FozzieHey (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It was stated DIRECTLY in a video conference held by the ministry. I don't understand how to cite it here but there's literally a whole 1 hour conference on it. The ministry itself stated that there were 12 crew members, so it is NOT a mashed up syndication. Parts of the statements in the articles were taken directly from the video conference itself.FozzieHey (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 12 crew members or 6 active and 6 inactive crew members? I think the difference is key here. If the 6 inactive were simply just passengers waiting to start work on a later flight then would you consider that a part of this specific flight's crew? FozzieHey (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You're punching the bushes again. It IS a number given from the official statement. Until there's another different report from official statement, then do NOT use personal opinion on the subject .PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What about this is a personal opinion? The cited sources state that there are 6 inactive crew members. Do you really consider being a passenger and having the occupation of a crew member should classify as being a crew member in the info box? If so then I think we should take this to the WikiProject instead to get some sort of a consensus on this. FozzieHey (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Currently, the only decision that I could agree is to list 12 crew members in the infobox, with an additional information that 6 of whom were inactive (pay attention to this sentence). If you want me to make your day, I actually DID think the same way like you did, even earlier, right during the video conference. But again every Indonesian media alongside with the ministry itself released a statement that there were 12 crew members and this is NOT UP TO DEBATE, so the infobox should stay that way UNLESS there's another statement from the airline or the ministry itself. This discussion should no longer up to debate.PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Some details, saving here first
Saving it here to be included later on. I fear edit conflicts, so.


 * First Officer Diego Enrile Mamahit was not supposed to be handling Flight 182, his uncle Pierre Patrick Pangemanan recalls. He was supposed to be on a flight to Bangka Belitung's H.A.S. Hanandjoeddin International Airport, scheduled as a night flight. Mamahit changed his schedule so that he could go to church the following morning at his hometown, the village of Suwaan, North Sulawesi. Pangemanan said that if Mamahit took the Belitung flight, he would not be able to attend morning church as there are no flights at the airport at night. (Source: https://news.okezone.com/read/2021/01/10/340/2341813/co-pilot-sriwijaya-air-yang-jatuh-pindah-flight-agar-bisa-masuk-gereja-pagi)
 * The family of Captain Afwan noted that prior to boarding, Afwan apologized to his wife and children for past mistakes. His family said that he never does such thing, that prior to boarding he would simply say goodbye. Afwan's outfit were also unusually worn out. (Source: https://megapolitan.okezone.com/read/2021/01/10/338/2342030/tak-biasanya-pilot-sriwijaya-air-sj-182-minta-maaf-ke-anak-istri-sebelum-berangkat?page=1)
 * Before Flight 182, PK-CLC arrived at Soekarno–Hatta International Airport at 12:11 PM from Pangkal Pinang Depati Amir Airport. (Source: https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20210109-0)

 Gerald WL  08:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This might be good for a good article! Wanna try after the investigations commenced? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 14:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , sure! I'll prefer to wait until the investigation results have been released, then we nominate it for GA, since by then we have more info. I plan to have one of these points for DYK-- we'll wait until it is out of ITN and until the black box has been found-- specifically, until the article is stable.  Gerald WL  15:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * None of these details belong in an encyclopedia article, as at best they are WP:TRIVIA. - Ahunt (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Why terms "deep stall" or "super stall" not mentioned anywhere in the main article?
It is very strange, when deep stall is the real cause of the SJ182 accident, but in the main article to be mentioned only speculation about mechanical failures. Is this deliberately done by the moderators so to direct the opinion in the direction of Boeing fault? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2CsO-Vu7oc&t=1s 87.116.78.205 (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Not sure that a YouTube video of a stall, on a Boeing 717-200 / DC9, posted 6 years ago, is the best source for supporting any speculative theories about this accident. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC) p.s. how's the weather in Sofia, Bulgaria at this time of year?


 * What your education Martinevans123? Why do you moderate Wikipedia sections, given that you do not have the technical qualifications and knowledge to do so? 87.116.78.205 (talk) 12:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Please stop posting your unsupported personal theories and speculation about the possible cause of this accident. Find a discussion board/ blog site that uses such material. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Have the Indonesian authorities launched a campaign to cover up their incompetent pilots?
Indonesian authorities "The contents of the Sriwijaya blackbox are not public consumption". The reason for their decision is that they now have to pay compensation to the grieving families themselves. They hoped so much that they would be able to blame Boeing and pass the costs on to them. They even tried to explain how they found the case of CVR but not memory block itself, believing that Western investigators will not be able to determine whether the CVR block was dismantled as a result of human intervention or by the crash itself :-) From now on, they will only be able to lie to their own people. Martinevans123 make link to Ethiopian Airlines Flight 409, please. These people froze the topic anyway. Do you understand me?

https://ekonomi.bisnis.com/read/20210115/98/1343627/isi-blackbox-sriwijaya-bukan-konsumsi-publik-ini-penyebabnya

87.116.78.205 (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Didn't take long to get here, did it. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are simply speculating, and Wikipedia is NOT the place for it. I love conspiracies-- I even make one-- but know your place.  Gerald WL  15:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You really don't understand, are you? Let me explain it to you more simply. The only way for an airplane to fall so fast from such a height in 22 seconds is for it to fall into deep stall, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkYXhLwlHrg or suicide. Technical problem of any nature, even disintegration in the air will lead to a longer fall. The reason is that a mechanical problem usually leads to an asymmetrical falling where the aircraft has greater aerodynamic drag.In SJ182 two important things are observed. 1. That the anomaly(speed decrease) occurred during the climb and left turn. 2. After it, the plane turned sharply to the right, in a way that cannot be achieved with normal maneuver. Watch carefully how exactly this plane rolled in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2CsO-Vu7oc . There is no doubt at all whether the SJ182 fell under stall, the question is not in this, but for what reason it fell into deep stall. This usually happens when someone makes an increase in engine power when he shouldn't, especially when the thrust levers are moved asymmetrically. The nose pitch up abruptly and plane stalling. The Indonesian pilots don't turn engines to idle as they must do, and the plane crash. This can be checked with a quick reference in FDR data. Indonesians authorities are already asking no one to see this data exactly because of this. 87.116.78.205 (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. This needs reliable sources, 2. Indonesian authorities did not ask anyone to see the data because no one can other than NTSC, 3. We don't assume. This is not the appropriate site to publish original analysis. We merely aggregate sources.  Gerald WL  16:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Flightradar 24 reliability concerns
From Flightradar24 TnC: The provided information on aircraft position and identity, in particular, originate directly from the aircraft, which transmit this information through public radio frequencies, according to the ‘Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast’ (ADS-B). The information collected and published may contain errors, due to the intrinsic limitations of radio communications (e.g. limited coverage, interference, attenuation, special weather conditions etc.), due to erroneous configuration of the ADS-B devices on board, due to negligent data entry by aircraft crew, due to erroneous position received by the aircraft GPS and due to other factors beyond the control of the Flightradar24. Data is provided for informational purposes only and is not related by any means to the safety of navigation.

Consequently, we cannot provide any type of guarantee and are neither responsible for the correctness, validity, thoroughness and accuracy of that information published, nor for the suitability of their usage for purposes other than informational only. There's no editorial and fact checking process for this. Are we sure we gonna use it? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 09:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Flightradar24 is a tracking service highly respected in the aviation community, and is used by various sources, Indonesian and international, to give a glimpse of what happened. Until KNKT or NTSB released a report on what actually happened based on the CVR and FDR, Flightradar24 is a good temporary source.
 * They are also significant in the investigation: the track showed a hard right bank, but debris is found on the left, which aviation analysts marked as a mid-air accident (the plane broke mid-air and scattered to places).  Gerald WL  09:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * They are also significant in the investigation: the track showed a hard right bank, but debris is found on the left, which aviation analysts marked as a mid-air accident (the plane broke mid-air and scattered to places).  Gerald WL  09:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

International reactions
Let's not bloat the article with the utterly predictable drivel like "the President of Poobah expressed condolences to the people of Indonesia". Just list the fawning nations or omit it entirely. WWGB (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The "Reactions" section had only three entries: "... the leadership of Malaysia, Russia and Saudi Arabia". I added a tag with the edit summary " why only these three?", but this tag was hastily removed as inappropriate. "Turkey, Bahrain, Jordan, and Pakistan" have now been added. The question remains - why only these seven? There is a larger question, already expressed by some other editors, over whether this material is really encyclopaedic at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , the citation needed and clarification needed tag is not for tagging incomplete information. However, I'd like to note that this is a one-of-a-kind section in an aviation crash article-- although articles like George Floyd protests may have one, I'm not sure if condolences from international countries are even valuable in this article.  Gerald WL  12:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had hoped my edit summary would have made my intentions clear. I was seeking clarification of why those three countries were in some way significant. Which tag is best for "incomplete information"? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , perhaps Template:Missing information would be viable.  Gerald WL  12:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'll add that one, then. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How do we know others are missing? Perhaps only seven nations could be bothered to comment. WWGB (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, we don't know. Their comments may go reported. But is the information currently in the article, whether it's compete or not, really useful? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To be honest, no. We don't need condolences every time a plane crashes. It doesn't add much value either.PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We normally omit the the world leaders' meaningless "thoughts and prayers" stuff as it is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and adds nothing of value to the article. The only reason we would add any of this at all, is if any of them had anything substantive to say. - Ahunt (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Or maybe if they were responsible. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, that sort of thing... - Ahunt (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Deaths
I think we should put an edit notice to stop people from saying that all passengers died before any official announcement.Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 11:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , agree. However, only admins can create an editnotice page. I'll just create the template here.

 Gerald WL  12:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * To me is seems 99.9% probable that all are dead. As with most air accidents of this kind, the remains of most victims are never identified, and so it is eventually assumed all are dead for legal/compensation purposes. But I agree an official statement is required. Usually one is issued even before the interim flight accident report is published. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Martinevans123, and believe that it is unlikely any survived the accident. That being said, given the gravity and sensitivity, I also believe that it is a good policy to wait for an official statement. Jurisdicta (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Peripheral articles
I've listed all of the peripheral articles required to make the readers know about people/things that were involved in this accident. I would create them at some point, but it is always good to have a helping hand.
 * Laki Island
 * Lancang Island
 * MV Baruna Jaya (1989)
 * Regent of Thousand Islands
 * Bagus Puruhito - head of BASARNAS
 * Soerjanto Tjahjono - head of KNKT

Feel free to add more. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 12:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that only the first two might be notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Puruhito was a three-star general who previously served as the deputy chief of staff of indonesia's air force — practically the second highest man in the air force. Tjahjono is Indonesia's equivalent to Robert L. Sumwalt. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 13:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * By all means create your four articles. Their relative notability will be duly assessed, I'm sure. Just for context, how many articles, on en.wiki, do we have for UK or US generals who were "deputy chiefs of staff of the air force"? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , that'd be hard to know the exact number. But I'm sure there's a category somewhere.  Gerald WL  13:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The current RAF Deputy Commanders to Chief of the Air Staff (United Kingdom) are Air Marshal Gerry Mayhew and Air Marshal Andrew Turner. I guess similar incumbents, for that position in the Air Forces for non-English-speaking countries, would be judged on their own merits. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No offense, but non-English-speaking countries is a bit condescending. WP:SOLDIER don't mention any specific countries and Puruhito fulfilled number 2, 3, and 5. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 14:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No condescension intended. My point it simply that en.wiki tends to focus on English-speaking subjects. Looking forward to your articles. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns. I usually pick military and politicians biography, because these two have a very normative and standard notability threshold - as described in WP:SOLDIER and WP:NPOL. I am very welcome to see things through different viewpoints, just the Just for context, how many articles, on en.wiki, do we have for UK or US generals who were "deputy chiefs of staff of the air force"? <- that part almost rubbed me the wrong way. Fortunately, you explained it clearly above. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 16:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well then. Have a nice day. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 13:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Can I add in MV Baruna Jaya (1989), which has been involved in searches following a number of aircrashes in Indonesia. Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added it as number three in the list. The list is ordered based on importance and urgency. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 01:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

820.20
www.zeljkocausevic.net

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—76.122.41.89 (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but what are you trying to convey here? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 16:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the url (I think). Mjroots (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't open the link as it's privacy error.  Gerald WL  06:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm getting a security risk warning. Mjroots (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Polishing
Excellent work so far by all concerned. Article is almost B class. Can we please ensure that all foreign language references include both a language parameter and a translation of the title of said reference. Mjroots (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I note that some WPs have rated it at B class. I won't be churlish and downgrade their assessments, but the above suggestion would add the icing to the cake, so to speak. Mjroots (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, right. So we're just polishing the icing on the cake, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

New footage from Navy
The Navy has uploaded a much more shorter yet better quality footage of the search effort. Should this replace or complement the footage in the s&r section? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 01:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , feel free to upload to Wikimedia Commons then put it here. Make sure to use c:Template:PD-IDGov for the license.  Gerald WL  05:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have put the footage in the section. I decided to complement instead of replace the previous footage. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 07:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Descent speed
"a drop of ... 5,150 ft (1,570 m) in its last seven seconds" is, by my calculations, a vertical downward speed of ~500 mph. is this plausible? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be 501.6234 mph, if the data can be trusted. But 7 seconds is not a long sample time. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is very plausible if the wings are not mounted, or just if the nose is straight down. I do agree though that the sample time is short and may give a high degree of sample error. - Ahunt (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Ethiopian Airlines 737 Max hit ground at ~575 mph, so I guess it is plausible. 119.82.84.240 (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 says "nearly 700" mph, but wasn't that groundspeed, not vertical descent speed? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Currently aviation experts suggest that there may be a mid-air breakup, akin to China Airlines Flight 611 (if you saw the Mayday episode you know what I'm talking about). Until we have the NTSC report, it's better to keep. this data as it may be a hint as to what happened. Media outlets also cite FR24 frequently, so I think it'd be ignorant not to cite their findings.  Gerald WL  01:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If "aviation experts" suggest that there may have been mid-air breakup, this might be added to the article. Although, as you say, before a report is issued this may be just speculation. I see that Forbes says: "A compact area also suggests that the aircraft was intact when it hit the surface, while a widely distributed wreckage area suggests inflight breakup, with wreckage dispersing as it falls" while Bloomberg says "Indonesian investigators said the crashed Boeing Co. jet ... broke apart upon impact with water, which could rule out a mid-air breakup." Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would strongly advise against putting speculations in the article. Saschaporsche (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm still searching for these "experts". The preliminary view of the investigating team seems to be that it broke up on impact with the sea. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , NTSC also recently suggested that the turbine may have still be operating upon impact of the water; they used FR24 data and the shape of the fan blade for this. Idk, information is mixing up, which is why I suggest reinstating the "current" template. I think listing notable speculations can be appropriate using appropriate wording, plus the amount of coverage on speculation must be controlled.  Gerald WL  10:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have any source(s) for "aviation experts" suggesting that there may have been mid-air breakup, please share here if possible. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't overrate the information value of that Flightradar24 plot. It doesn't make much sense considering the preliminary findings making a mid-air breakup unlikely.  ADS-B data is quite grainy and often very erratic in all aspects.  As such it doesn't serve any purpose in the article as of now.2A01:598:9913:5F96:78E0:A074:F7AC:41DC (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Although I agree we shouldn't give more weight on it, I feel like it's valid information to be put. Temporarily while the CVR's being searched, NTSC relies on FR24 partially to figure out what happened. If NTSC reported accurate data from the FDR in a report, we could use that and delete the FR24 data, unless some of it is cited by NTSC (it's hard to explain it here but you'll see when it's the time).  Gerald WL  14:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey! Where's the blue tag!
Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 08:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wtf are you talking about? WWGB (talk) 08:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There should be a blue tag indicating that the investigation is still ongoing. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 09:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Any clues what a "blue tag" is ? MilborneOne (talk) 10:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Template:Current.  Gerald WL  10:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It may be appropriate to keep the template at least until the preliminary investigation report is issued? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really needed now the news has slowed down - meant for articles with lots of activity when events happened and the activity has slowed down to some extent. MilborneOne (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , not really. The template says: "Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable. The latest updates to this article may not reflect the most current information." This is true for now, since there's a lot of mish-mash of information, seeable at the Investigation section.  Gerald WL  10:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The template is used on pages with many frequent edits. It has nothing to do with progress of the investigation. WWGB (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So why is the tag's contents as such? I think it's very crucial to put it for the sake of the readers, concerning what's said.  Gerald WL  01:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

unclear sentence
The statement is: "It was revealed that the passengers who did not board on Flight 182 neither had their COVID-19 testing results expired,[35] nor they were not able to afford the test prior to the flight health and safety regulations regarding COVID19."

I cannot figure out what is trying to be said here. Can someone who understands please rewrite this?

Thanks

199.46.251.141 (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)"


 * I gave it a shot, according to the translated articles it looks like some people could not get on the flight due to not being able to produce negative COVID tests. It could still use some better rewording. - Alpacaaviator (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Swap either and or for neither and nor and it makes perfect sense. Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Illicit passengers and the ID they used
I reworded the overlong and needlessly detailed discussion of passengers Shelfi Ndaro and Feliks Wenggo, who apparently boarded the flight using fraudulent ID cards. I think it's important to—if possible—clarify whether the ID cards were literally fake, or were stolen or borrowed from similar looking people. However, the cited sources are written in the Indonesian language, which I can't read at all, and I know better than to trust Google Translate about a potentially fine distinction such as this! Could someone who is proficient in Indonesian please clarify this if possible? Carguychris (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a very wise move. I found an English language source, from Jakarta Globe, here, but not sure how reliable it is. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Good find! Quoting from the article: Shelfie used an ID card belonging to work colleague Sarah Beatrice Alomau. Whilst Felix got on the plane as his nephew Teofilus Lau Ura, or also known as Teo... "Beatrice never gave her identity (be it ID card or other documents)," Richard said. The English translation is awkward, but it sounds as though they were using ID cards taken from a similar-looking friend and relative respectively. However, to complicate matters, the statements [Beatrice] still holds her ID card to this day. "The problem here is that Sriwijaya Air allowed Shelfie to fly without presenting real proof of identity," he added.. strongly implies that Sriwijaya Air let them travel using ID that is not officially issued by the government and/or obviously belongs to others on close examination, but it is not clear which (or both). The waters remain muddy. We still need clarification from other sources. Carguychris (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Do we really need to give people's names here - BLP applies here - both for the people whose identities may have been used (who are still alive) and the people who may have used the false identities (even if they are dead - WP:BDP applies to the recently dead). The article can, if necessary, discuss the issue without giving names.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would go further and state that unless this somehow caused the crash then it should all just be removed as an irrelevant distraction. - Ahunt (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Both good points. I have extensively edited the section to comply with WP:BDP and eliminate irrelevant and disputed information. To address the other point, given that the passengers' actions have received significant press coverage, I think the reference should be left in the article until the authorities positively determine that the passengers had nothing to do with the crash. Carguychris (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I am sure if you scrutinized any given airline flight you would find ID issues with some people, it is probably not that uncommon or in anyway way relented to the crash. By leaving it in the article we are sort of implying that these people had some role in the crash in some way, when there is no evidence for that at this point in time. I'm moving the paragraph in question here until it can be shown to be of any relevance at all to the article. Please feel free to put it back in if it can be shown to be so:

During the recovery operation, it was revealed that two passengers had boarded the flight fraudulently using identity cards bearing the names of other living persons known to them. Both passengers were positively identified, along with the persons whose identities were used and who were not on the flight. A lawyer for one of the living persons contacted Sriwijaya Air's office to correct the misinformation, and criticized the airline for allowing the passengers to use improper identification, suggesting that an investigation be conducted to determine how they bypassed security.

Dead or alive?
Can we please settle this one? Again the "missing" parameter has been emptied from the infobox. At the very least, it should state that those on board are missing. Four days on and not a single survivor has been located. It is not unreasonable to state that all on board have died. Nobody can survive under water for four days unaided. Mjroots (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * All are dead, according to BBC and The New York Times. We are required to follow reliable sources. WWGB (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I inspected the sources: none say that all are dead. NYT simply says "expected".  Gerald WL  05:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You did not inspect close enough. BBC says "killing all 62 people on board." in the first paragraph. WWGB (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I was going to say the exact same thing. Mjroots (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , what expertise do BBC have in order to assume so? This is probably the logic thing again. As this is a recent events, news reports may be unreliable and require thorough inspection. Classic sensationalism, imo. The fact's that not all passengers have been found, so unless the investigators assume so, ourselves and media outlets stating that they're dead is all just own thoughts and are invalid.  Gerald WL  05:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RSPSOURCES, BBC is considered a reliable source, and we follow reliable sources. Of course "not all passengers have been found", it's a high speed plane crash, most pax have disintegrated. You are welcome to start a RfC if you think the BBC is not a reliable source. You don't need to keep tagging me, this page is on my watch list. Regards, WWGB (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Even though BBC is reliable, it's not good practice to just consider all their works reliable. If NYT publishes an article of misinformation, are they still a good link to cite? Of course not. For me, assumptions of dead as of now is WP:OR and cannot be put without an official statement.  Gerald WL  05:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * NYT says "No survivors from the flight are expected to be found", different than inequivocally saying they are dead. Source that are generally reliable can still be inaccurate at times, such as when we see sources that conflict (see Inaccuracy). If the WP:WEIGHT of sources is inconclusive, we should make the most conservative statement, or say nothing at all.—Bagumba (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Missing is OK, fatalities should be based on an offical statement or identification of the victims. --WikiHannibal (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Aviation Heraldis saying "There are no signs of survivors". Mjroots (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Still, it's merely "signs".  Gerald WL  13:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Could we put near the top of the article "As of 13 January 2021, no survivors have been discovered," or something along those lines? Alpacaaviator (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I expanded the lead. See if it's in your best interest.  Gerald WL  14:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I can't believe this is still a point of contention. Everybody died in this accident, and everybody knows it. It was a non-survivable accident, even in principle. Imagine a hypothetical exoplanet inhabited by 10 billion humans in a non-space-faring civilization. A rogue neutron star is observed to pass by this planet at Earth-moon distance. Further observations are impossible. Now imagine arguing that the fate of this civilization was unknown because of lack of further observation. That would be silly, because clearly this would amount to an extinction event with no other possible outcome. Logical conclusions about the survival aspects of events like this can readily be drawn without those conclusions first being made 'official'. Especially not in cases where clearly no other outcome is possible. However, if there is any doubt or even a 0.01% chance of survival, then I agree that no hard conclusions should be drawn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A456:1FDA:1:694B:42E5:600F:53D0 (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2021
survivors : 0 Alexhayton6734 (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ - whilst I appreciate the reasons for your request, this issue is being discussed in the section immediately above. You are welcome to comment there so that a WP:CONSENSUS can be formed. Mjroots (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

ENGVAR
So this article is currently being tagged to be consistent with British English. Is the article currently consistent? I'm not really a fan of ENGB, since some of its conventions (i.e. colour) are red-underlined in my desktop when in editor mode. I suggest using an ENGVAR that most editors here can handle with, so that we don't need consistency checks all the time, and revert edits just because they're against the ENGVAR policy. The list of ENGVARs are listed at the documentation of Template:British English.  Gerald WL  14:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So what do you suggest we got with? The nearest major country to Indonesia that speaks English as its native language is Australia. Do we go for Australian English? Mjroots (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Boeing 737 is an American aircraft but I might be a little biased, though I'd say that's more relevant than Australia being the closest country. I'm also not at all familiar with Wikipedia policy on this matter. Alpacaaviator (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * From WP:ENGVAR - "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or the change reduces ambiguity), there is no valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another." - in this case there are no strong ties to a variety, then we go with consistent usage in the article - if the article was started in British English, then it shouldn't be changed just because some editors arn't "really a fan of ENGB".Nigel Ish (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with User talk:Nigel Ish, it was started as British English and that should be maintained. If your browser is set up for American or some other variation of English then just fix your browser settings to add an additional language and then choose which one to use. Easy to do in most browsers, like Firefox, for instance. The rest is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - Ahunt (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Contradiction re: NAM Air Flight 79
I'd like to pare this down: The six extra deadheading crew were scheduled to board for NAM Air Flight 79 and take off on 07:00 WIB (00:00 UTC).[29] However, NAM Air Flight 79 was reported not operating, and the crew and passengers were transferred to Flight 182.[30] So was it only the six crew, or was it also some of the passengers? Again, I can't read Indonesian, and I distrust automated online translations of complex news articles. Carguychris (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There were 6 active crew plus 6 inactive crew; the 6 inactive were "deadheading", i.e. riding in the back as passengers, but when doing this they still officially count as crew members. Alpacaaviator (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not what he asked, though. Based on an automated translation, some of the passengers were transferred, too. --WikiHannibal (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Were any revenue passengers transferred from the NAM flight to the Sriwijaya flight? The second quoted sentence implies that some were. Carguychris (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are correct. At least 7 passengers were transferred to the Sriwijaya flight. PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Do I have your solemn word that this is explained in the second citation? Carguychris (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The second citation doesn't specify the number of passengers who got transferred. It does confirm that several passengers from NAM Air had been transferred to Sriwijaya Air. PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've reworded the section for brevity and clarity. Carguychris (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2021 (2)
So can someone add a survivors column and type in 0 (presumed) 66.244.122.53 (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No. Here at Wikipedia we don't speculate. We need a reference that says everyone died first. - Ahunt (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, we do have two reliable sources which say that everyone was killed? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , that assume everyone was killed. In this particular case, they're unreliable.  Gerald WL  14:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't know they're "unreliable". When an officially statement is issued, they'll suddenly be "reliable" again? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , exactly. That's how things work. If NASA sent a rocket to space and BBC thinks that it might fall but it hasn't, it can't be reliable unless it truly fell. However we must use the sources confirming that it did fall and not the opinionated BBC source.  Gerald WL  14:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we both know everyone's dead, don't we. But yes, that's "how things work" at Wikipedia. I'd only expect some rockets to fall. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the moment this pandemic ends and I can gather with my friends, every of their talks will need a source.  Gerald WL  15:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Indonesia's Aviation Safety
After the crash, Indonesia's Aviation Safety Record is being questioned. In 2018 A Kion Air 737 MAX 8 crashed into the Java Sea after taking off from Jakarta, in 2016 A Boeing 737 Collided With an ATR during takeoff, in 2014 An AirAsia A320 crashed into the Java Sea during Bad Weather, In 2013 A Lion Air 737 Missed the runway and ended up in the water near Bali during bad weather, In March 2007 A Garuda Indonesia 737-400 Suffered a hard landing and ended up in a nearby embankment, In January 2007 An Adam Air 737 Nosedived into the Makassar Strait During Very Severe Weather. Indonesia's Poor Aviation History saw Carriers being banned from the EU in 2007 and it was only in June 2018 that the full ban was lifted, Also the U.S Lowered its Indonesia Safety Evaluation to Category 2, Meaning Its Regulatory System is Inadequate, Between 2007 and 2016. Aviation Experts Have Expressed Their Concerns Over Maintenance and Operational issues involved in returning aircraft and pilot to service after the slowdown of covid-19. Investigators will need to carefully examine the maintenance record for the plane and the training the pilots went through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarYT2389 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you want to add it in the article? Is this your personal opinion or there's a general public concern on this matter? PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A lot of news stated the same thing, citing the history of Indonesian avionic shortcomings, in which this flight may have a connection to and may harm the aviation sector. Still, I don't know if it's WP-worthy.  Gerald WL  03:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Speculation in the "Investigation" section
I don't know, how they go in Indonesia, but here in Russia every time an airliner crashes, media begin citing numerous "experts", like ordinary airline pilots, test-pilots (they are considered "top level experts" by media), casual aerospace engineers (usually employees either of the manufacturer involved or of it's direct competitors), some of whom already "know" the exact cause of the accident. I, therefore, wonder whether obscure "experts" cited by general purpose media really meet the requirements for RS on such serious technical matter. Эйхер (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , aviation experts statements are attributed. Expertise in the industry also helps understanding for the crash; I don't see how any of the statements currently are un-WP-worthy.  Gerald WL  14:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "An Indonesian aviation expert said... other experts speculated...", that's a poor attribution. Who are these experts? What are their credentials? Why is their opinion notable? Эйхер (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've removed trivial claims, but for now this article seems fine on attributing experts. They're cited by RSes with editorial oversight, and the NTSC are currently relying on these people as the FDR data downloading is in process, so I think it's noteworthy to note them, unless NTSC reports conclude otherwise.  Gerald WL  16:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

At this time, should this be labeled an "incident" or "crash", as "accident" is speculation?
"Accident" is itself speculation. The Infobox and photo caption both list crash as "Accident". What is the Wikipedia guideline / rule on this labeling convention? There has been a movement away from calling automobile crashes "accidents". What is the convention with like the NTSB, or the European BEA? truthdowser (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * In the aviation safety world an "aircraft accident" is an unintentional event that involves damage to an aircraft, serious injuries or loss of life. An "incident" is where there is potential for damage to an aircraft, serious injuries or loss of life, but none occurs, such as in a "near miss". The only reason this would not be termed an "aircraft accident" at this point, is if it turned out to be an intentional act, like a bombing or shoot down. - Ahunt (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Even shootdowns can be accidental. Ask the Americans, Iranians and Russians. Mjroots (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * See Aviation accidents and incidents. There's also a clue in the name of, for example, the UK's Air Accidents Investigation Branch. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * UK's Air Accidents Investigation Branch ( *named in 1915 before it was apparent a percentage of aircraft crashes are not accidental. ) Truthdowser (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a percentage of its name should now be changed? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Assessment
Currently, the Aviation accidents WikiProject banner rates it Start-class, whilst the others rate it B. What is the article's rating currently?


 * B-Class requirements
 * Referencing all statements that absolutely requires citations to reliable sources. ✅
 * Organized tidily using section headings. ✅
 * Reasonably well written; does not have major grammatical errors.
 * Contains illustration where appropriate. ✅
 * Is broadly understandable; technical terms are clarified.


 * C-Class requirements
 * Has reliable sources, but does not reference all statements that require one.
 * Organized tidily using section headings. ✅

 Gerald WL  06:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * - see my comments in the Polishing section above. I'd give a tick to both of those hmmms - plenty of eyes on the article mean that the prose is fine, any grammar errors arising from translation are quickly rectified. Technical terms are unavoidable with an article such as this, and are adequately dealt with by wikilinks, but foreign language references need both the language and trans-title parameters. As I said earlier, it's not quite at B class IMvHO. Mjroots (talk) 09:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

FDR data extracted 15 January
https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2021/01/15/data-recovered-from-crashed-sriwijaya-air-jets-flight-recorder-.html https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/indonesia-extracts-data-from-crashed-sriwijaya-737s-fdr-/141974.article Jagtfalken (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅; JP source is enough.  Gerald WL  13:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Have slightly expanded, with the FlightGlobal source, to describe the data. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

FDR, CVR and ULBs
Just to be clear. Both the Flight Data Recorder and the Cockpit Voice Recorder have a Underwater locator beacon bolted onto them.

The section for 12 January has this:
 * "While it was announced on 10 January 2021 that the position of both flight recorders had been located,[75] the Commander of the Indonesian National Armed Forces said on 12 January 2021 that two underwater locator beacons had been found but the cockpit voice recorder needs to be found without the assistance from underwater guidance signals.[94] The beacons on both flight recorders were dislodged in the impact.[95]"

The latest entry for 15 January is this:
 * "The casing of the cockpit voice recorder was recovered, along with its beacon, but the memory module inside was missing.[112]"

Perhaps it should say this:
 * "The casing of the cockpit voice recorder was recovered, but the memory module inside was missing.[112] The beacon had been recovered previously."

Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * - the source given does not say that the CVR ULB had been recovered previously. You'll need to find a source to verify that claim. Mjroots (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Someone needs to find a source to verify the claim, currently in the article, that "two underwater locator beacons had been found"? Not sure it's me. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * So, the existing source is this one, in Indonesian. Doing a manual Google translation I see it says this: "However, CVR searches should be performed without guidance from underwater locator beacons or guidance signals to locate black boxes. This is because the two underwater locator beacons have been found along with the FDR."
 * I've gone ahead and removed the phrase " along with its beacon" from the third paragraph of the 15 January  section. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

perhaps the Initialisms of FDR and CVR should be indicated for people who don't see the link between Cockpit Voice Recorder and CVR? 86.132.233.112 (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Good idea: ✅. - Ahunt (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Ethiopian Airlines Flight 409
Should we mention this accident in connection with Sriwijaya Air Flight 182? 87.116.78.205 (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Related article: Ethiopian Airlines Flight 409. I can see why this thread exist: the timeline is so similar with this one. Others, should it in See also?  Gerald WL  09:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We can mention it in the "Similar Accidents" section in main article. What will the moderator say? 87.116.78.205 (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Similar accidents" section will be inappropriate. See also is already provided. We'll wait for editor comments.  Gerald WL  10:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We can add in See also and this air incident. Its also similar to SJ182. https://flightsafety.org/asw-article/turbulence-triggers-roll-upset-stall/ 87.116.78.205 (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, only those with Wikipedia articles can be put in See also.  Gerald WL  11:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "The thrust levers apparently were not moved symmetrically, or the engines did not accelerate evenly. Low-pressure rotor speed (N1) in the left engine reached about 98 percent, while N1 in the right engine reached about 87 percent. The asymmetric thrust contributed to the initiation of a very high roll rate, with the right bank angle increasing through 57 degrees. The increased thrust produced by the underwing-mounted engines also caused the airplane to pitch 9.5 degrees nose-up.The enhanced ground-proximity warning system (EGPWS) generated a “BANK ANGLE” warning, and the stick shaker activated. The crew reduced thrust and applied full left aileron and rudder. “The bank reached its maximum of 102 degrees to the right, and the minimum speed of 181 kt was reached,” the report said.The airplane stalled and descended rapidly. Nose-up elevator control was being held as the right bank angle decreased through 90 degrees and the pitch attitude reached about 25 degrees nose-down. The airplane rolled through wings-level and into a 35-degree left bank. The crew applied nose-down elevator control and full thrust."87.116.78.205 (talk) 11:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We could have added this video as well. Then Wikipedia readers would know everything about SJ182 accident before anyone else. But we prefer to spread the speculation of the yellow media instead. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2CsO-Vu7oc&t=1s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.78.205 (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the video has an uncertain license, thus is assumed un-worthy to be published to Wikipedia. I also don't see the need for this.  Gerald WL  14:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, nobody still knows what caused it to fail. NTSC has given a set of possibilities, but that's what they are for now: possibilities. Please don't spread speculations, we can keep it for ourselves.  Gerald WL  14:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My real name is Emil Enchev. If you're dealing with plane crashes, you'll probably know who I am. https://mh370.radiantphysics.com/2017/04/16/atsb-denies-request-from-mh370-families-for-more-info/ I never speculate, I analyze data and derive the most probable hypotheses for the development of events based on them. Thanks to me you know what happened to Boeing 737 Max, because I'm the person who discovered the problem, not the Boeing engineers.I was good enough to tell them what it was without asking for credit for it. The condition was that they ground the planes and fix it otherwise in 6 months there would be another catastrophe. Dennis Muilenburg was fired because several major investors learned that I had warned him personally. So to call me conspiracy nut is at least inappropriate. I can just think a few steps ahead of the rest. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Germanwings_Flight_9525&oldid=653441253#IT_WAS_SUICIDE 87.116.78.205 (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you the same Emil Enchev who's done "Wildflife Photography Tours of Bulgaria"? And you actually advised the Boeing engineers about the Boeing 737 Max problem? And you "warned Dennis Muilenburg personally" and got him fired?? Wow. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This man has nothing to do with me except that we are from the same country, Martinevans123. You're a bigger idiot, even than I think you are. Can I ask again, why you refuse to link Ethiopian Airlines Flight 409 in See also section? You impose censorship which is not according to Wikipedia rules, as moderators cannot moderate content on a personal basis. 87.116.78.205 (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * IP87, kindly remove or redact your personal attack above. Thanks so much. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that you launch the attack by replacing my personality with that of a photographer, I do not think it is very appropriate you to make such suggestions. But answer me the question, "why you refuse to link Ethiopian Airlines Flight 409 in See also section?" I will remove everything I have written myself. 87.116.78.205 (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2021 (UT

87.116.78.205 - you've already been warned about civility. Stick to the issue at hand and not who holds a differing opinion to yourself. Otherwise I might have to get this key out, and unlock my banhammer case. As for Ethiopian Airlines Flight 409, if it can be shown that there are similar causes between the two accidents, then it may be appropriate to add a link. At the moment, there is no evidence that there are similar causes. We just need to be patient and wait for information to become available. Mjroots (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And 87* has been blocked for personal attacks. But- Then Wikipedia readers would know everything about SJ182 accident before anyone else. That is explicitly not what Wikipedia is for. But we prefer to spread the speculation of the yellow media instead. Because that is exactly how Wikipedia works. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 87* made the fatal mistake of thinking I was the only one with a banhammer. As for the (now deleted) comment about IP hopping, we can deal with that too, if necessary. Mjroots (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why, because your banhammer stuck in your ass and you had to lease one from your fag college The Bushranger? The bunch of homosexual idiots.77.85.212.156 (talk) 08:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, wow, wow. You know, at least homosexuals are attractive.  Gerald WL  08:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Banhammer exercised. Just gotta clean and polish it before I put it back into its case. Mjroots (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you see how lying bastards from Indonesian government stopped export any information about SJ182. Did you know that the parts of CVR show signs of human intervention in their destruction? The entire edge of the lid is crushed with a hammer. In a normal accident, asymmetric bends occur. These dumb bastards don't even realize that in case of doubt these things can be proven very easily. CVR memory it has been in their hands for a long time but because it shows how unprofessional their pilots are, now they are trying to procrastinate result of investigation, tampering with evidence. The memory block cannot be located more than 15 meters from the parts of the CVR shell. Even if you are blind, you will find it. Around million must be paid to the diver who allegedly removed the CVR parts and to offer him political asylum in a western country. Then you will quickly understand the truth. 87.116.76.241 (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And how's the weather in Sofia, Bulgaria this week, IP87? Kind regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the results of analyzing the data from the FDR are already clear. The question is no longer who is to blame for the crash, but what the Indonesian government will do to provide additional training to their non-professional pilots. Forget to idle engines before attemp for recovery from deep stall, or take of your harness after 10,000ft is criminal negligence... Everyone experiences stress in such situations, and forgets some things, but some things they must be trained to such an extent that these people can do them even in their sleep. I doubt a Lufthansa pilot to not idle the engines in such situation, even if he got his pants wet. If this accident was on this German airline operator and showed the same characteristics, I would label it Suicide. Yes a strange way to commit suicide by putting plane in deep stall first, given the trajectory and filghtradar24 data, but still Suicide - because I don't believe a German pilot would NOT try to turn off the engines before the crash, and make the plane into such small pieces. And instead of the Indonesian government continuing to make pathetic attempts in its state-controlled press to compare this catastrophe with previous ones that are due to a technical problems, it is better to try to fix things. Boeing can provide you with good tools to train your pilots in critical situations. Don't make things harder for yourself. This is a decision in the right direction. https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20210120/p2g/00m/0in/124000c . This is no longer a question of compensation. Boeing can easily hire people like me, and the entire bottom to be brought to the surface together with each small part of the aircraft. You know what will happen when CVR memory block is not found then? You will pay the costs of this excavation as well. It is better to 'find' this memory block ASAP. Friendly advice.87.126.169.21 (talk) 12:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * And who is suggesting suicide and where?! Its not suicide, it is pilot lack of training, knowledge and professionalism. Nobody suggesting that. I wonder how you make such conclusions, as everyone can read what I wrote and see that you are lying, dumb fag?! 87.126.169.21 (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Search and rescue section
This whole section is way, way too long and contains a lot of irrelevant WP:TRIVIA. It needs cutting down dramatically to the actual relevant information. This can either be done now, or we can waste effort adding mountains more and then cut it all later. If you want to see how much of this minute-by-minute update stuff is retained in an article have a look at Air France Flight 66. - Ahunt (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Great minds. I've tagged the entire section. I vote for trimming it now but I have bigger fish to fry today. Carguychris (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for doing that! I may have some time to work on that later on today. - Ahunt (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking the same, it already fell into WP:TRIVIA when it became "day-to-day" update, so thank you so much for doing that! PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Feel free to adjust as needed. - Ahunt (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you did it, but I think it was trimmed too much (several quite crucial information e.g other countries' assistance from Singapore and Korea were also trimmed). I will add a few later. Glad for your work though so thank you! PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't think it was needed, as this is about the crash, not a list of credits, but see if you really think anything needs to be put back in. - Ahunt (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The practical assistance from Singapore and, particularly, S Korea was not routine. Korea was asked specifically by the Indonesian Government through bilateral structures for major S&R assets; Singapore provided assistance with locating pingers at the point that that was proving difficult.Davidships (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well if you think it is notable and not just WP:NOTNEWS the feel free to reinstate it. - Ahunt (talk) 13:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

fatalities = 62 | survivors = 0
I know that there has been a lot of IP editors adding this and other editors quickly removing it pending some official announcement, but that announcement does not seem to be forthcoming. We have had many WP:RS media sources already announce "no survivors", though. Given it has been 12 days, we are starting to look a bit silly continuing to remove this as it is unlikely anyone is still "treading water" now. I think we can now safely leave the infobox indicating fatalities = 62 | survivors = 0 without being accused of WP:OR. - Ahunt (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * WP relies on reliable secondary sources, not primary sources. That some editors are waiting on "official" confirmation of no survivors is tenuous. I have already given very reliable secondary sources that confirm all pax died. To withhold the crash outcome from the infobox is living in lala land. WWGB (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree. Delaying adding this is making Wikipedia look silly and bureaucratic. After yet another IP reverted it demanding a ref (there were already four cited in the article), I added a fifth from the Associated Press, and to to the lede as well. How silly are we looking? That AP article with the headline All 62 People On Indonesian Jet Presumed Dead After Crash was last updated ten days ago. - Ahunt (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Also agree. It is well known that authorities in that part of the world don't like bad news and delay confirmation of such as long as they can get away with. As I said on the fourth day after the crash, it is impossible that anyone can survive underwater that long. Even more so now. Mjroots (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

We should add (presumed) like other accidents like Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, 2016 Indian Air Force An-32 disappearance, Pakistan International Airlines Flight 404 and so on.
 * Fatalities 62 (presumed)
 * Survivors 0 (presumed)

I prefer to using missing parameter like
 * Missing 62 (presumably dead)

If some deaths are confirmed, then
 * Fatalities 10
 * Missing 52 (presumably dead)
 * ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, I keep removing the 62 fatalities from the infobox as unsourced. I do it primarily bcs there is no change in the text of the article to elaborate/accompany such infobox edits. They seem to be just a reinterpretation of what has been in the article for some time ("reported that all people on board had been killed"). Presumed is in line with that, and I agree with Phoenix7777 regarding the wording. (BTW Compensation is being paid only to some 40 identified victims now, and there was a fake call for help from one of the island that was investigated in connection with the flight. So even though I am  sure there are no survivors, it is unencyclopedic to add that to the article before official confirmation regardless about what you think about that country policies. Especially just based on our own OR about what is impossible, unlikely, etc., as the media do not know either; they, as far as I know, do not comment on the reasons why they think the people are dead. (Are there some unofficial comments from investigators, experts regarding the probability of survival? That could be added to the article.)) --WikiHannibal (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What is the longest anyone has survived underwater without the benefit of any artificial aid (such as oxygen tanks, breathing apparatus etc). WP:BLUE should be invoked here. All 62 are dead. We have enough sources to say that with confidence. Consensus seems to be against you at this point in time. Mjroots (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Reuters now confirming that Indonesia has halted search for survivors. Mjroots (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ...and with that I think we can stop pussyfooting around this issue. WP:RS have been stating "no survivors" for more than ten days, something that was pretty obvious within 24 hours of the crash. Applying logic and trusting reliable sources is not WP:OR. Keeping this fact out of the article for so long reduced Wikipedia's credibility and made us look foolish. We need to take this lesson forward for the next crash where there is an inflight break up and/or high speed water impact. Given the refs now cited and the text now incorporated, I think this thread can be closed out. - Ahunt (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

When I say something I'm usually right
https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/faulty-automatic-throttle-eyed-in-indonesia-jet-crash-probe


 * https://flightsafety.org/asw-article/turbulence-triggers-roll-upset-stall/ "The thrust levers apparently were not moved symmetrically, or the engines did not accelerate evenly. Low-pressure rotor speed (N1) in the left engine reached about 98 percent, while N1 in the right engine reached about 87 percent. The asymmetric thrust contributed to the initiation of a very high roll rate, with the right bank angle increasing through 57 degrees. The increased thrust produced by the underwing-mounted engines also caused the airplane to pitch 9.5 degrees nose-up.The enhanced ground-proximity warning system (EGPWS) generated a “BANK ANGLE” warning, and the stick shaker activated. The crew reduced thrust and applied full left aileron and rudder. “The bank reached its maximum of 102 degrees to the right, and the minimum speed of 181 kt was reached,” the report said.The airplane stalled and descended rapidly. Nose-up elevator control was being held as the right bank angle decreased through 90 degrees and the pitch attitude reached about 25 degrees nose-down. The airplane rolled through wings-level and into a 35-degree left bank. The crew applied nose-down elevator control and full thrust."
 * So, what happened with my "speculations"?! The truth is that they refused to release FDR data only because of me. If they do it, the reason for the crash will become clear one hour after that. Emil Enchev 87.126.169.21 (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Your first ref says: Nurcahyo Utomo, the lead investigator at Indonesia’s National Transportation Safety Committee, confirmed that a malfunctioning throttle was “one of the factors that we are looking at, but I can’t say at this point that it’s a factor for the crash or there was a problem with it. At this point there is nothing there but mere speculation. The second ref is from 2011, with nothing to connect it to this event. There is nothing in either ref that we can use in this article right now. When you have some relevant information feel free to post it here. - Ahunt (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Who exactly has "refused to release FDR data"? And when exactly did that happen? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No one. The idea that it is being unduly withheld is just an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. In most accident investigations the raw FDR data is not usually released at all and never before it has been analyzed, which can take months, or longer, even in first world countries. Once it is analyzed, usually there will be a text or video summary of what it showed, often as part of the preliminary and/or the final report. Releasing the raw data is not usually done because most people can't make any sense of it and also because it leads to wild conspiracy theories propagated by unqualified people. It is for the same reason that photos of the bodies, etc, are not publicly released. - Ahunt (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, the kind of people who claim "when I say something I'm usually right." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC) p.s. anyone got any aviation fags??


 * So Ahunt, you tald me that I'm imagine when I'm analyzed FDR data in advance before final report of previous air accidents? In this specific case there are doubts that one of the pilots was take off his harness and this is the reason why the engines thrust was not on idle. His tossing body around cockpit prevent ather pilot from actions. And after I told this with my name, the FDR data must be released in full extent because Indonesian plane probably will not fly over EU and England territory anymore if this is not reject as possibility. I don't care what deal are make Indonesian government and Boeing. I'm the man who ruined Boeing, I think is not hard to me to ruin and Indonesian aviation but if they want to try me. 87.126.169.21 (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, right. You're the man who ruined Boeing and the man who can easily ruin Indonesian aviation. So let's all hope you're not the man to ruin this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I never tald you anything. - Ahunt (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your last statements makes it so clear that you're not here to build Wikipedia, but to tear it down, amongst your agendas to shatter Boeing and Indonesia. What's next, aviation as a whole? Sounds like you're a really dangerous man, 87.  Gerald WL  06:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please, Do not feed the troll, just disregard his remarks. Kind regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 07:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , i know. I'm just shocked by the plot twist. I'm an investigator --> I want to ruin Indonesian aviation.  Gerald WL  07:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Flight Data Recorder in water
The previous caption to the FDR photo "The flight data recorder, submerged in water for safety reasons" was uncited. It was written by a Wikimedia editor ; the stated source for the photo makes no reference it being kept in water. The purpose is to prevent further corrosion and damage from air contact, see this from Reuters and (explaining the same procedure after the Lion Air accident) this, so I prefer something more specific than "safety", which is vague and implies that the FDR could become unsafe in some way. Davidships (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, Reuters says: "After a crash over the sea, the recorder is placed back in water to prevent damage from contact with air while being transported." No objection to adjusting the caption. It should all be explained at the Flight recorder article. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I looked there, but there is not yet any section on recovery protocols.
 * This, at message #232 (amongst much dross) explains it well, but is uncitable. Davidships (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, a very good explanation. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)