Talk:Turkish Airlines Flight 1951/Archive 1

WikiNews
Is there a wikinews article yet? 76.66.193.90 (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, not yet apparently. 81.175.86.66 (talk) 11:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

redirects
TK1951 & THY1951 & TURKISH 1951 redirects needed. (and one from the tailnumber, TC-JGE) 76.66.193.90 (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Joshdboz (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2009

(UTC)

Background
I think these statements should be removed from the Background section:


 * "On February 18th, one week before the crash, the Turkish Civil Aviation Union accused the airline of "inviting disaster", by "ignoring the most basic function of flight safety, which is plane maintenance services". "The company administration does not understand the consequences of ripping people from their jobs and inviting a disaster" they added.[4]


 * In response to these accusations, Turkish Airlines issued a statement saying it takes safety seriously and that it followed all "maintenance procedures of the plane manufacturer, national and international authorities directives" for the plane.[4]


 * According to Turkish Airlines, two days before the accident the pilot of this plane reported a failure with the "Master Caution Light" while taxiing. The part was replaced by the maintenance team and the aircraft had eight take-offs and landings without any problems, until the accident occurred."[4]

With all the warnings that we are not to speculate about the cause of the crash, why are such statements permitted in the main article? Clearly, they are political allegations as to Airline policies being the cause of this crash, without a shred of evidence to support such wild allegations. The mention of a previous repair of a Master Caution light is not relevant to anything. It seems it has been put there to leave the impression that the Airline management was somehow cutting safety corners. EditorASC (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed the sub-label of "Maintenance History" to "Labor Union Dispute," because that is what the information in that subsection was really about. I have no problem with having a REAL "Maintenance History" somewhere in the article, if it is filled with objective data about the actual maintenance history of that particular aircraft.  But, posting wild political allegations of a labor union against management, during an ugly contract dispute, and calling it "maintenance history," amounts to pure fiction and doing so turns Wiki into a spam propaganda forum for an angry labor union. EditorASC (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Landing and Damage
I removed these statements, because they are not relevant to this section:


 * "The cause of the emergency remains unknown so far. The plane had maintenance C Check a few months before and was certified airworthy."

The emergency evacuation and the response of the emergency vehicles, were the result of the crash, so saying the cause is not known is non-nonsensical. In the first section, it is already stated that the cause of the crash, is unknown.

Whether or not the plane had a C Check and was airworthy, is not relevant to the damage that resulted from the crash. That might possibly be an area pursued during the official investigation, but only statements germane to the damage inflicted on property and persons, as a result of this crash, should be put in this section. EditorASC (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible bird strike
I've added in the infobox that it might have been a bird strike, however, I have not done so in main the article, as it may be incorrect, if it is, please revert it and let me know. Ta, Shnitzled (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I will revert it until it is well sourced. -- BaldPark (talk) 12:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not here it in the Dutch news, in the official press conf there was no information about it. And I can not find it on other news sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.176.204.96 (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This engine damage looks defiitely like a bird strike may of happened notice the diffrence between the top blades and the bottom blades...


 * According to interview with one of the survivors (i watched it from cnnturk)""Plane lost altitude instantly then both engines were full throttled then crash happened"".As you see you cant throttle engine after bird strike, it generally stops working.--Zulkarneyn (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Map of Location
Approximate Location, CC-BY-SA. Attribution: OpenStreetMap —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefishy (talk • contribs) 12:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Passenger count
Better source than CNN for passengr count: http://www.thy.com/DarkSiteEN/index.aspx Still no info on fatalities though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.253.250.124 (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Im confused. If there at 127 passangers and 7 crew that means there is only 134 people total. Am I right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.1.74 (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Press conf
official press conf 9 fatalities, 50 injured. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs)

Reports
The Hungarian online news site index.com's artice says: 1.) One reporter of index.com (who are in amsterdam) told, that local radio stations reported engine failure, including one engine on fire mid-air, but got extinguished. 2.) The crash-site got plowed before, the rescue team have difficulties in reaching the site with heavy machinery. 3.) The Türkish medias quote a survivor, who told: that most peapole left the plane on foot, the plane's rear landed 1st, and the crash itself was like a big turbulence. Placi1982 (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Distance from the runway.
The reports are 3km, but that is of course a "guestimate" by reporters. Google Earth shows a distance of at most 2.4 km (this includes the "runoff strip" [where you are not supposed to land yet] and the furthest position into the field that I could choose). If I measure as accurately as possible, it's more like 1.8km until it would have been "safe". So, for all you curious ones out there, now you know. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 14:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point, TheDJ. Let's keep an eye for reputable source coming up with a better estimate, because we can't write up original research.  m a s quer a i d  14:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been near the site myself, and I saw that it was much less than 3 kilometer. I think it was about 1, or 1.5 kilometer. Ssmm987 (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Either the coordinates or the distance given are wrong. It's a pity to have missed the runway by so little. --AVM (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I just saw that BBC is reporting the distance as being "several hundred yards short of the runway." Here is the article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7911587.stm (it's about the 6th paragraph down). Maybe that would be better than giving an exact distance for now. 222.216.169.1 (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The International Herald Tribune has a similar distance. It quotes the chairman of Turkish Airlines as saying that the crash occurred "around 500 meters away from the landing strip. Aecis·(away) talk 01:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the coordinate information is accurate enough to stay as the single piece of distance information in the box. If we get some solid source we can add explicit distance information back. --Ferengi (talk) 08:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Amount of ambulances
In the article is standing that there arrived about 20 ambulances, I've been near the site myself, and saw much more. I think there were about 50 or 60. Also a journalist from the NOS counted 33 ambulances himself, about 3 or 4 hours after the accident. Ssmm987 (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Nationalities of passengers / dead not notable?
Why is that? --AaThinker (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Because the nationality of the passengers has nothing to do with the accident. MilborneOne (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nationalities of dead/injured are normally mentioned in connection to disasters. I'm not sure why, perhaps because embassies/consulates of the nations in question may have involvement. Whatever the reason, it's usual, thus can be in this article. 131.111.245.195 (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course the nationalities are notable. Have a look and pretty much any major crash entry on Wikipedia and you will see that there is a fact box with the numbers listed. I really don't know what MilborneOne is on about. 84.9.35.236 (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Somebody asked why the nationalities of the dead are not notable and I replied because it has nothing to do with the accident, the fact that it is included in lots of accident articles still does not make it notable or important to the article and is probably borderline WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Sorry to say a victim is a victim whatever passport they carry. Interesting to know why you think the nationalities of the victims has anything to do with the accident. MilborneOne (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, a victim is a victim regardless of their passport. Thank you for reminding us of the bleeding obvious. But that doesn't mean that it can't be included. Information like this is encyclopedic details that make the article more readable and comprehensible. Things like this add to the sum of human knowledge, which is ultimately our purpose. And how does this even come close to being a memorial? Aecis·(away) talk 01:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Still have not seen an explantion (other than it makes the article more readable) what nationality had to do whith the accident. I presume you also want to add their ethnic background, religion, what school they attended, shoe size which all add to the sum of human knowledge. This is really a subject for the air accident project not this article talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * First the bleeding obvious, now the slippery slope. You're on a roll here, Milborne. What you apparently fail to realize, Milborne, is that nationality matters in everyday life. A crash is far more relevant to someone from say Germany if a German citizen is involved. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. Information like this turns the passengers from anonymous passengers into real, living people (yes, they are living people without a passport as well, don't bother reminding me...), it helps the reader associate with the event. It turns the article from a stone-cold narrative into a real and readable article, it helps get the point across. You still haven't explained why the nationalities shouldn't be included (unless you count your fallacies as arguments), and you also haven't explained how including it could possibly make the article a memorial. Aecis·(away) talk 23:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good points Aecis I agree with you. MilborneOne (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And for the early christmas spirit, I agree with what you said on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force. There are no guidelines as to what information is trivial and what information isn't, and that is bound to create confusion. I feel that flight chronology (time of departure, time of crash, etc.) is vital. Although the effects would have been the same if the plane had hit the field one minute earlier or one minute later, it didn't. In this case the crash occurred at 10:31. Number of victims is obviously vital as well. Cause of the crash is vital too, just like possible consequences for airplane construction. The nationality of the passengers is not vital imo, the article won't break down without the information, but I do think it's welcome. Some of the examples you mentioned in your previous post (shoe size, school, religion, etc) are trivial and should imo be kept out. Aecis·(away) talk 00:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Weather at the crash site
I'm getting conflicting reports on the weather at Schiphol at the time of the crash. Whereas CNN reports quotes an RTL journalist saying that the weather at the time was partly sunny with no wind or rain, this source reports that the weather was rainy and very foggy (translation). Anybody have confirmation?  m a s quer a i d  15:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * light fog interspersed with just the littlest of sun. No unusual condition for Amsterdam airport. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 15:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 6 AM UTC Feb 25 37(3) 35(2) 30.33(1027) SSW 9 mph mist
 * I'm not a reliable source and I'm not a meteorologist, but the weather has been virtually the same throughout the country. Cloudy, hazey (?), a slight rain, a typical calm late winter's day. Nothing out of the ordinary, and definitely not windy. Aecis·(away) talk 19:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Journalism
Oh great, they just botched up the international report during the press conf. I counted at least 5 errors in it. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 15:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, your saying that is OR. So can't go in article. 131.111.245.195 (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible engine falloff
A statement from Dutch sources airing at the moment in Turkish news channels speculate that one of the engines fell off the aircraft prior to the crash. Anybody have confirmation? Aportakal (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering the fact that both engines are visible in the field, i doubt that is likely. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 15:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

In here(Türkiye) news channels says that "Dutch news channels speculate that one engine fell off the plane before crash". They show the source of this news is Dutches :).I still hear news that "Is it possible one engine fell off and crashed near the crashed plane."--Zulkarneyn (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been watching Dutch news since about 11am and I haven't come across anything like that. If that does turn out to be the cause of the crash, it would be an eerie reminder of our worst plane crash, El Al Flight 1862. Aecis·(away) talk 02:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Dutch authorities announced that probably plane crashed because of engine failure.(cnnturk)--Zulkarneyn (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's remarkable that CNN Türk has reported this, because the Dutch authorities haven't said anything about the cause of the accident. Aecis·(away) talk 18:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The BBC is saying they sheared off in the crash. This is what they are designed to do, so that they don't rip open the wing tanks and cause a fire. In the 1862 crash Aecis mentions there was a defect in the pylon shear pins' design (since corrected) that led to the engine release happening the wrong way. The more interesting reports (in the same BBC item) are those saying that the engines were silent prior to the crash. LeadSongDog (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This accident is not comparable to what happened in the El Al 1862 accident. That was an old 747, this was a very new 737.  The failure of the pylon sheer pins, in the 1862 accident caused the #3 engine to fall off the right wing during climbout.  It hit the # 4 engine and knocked it off too.  With only two engines left on the left side, and loss of two hydraulic systems and damage to the right wing, the pilot inevitably lost control as he tried to slow down for an emergency return to the airport.  None of that scenario has any relevance to this kind of accident, whatever the cause turns out to be.  EditorASC (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Motorways
Which motorways have been closed as a result of the crash? I have removed the A13 (The Hague - Rotterdam) and the A6 (Muiden - Joure). They weren't mentioned in any source and because of their location they were highly unlikely to be closed. The motorways most likely to be closed are the A4 (Amsterdam - Delft), the A5 (alongside Schiphol) and the A9 (Diemen - Alkmaar). Aecis·(away) talk 16:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The newsreports I have seen only mention the A9 motorway being closed between Rottepolderplein (near the crash site) and Badhoevedorp in order to facilitate the arrival and departure of emergency units. I have seen nothing that suggests that the A4 or A5 have been closed. Gjemmens (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible Micro-Burst
I think it's definitely weather related accident,microburst,I heard from some survivors that plane vibrated like turbulence and loose altitude quickly then crash down in seconds.If you look at Delta Air Lines Flight 191 plane behaves just like this one.It descended unexpectedly while approaching  and pilot involuntary landed early.In this case we can see similar plane behaviours.Only big difference is Delta Flight 191 was in bad weather condition and wind shear appears more stronger than this one.It seems good weather near schiphol airport but micro bursts are very dangerous because they appears suddenly and they disappear in short time.This wind shear seems weak but enough to force a plane to crash landing.--Zulkarneyn (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The symptoms you describe could be from any of a number of causes. Besides, testimonies that engines were not running rule out weather-related causes. CuriousOliver (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The cause of the crash is still undetermined and under investigation. It would be wrong to speculate on the cause. Aecis·(away) talk 16:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I would doubt the microburst idea because in order to have a microburst you have to have a convective storm... At the latitude of the accident and time of year. A convective storm is near impossible.


 * it could be a dry-micro burst that doesn't need rain or storm.it must be a very small wind .But if it is weather related airport management can see it from special radars.i don't know whether they say something about weather.--Zulkarneyn (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well microbursts disperse a few minutes or so after they are formed. This was true with Delta 191 because the Private Jet that was ahead of it didn't report any turbulence or signs of a microburst. Flight 1951 could have also stalled because it was at such a low speed during the approach. Both of these would cause turblunce and are corrected by applying full thrust. BronxNY (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ??? How can the fact that the plane ahead of Delta 191, did not report turbulence or microburst, be proof that the microburst that hit Delta 191 dissipated rapidly?


 * As to both the stall and microburst recovery techniques, there is a difference between the two: During a wing stall, while max power is used, the nose is to be lowered at the same time. But, during a microburst wind shear, while max power is used, the nose is to be brought up as high as possible and held there, just below the stalleven to the point of periodically triggering the stick shakeruntil the plane has completely escaped the area of wind shear. EditorASC (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's leave aside the speculation and original research. The official investigation will find the cause. We don't need to guess at it here. That's not what WP:TALK pages are for. LeadSongDog (talk) 04:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

In responce to your question
 * ??? How can the fact that the plane ahead of Delta 191, did not report turbulence or microburst, be proof that the microburst that hit Delta 191 dissipated rapidly?

What I meant to say was that is suddenly formed in an area that the plane ahead of Delta 191 had already flown through.BronxNY (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible Education Flight
They talk about to much here that there are three pilot in cockpit and one of them is a student pilot and captain pilot gave the landing controls to him.He reduced engine at wrong time then captain full throttled engines to correct him but failed.--Zulkarneyn (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The recording of crew's last transmission with the tower indicates that the aircraft intercepted (or at least switched frequency to) the ILS localizer, after which the landing should supposedly be automated. Pilots do like to fly the glideslope themselves, but I wouldn't count on that on an international flight. --139.179.20.143 (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The frequency of the planned ILS approach is normally tuned into the FMC, far before reaching the Outer Marker. Only in the case of ATC's suddenly reassigning the flight to another runway, would it be tuned very close to the final approach course intercept, and that rarely ever happens.  A pilot cannot fly just the glideslope manually.  If he chooses not to engage the autopilots, he must manually fly both the localizer and the glideslope.


 * There is no requirement for the approach to be flown via autopilot, or the landing to be made with the autopilots, unless the weather is below that which allows the pilot to fly and land the plane manually. If the cloud ceiling is reported greater than 200 ft., and visibility is greater than 1/2 mile, the pilot may fly and land manually, and many chose to do just that.  Being an international Flight has no bearing on when a pilot chooses to manually fly the approach and landing. EditorASC (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible pilot-autopilot dispute
According to my knowledge pilot uses ils system for approach then disengage autopilot then land manually.China Airlines Flight 006 had an incident that plane had uncontrolled movements in sky nearly crashing.In that case pilot disengaged autopilot for an engine failure followed problems, plane starts to move crazy movements in sky after this.Maybe something like happened in THY fligt.Pilot disengaged autopilot then engines lost power (in any way)(maybe manual engine speed was mistakenly at low torque ), he tried to correct it but failed.Of course any experienced pilot easily can say that's not possible.--Zulkarneyn (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no relevance to the China Air 006 accident. Different types of planes, different phases of flight, different engines, and the captain of 006 caused the upset because he failed to follow proper procedures, after an engine failed during high altitude cruise flight. Useless and improper speculation. EditorASC (talk) 04:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ILS has nothing to do with the autopilot, you can fly manual approach on ILS. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 13:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Photos usable?
Are these photos usable:,. They are uploaded to Flickr by the copyright holder under the following license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en

There are a lot of photos uploaded by "Radio Nederland Wereldomroep" of the incident. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think you can. Those images are uploaded by Radio Netherlands Worldwide, a Dutch public broadcaster, so it makes sense that images produced by that broadcaster are indeed freely usable as indicated by the cc-by-2.0 licence. I suggest you use the Flickr-to-Commons tool for moving the images. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * this image is now being uploaded by the Flickr upload bot as commons:File:Crash Turkish Airlines TK 1951.jpg. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks... I know very little about Commons, and less about Flickr to Commons tools. :-) I figured if I at least identified the images, that someone else would want to collaborate with me and actually upload them. Wiki works! Mahalo and thanks! --Ali'i 17:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wiki indeed works :). Thanks for pointing to the free images. Several others are now being uploaded as well. Cheers! Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like the tool overwrote the old image (you listed above) with a different one. Something wrongly labeled or something? --Ali'i 17:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Those images are not free according to Flikr. They are copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeadSongDog (talk • contribs) 19:12, February 25, 2009
 * They are loaded under the CC-by-2.0 license. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that mean we can use them as long as we attribute where they came from? Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

@ Ali'i: indeed, I did make a mistake with uploading a second image from Flickr to Commons by using the same name. The tool accepted it as the first image hadn't been uploaded yet. I noticed it soon, but I could do nothing more than wait for the tool to upload the second image. But I guess everything is sorted out now as the first image has been re-uploaded as File:Crash Turkish Airlines TK 1951 wreck.jpg. @ LeadSongDog: the fact that the images are copyrighted doesn't mean that they cannot be released under a license that is compatible with Wikipedia (in fact they have to be copyrighted to be released under a license). The images were released under cc-by-2.0 and thus are perfectly compatible with Wikipedia. I guess you are the same person as the anonymous user that flagged the images as copyright violations on Commons. In the future please make sure that you understand copyright law a bit, before flagging the images right away. Thanks. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Opening sentence
Will the flight number now be retired and another number assigned to the route? If not, should the opening sentence "Turkish Airlines Flight 1951 was a flight from Istanbul, Turkey to Amsterdam, Netherlands." be changed to "Turkish Airlines Flight 1951 is a flight from Istanbul, Turkey to Amsterdam, Netherlands."? 90.215.157.50 (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Turkish Airlines Flight 634 crashed in 2003 now that route named 630, 640.--Zulkarneyn (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Leave it as 'was' unless and until it's confirmed the flight number is NOT retired. Fatal accidents normally result in retirement of flight number, and until another flight USES the number again 'was' is perfectly reasonable. It also 'reads better'. 131.111.245.195 (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. No person coming to this article will be looking for general flight information, timetables, things like that. They will be looking for information about the crash. And since the crash took place in the past (DUH), the past tense is imo more appropriate than the present tense. Aecis·(away) talk 12:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Crew fatalities
Were both pilots killed? this BBC article seems to imply it, without stating it. The 737-800 has two cockpit crew, and the BBC article states three members of the cockpit crew were killed. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * According to both Turkish and Dutch media, both the pilot and the co-pilot have been killed in the crash. Rescue teams have confirmed that the bodies of three deceased crew members have been removed from the cockpit in the course of the late afternoon/early evening, but they haven't said anything about the position of these crew members. Aecis·(away) talk 19:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Also a Pilot in Education has been killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.54.214.254 (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It was just in the dutch press that the pilot, co-pilot and a student pilot were the 3 dead crew members in the cockpit. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 22:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * According to one of the survivors pilots was yelling "Ay! ay ay"(similar to "Oh no" in english)just before the crash.--Zulkarneyn (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If he did, it will have been recorded on the black boxes. When they are released, probably with the results of the investigation, we can include it. Aecis·(away) talk 14:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Possibly out of fuel
Although the cause of the crash is still unknown, pending an investigation, rumor has it that it is quite likely the plane was out of fuel. Considering no fire broke out, in fact, there is no evidence of -any- fire damage whatsoever, this seems a real possibility. An eye witness reports that it seemed as if the plane was out of fuel, it came in 'like a glider'. "Volgens een ooggetuige op Schiphol leek het of het Turkse toestel geen brandstof meer had en „als een zweefvliegtuig” kwam aanvliegen." http://www.nrc.nl/binnenland/article2162550.ece/Negen_doden_bij_vliegtuigcrash_Schiphol See also: http://frontpage.fok.nl/nieuws/106883/-Toestel-viel-letterlijk-uit-de-lucht.html and http://frontpage.fok.nl/nieuws/106877/-Tekort-brandstof-mogelijk-oorzaak-crash.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.85.172.58 (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It could be, but let's not speculate on what caused this crash. This is the fourth rumour raised on this talk page (after bird strike, microburst and engine falloff), at least three of them are bound to be wrong. Aecis·(away) talk 19:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That's fun and all, but totally unsubstantiated speculation. And history has proven that when it comes to "technical crashes", the media hasn't been very good at making guesses. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 19:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We can't put original research in the article, but it's more than just speculation and it can help us to find more relevant information. The picture of the engine shows fan blades bend, but still attached. I'm no expert, but I believe if a running engine was hit, all fan blades would detach. Hopefully, we will soon find a reference to some expert discussing the causes. CuriousOliver (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about birdstrike, then no, blades don't necessarily detach. There's a well known picture floating around on the web.

Anyway, our speculation is OR. That's fine on WikiNEWS, but not here. 131.111.245.195 (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * According to interview with one of the survivors (i watched it from cnnturk)""Plane lost altitude instantly then both engines were full throttled then crash happened"".As you see you cant throttle engine after bird strike, it generally stops working.

And, THY(Turkish airlines) announced that plane had enough fuel for to land to backup airport.9.600 lt (8000 lt is enough for ist-amst).In here news channels announce that theory shows dutches are jealous of THY (because its groving to fast)--Zulkarneyn (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * News chanells also saying "They are blackening THY".Yesterday have talked about this subjects but today nothing about them.--Zulkarneyn (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think they mean the dutch didnt want to (completely) underreport the casualty numbers.24.132.170.97 (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And we've got our first conspiracy theory... Let me get this straight: we, the Dutch, somehow brought the plane down because we were jealous of THY's success, even though we've got the oldest and one of the biggest airlines in the world (KLM)? (no attack on you, just curious about the conspiracy theory) Aecis·(away) talk 02:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A survivor responds smelling kerosine, so if he's right, the plane probably wasn't out of fuel. NRC Handelsblad reports another eye-witness saw the plane just "fell out of the sky", which is witnessed by the fact that it didn't slide along the trajectory it was on. A passenger noticed an onboard display showing an altitude of 400 metres with 12 minutes left in flight, although, considering they were this close to the runway, 12 minutes seems a little too much. But for whatever reason, the plane was probably flying to low and too slow. No emergency was reported to passengers inside the plane, no report yet if an emergency was declared to Air Traffic Control, although the media keep talking about an emergency landing. CNN reports the Cockpit Voice Recorder and Flight Data Recorder have both been found, so they'll probably be able to find out what happened.

http://www.nrc.nl/binnenland/article2162881.ece/Ooggetuige_ziet_toestel_recht_naar_beneden_vallen http://www.nrc.nl/binnenland/article2163390.ece/Na_een_paar_seconden_was_er_een_grote_klap http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/02/25/holland.crash/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.85.172.58 (talk) 08:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As stated above, ground crew reports indicate the aircraft had more than enough fuel for the run, and considering it didn't hold at a pattern for an extended period, fuel exhaustion is unlikely, unless the ground crew in Istanbul screwed up or the pilots somehow forgot to switch tanks or accidentally switched to an empty tank. The lack of fire is consistent with the fact that the plane was on final approach: in any case, most of the fuel had been spent and the soil around Schiphol is extremely damp, especially at that time of the day and under inclement weather.--139.179.20.143 (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The 737-800 usually has three main tanks (some versions have long-range extensions). (left,center,right) Each of the main tanks has two fuel pumps. The center tanks is emptied first (as long as the pumps are switched on), one of the center pumps feeds the left system and one the right. When the center tank is empty or the pumps are switched off the remaining four pumps will feed the left and right system. The left tank pumps feed the left engine and the right pumps feed the right engine. In rare cases the crossfeed valve can be opened in reaction to fuel imbalance. (Note that fuel leaks combined with the crossfeed open are extremely dangerous) 80.89.52.37 (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing odd about the lack of fire. See for example SK751 (crashed into a field only four minutes after take-off, no fire). Bo Lindbergh (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * When a plane runs out of fuel, it is usually not because it was consciously given short measure or driven to the edge, but because the fuel gauge shows more than there actually is. But the main reason against the theory of running out of fuel is that it is unlikely to coincide with the final phase of landing. Also, it seems to me it would be unlikely that between the engine failure and the crash, there would not be enough time for the pilots to raise alert. Apparently, the plane became too slow, although it is strange that the pilots would not notice. There must have been some factor involved that was unexpected or unknown to the pilots. Maybe they forgot to extend the flaps. CuriousOliver (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "An eye witness reports that it seemed as if the plane was out of fuel, it came in 'like a glider'." Now that one takes the cake.  There is no way a bystander on the ground, or even a surviving passenger, could make such a determination---pure logic tells us that.  Yet, no doubt some ignorant reporters might actually say something like that...  EditorASC (talk) 05:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. A gliding aircraft in landing configuration (flaps, slats) will be doing quite a steep descent, and the eye witness should have noticed this if that was the case. I am almost certain that they were in a final approach configuration with about 30-40 degrees of flaps because they did not declare an emergency, so this happened very suddenly. I could also see the slats deployed on one of the photographs (slats deploys automatically when flaps are extended unless failure of course). If anybody could see if there is a photograph of the flaps, maybe that could be interesting. Indeed if there was a silent failure in the flaps/slats system it could cause a sudden stall and dive like this. 80.89.52.37 (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The rate of descent is clear at this source.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Tekirdağ
Which source says the name of the airliner is Tekirdağ ? And if so, shouldn't there be a hatnote there to this page? 76.66.193.90 (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Searching for the plane's tailnumber with Tekirdag indeed brings up several results supporting this name. I'm just not so sure about "authoritative sources" in this case. Most are mentions from plane spotters. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 20:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned here and here. Aecis·(away) talk 20:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WhisperToMe has added a link to the Turkish Airlines website, confirming that the plane was named Tekirdağ. Aecis·(away) talk 20:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so I've listed the plane at that page as a "namesake". Perhaps a redirect from Tekirdağ (plane) and Tekirdag (plane) is in order? 76.66.193.90 (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable, I've created both. Perhaps we could include the link to this article as a hatnote in the article Tekirdağ. Any thoughts? Aecis·(away) talk 20:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Highly unlikely anybody would use the aircraft name to search for the accident so the redirects are really of no value and a hatnote at Tekirdağ is probably not needed. The more normal search would be the registration and flight numbers all of which have been covered already. MilborneOne (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not the likeliest of queries, I agree, but it's still reasonable to expect some of our Turkish users and some plane spotters to use this query to find the article. For the same reason Clipper Maid of the Seas redirects to Pan Am Flight 103 (an incident on a different scale, granted). And redirects are cheap. Aecis·(away) talk 00:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In Turkiye nearly nobody knows flight number of this plane because televisions says only its name "tekirdag".Only from web sites and if you search you can learn flight number.And you know flight number doesn't crashes plane crashes.Tekirdag plane crashed, i dont know why internationally crashed planes announced with its flight number instead of tail number.In Turkiye(Turkish Airlines) plane names are unique.--Zulkarneyn (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Response time emergency services
News coverage in the Netherlands mentions quick response by emergency services. It's very unlikely that the first response took half an hour, seeing its near Schiphol and a number of other cities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.96.196 (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The BBC is using a witness who claims there were ambulances within 5 minutes. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7909683.stm "I saw dozens of people making it out very quickly, and as I was about to dial 911 the first sirens were noticeable, and within five minutes there were 10 or 15 ambulances."

My wiki-skills are a bit rusty, so can someone else edit that in? -- Mystman666 (Talk) 21:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

-But the sources you removed AND my relative that survived the plane point the other way, now why did you remove my sources, you could have added yours on the side. There's a whole fuss going about this in Turkey, survivors are calling in the press to say that "help only came in 25 or 30 minutes ALTHOUGH the airport was so close", and that they were sheltered for hours in a barn or so while waiting to be treated, latter information that has also been confirmed by the dutch. --85.99.6.50 (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Translation of the first Turkish sourcing:

KAZA YERİNE GEÇ MÜDAHALE ETTİLER

Uçaktan kurtulan başka Hüseyin Sümer isimli bir yolcu da yetkililerin uçağa geç müdahale ettiklerini öne sürdü. Yolcu, "Uçağın kırılan bölümünden çıktık. Yetkililer olay yerine geç ulaştı. Şu anda yaralı olan insanlar var. Ayakları, kolları kırık, yaralı insanlar bulunuyor. Ancak bu insanlar hastaneye götürülmedi. Nedenini bilmiyoruz."

''THEY INTERVENED LATE ON THE ACCIDENT SITE

Another passenger named Hüseyin Sümer also attested that the authorities came very late at the crash site. The passenger added "we made it out from the fractured part of the plane, the authorities were on the site very late. There are wounded people, with broken limbs and wounded in general, but these people were not taken to hospital. We do not know why.''


 * I have hidden the disputed section for the moment. It's still there, but it's formatted in such a way that the reader can't see it. Please use this talk page to come to a consensus. Aecis·(away) talk 00:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I say that we remain "wikipedia neutral" and say "according to some sources including survivors the help was late" and then also write the anthihesis "according to some other sources, help arrived quickly". Yes although I'd like to resolve some matters personally with them, as a survivor relative, those people have the right to exist. --85.99.6.50 (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Possibly related to this: An anonymous firefighter has told De Telegraaf newspaper that the initial report they received said that a plane had crashed at the Polderbaan runway. When they arrived at the runway, they obviously couldn't see the plane, as it had crashed several miles to the north, on the other side of the motorway. Only when they drove through the area, they found the crashed plane. This is obviously only one unconfirmed report, but it is one that could combine the two stories here: 1. We immediately heard the sirens; 2. It took a long time before they were here. Aecis·(away) talk 00:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Congrats!! :)) Well we could start with the survivors stating the help has not arrived swiftly, then, state the more or less obvious reasons, since they were at first misguided. (I kinda understand them when I place myself into their shoes, I mean all that panic after a plane crash has been reported, then you go where the tower tells you, and *bam!* no plane on the spot.
 * Minor edit: I have merged the two sentences, since they both said that the accident "happened very close to the Schiphol Airport". Aecis·(away) talk 01:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it seems that late help is more strong viewpoint.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

NRC Handelsblad, a major Dutch newspaper, claims that help arrived relatively swift, but when actually reading the article, it contradicts that statement. The crash happened at about 10:31 CET in the morning, but at 12:00 CET ambulances were still waiting around. Traffic jams resulted due to the large number of vehicles being deployed, despite a nearby highway and a nearby main road being cut off for normal traffic so it could be used exclusively by emergency traffic.

"De hulpverlening komt vrij snel na het ongeluk op gang. In totaal veertig ambulances zijn betrokken bij het afvoeren van gewonden. Het toestel ligt, ten opzichte van de Polderbaan, aan de andere kant van snelweg A9, nabij Zwanenburg.

Het afvoeren van gewonden verloopt chaotisch. De weggetjes waarover de gewonden worden afgevoerd, zijn smal. Rond het middaguur stonden er zeker acht ambulances op elkaar te wachten op de Kromme Spieringweg bij Zwanenburg. Ook tractoren en twee Schipholbussen zijn ingezet om gewonden af te voeren. De ambulancemedewerkers bij het toestel stralen rust uit. "

Translation: "Emergency services respond relatively quickly after the accident. A total of 40 ambulances are involved in carrying off the injured [passengers]. The plane lies, relative to the Polderbaan (runway the plane was attempting to land on) on the other side of highway A9, near Zwanenburg.

Transport of the injured is chaotic. The little roads used to carry them off, are narrow. Around noon there were at least 8 ambulances waiting for eachother at the Kromme Spieringweg near Zwanenburg. Tractors and two Schipholbuses (normally used to ferry passengers from and to the airport) are deployed to carry off the wounded. Ambulance personell near the airplane look very calm."

Source: http://www.nrc.nl/binnenland/article2162881.ece/Ooggetuige_ziet_toestel_recht_naar_beneden_vallen

If it took well over one and a half hours to evacuate all of the injured passengers, then that is not such a fast response, considering the fact that Amsterdam is nearby and ambulances are supposed to be on the scene within 15 minutes, even in rural areas.

Another article, on Nu.nl, points out that the municipality of Haarlemmermeer has only been solely responsible for emergency response in case of a crash at Schiphol sincs 2006. Before that, it was already the responsible authority, but emergency services would also respond from Amsterdam. This was thought to be a recipe for trouble, so they changed this manner of operation. As a result, emergency response is now -only- from the emergency services from the region Kennemerland, instead of also including Amsterdam-Amstelland, the region of Amsterdam. Considering that the municipality of Haarlemmermeer has a population of less than 150,000 and Amsterdam is the nation's capitol, with over 750,000 inhabitants, local authorities do not have the same amount of resources and are probably not used to any large emergency. In addition, during exercises the autorities performed below the required standards. Very poorly, in 2006, quite a lot better, but still not without reservations, in 2008. Source: http://www.nu.nl/vliegramp-schiphol/1923447/vliegtuigcrash-enorme-test-voor-hulpdiensten.html, as well as information from Wikipedia itself.

I personally don't see how any huge emergency at Schiphol could be left solely to the local emergency responders. After all, the municipality of Haarlemmermeer is comparitively small and in -any- huge emergency it is policy to just alert neighbouring emergency departments anyway.


 * All of this is way too much of discussion and interpretation. Lets just stick to sources telling specifically what the survivors and witnesses said about response times. I just added a reference to a Dutch news article in which both viewpoints are mentioned. --Reinoutr (talk) 10:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because of the fact that they are the official "first responders", and the people in charge, does not mean they don't have the authority to pull resources elsewhere of course. I saw 3 helicopter ambulances on the field there. The municipality definitely does NOT have 3 ambu. helicopters. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 11:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this picture (http://www.anp-photo.com/search.pp?page=5&ShowPicture=9260860&pos=38) may be of some interest in this matter. It shows survivors still climbing out of the plane, with (in the background) emergency personnel just arriving on the scene. Note the white & orange ambulance just above the nose of the plane and the white van in front of the barn behind the aircraft, which seems to me to be a police vehicle. To the left of this van there's some people in fluorescent yellow jerseys, presumably police officers. Also note the time of the picture: 10:43AM, or about 12 minutes after the crash. To me this picture indicates that yes, the first emergency personnel arrived on-scene within the required 15 minutes, but no, a full-scale rescue was not in place at that time. 193.172.244.202 (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The emergency services in the Netherlands use the following colours for their vehicles: ambulances are yellow with blue and red stripes, police vehicles are white with red and blue stripes, and fire trucks are red with blue and white stripes. The van above the nose is white, so it's presumably a police car. To the left of the van are probably ambulance workers, they wear fluorescent yellow/green uniforms. Aecis·(away) talk 13:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Some ambulances at the crash site use an orange & white colour scheme, see here: http://www.anp-photo.com/search.pp?page=6&ShowPicture=9260266&pos=46. And at least one policeman on site wore a yellow jersey: http://www.anp-photo.com/search.pp?page=5&ShowPicture=9259425&pos=34 (the guy on the right of the picture). But after a second look, I think you're right: the van on my first picture looks more like a police car. But it's hard to be sure from these lo-res images. It's a pity ANP does not release full-sized versions of its pictures for free 193.172.244.202 (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Dutch media also said getting to the crash wasnt that easy. especially for the ambulances, because the field had just been ploughed. As i understand it they brought out more ambulances then there were passengers. They must have formed a long row while none got into the field.24.132.170.97 (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Tonight on the television program Pauw & Witteman the presenters Pauw & Witteman talked with among others the meiden van Halal. At some point the presenters asked Jihad Alariachi if she thought the emergency services were fast enough. And in her words she thought it took forever and the rescue went in a typical Dutch way, and there was too much talking and not enough help for the survivors. A crew member of one of the ambulances responded that the talking is protocol; the first ambulance will organise the full operation rather then immediately to start helping the survivors as this will speed up in the words of the rescue worker the operation later on. Which will give in my point of view to some of the survivors especially the ones who aren't used to the Dutch culture of talking that it took forever. So maybe it's good to somehow add at the cultural aspect into the article. --Floris1978 (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What you have to keep in mind is that help always comes too slow for a victim. Every second feels like an hour, and the ambulance always should have come sooner. I remember that from my last accident, when I was lying on the side of the road. But that doesn't mean that they were slow in this particular case, or fast. When is an ambulance fast? When is it slow? If we are to include this, we should just mention the timeframe. When did the first ambulance arrive? How many ambulances and helicopters were dispatched? Etc. Imo we should leave it to the reader to decide if that's fast or slow, and a lot or too few. Aecis·(away) talk 01:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You are of course right there when you say that emergency services always too slow for victims. But it seem there was some confusion about the following Dutch EMS protocol and I quote "In case more ambulances need to respond to a scene, the first arriving ambulance starts the incident management and identifies themselves by wearing green vests and by flashing or rotating a green light on their ambulance. All arriving crews can easily identify and respond to the first arrived crew." source: EMS in The Netherlands the quote can be found under the section "Equipment" The confusion could have happened especially if there was sometime between the first and second unit. We need a source to find out if that happened. --Floris1978 (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

BBC as source
I have reservation it being used as source here.It article seems to be a official press release from Schiphol airport.User:Yousaf465 (talk)
 * The BBC is a perfectly reliable source for news facts, I do not think we want to go on this slippery slope. ---Reinoutr (talk) 10:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

Three or four pieces?
Most sources are describing it as three,but from what I see there are 4 or more parts scattered around. User:Yousaf465 (talk)
 * Lets stick to what the sources say to avoid any issues with proper referencing of statements. --Reinoutr (talk) 10:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure there are parts all over the place. But the fuselage broke in 3 pieces. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 11:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with TheDJ. Remnants of the plane have been scattered across the area, but the fuselage of the plane has broken into three pieces: the cockpit, the wing area and the tail. Aecis·(away) talk 12:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So we should mention that fuselage,broke into 3 pieces.But an aviation safety expert said it were four.User:Yousaf465 (talk)
 * The hull broke apart to three major pieces. Of course in reality there are hundreds of thousand of peaces ranging from the two engines down to the napkins. The plane mostly stayed intact though (aside from the napkins which flew all over the place). -- Cat chi? 04:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about clothes here.What i'm talking about is the fuselage which from what i have seen broke into 3 to 4 pieces.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

Update
The mayor of Haarlemmermeer has just announced that the plane carried 128 passengers (instead of 127) and 7 crew members. This means that 135 people were on board at the time of the crash. Five victims were Turkish citizens, four were US citizens. 133 people have been identified, 2 still need to be identified. See also. Aecis·(away) talk 19:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good find - however I can't read dutch - but that is clearly a good source - what sources so far indicate 128? It may be that we need to mark the number as unconfirmed in the article. Pedro : Chat  20:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Confirming the 128 (all in dutch though): etc...etc... --Reinoutr (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Similar confirmation in english: --Reinoutr (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well found! Looks like this is credible to me. Pedro : Chat  21:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting btw. 135 (128+7) was also the original count by Dutch officials, that was correct to 134 yesterday, based on the passenger list of Turkisch Airlines. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 02:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As of now, the THY site is still contradicting itself. It says in one place that there were 127 passengers, in another place it lists 128 including one baby. Or is there a legalism in Turkey that keeps babies from being considered as passengers?LeadSongDog (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * With most airlines babies can travel for free, IIRC. Probably because the parents didn't have to buy a separate ticket, the baby wasn't included in the passenger list. Aecis·(away) talk 21:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist Church
Yes, the Westboro Baptist Church is back. They've built a new website, God Hates the Netherlands, claiming that the plane crash was God's punishment for gay rights in the Netherlands. They've announced that they will picket the funerals of the crash victims. Great. Hundreds of highly emotional Turks and five obese Americans with a sign. Ladies and gentlemen, place your bets! Aecis·(away) talk 22:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a bid odd, as there were no Dutch killed, why would God kill people which are by most standards are considered to be god fearing and not so much pro gay. But it's seems they hate everyone so does their God I guess. Floris1978 (talk) 5:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The said they will picket funerals of Dutch crash victims, well, as usual, their god was late (gay marriage has been around for a while now her) and his aim was lousy, as so far, there are no Dutch fatalities.
 * But I would say, come over and go ahead, picket, and enjoy the Dutch prison system, as hate speech is a punishable offense in our constitution Remko2 (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That is, if they make it to prison. When hundreds of furious Turks attack a few fat people with an insulting sign, I think I know who's gonna win :) Aecis·(away) talk 21:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I wonder how can they get to Europe in time for the funeral without sharing an airplane with someone that "God hates"? This could be interesting... LeadSongDog (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Easy, catapults... :) -- Cat chi? 04:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Near
How does 3km away from an airport make it ok to say it occured "near" the airport? Define near. Is 100km near? Is 10km near? What is the limit? This crash was nowhere near the airport in my opinion. Hundreds of houses could be built in the space in between. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.229.240 (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It was as much near, as Hitler was a bad person. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 02:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Besides, it was 1.8km from the runway, not 3km from the runway as reported by all the journalism sources. And since the entire airport is 5x10 km, i consider 1.8km as pretty "near". --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 02:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For a plane that can travel 800km/h (or 13.333km/min or .222 km/sec) 3km is a distance they can take in .666 secs. So thats very "near". -- Cat chi? 04:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This crash occurred in the final seconds of the landing. I think it's ok to call that "near" the runway. Aecis·(away) talk 12:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * @Cat: If they do .222km/s, they would need 13.5secs for 3km... BTW, on final approach a B737 is supposed to maintain a speed of around 250km/h, so it would take around 43secs to make 3km resp. 26secs to make the 1.8km. Best regards, --R.Schuster (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Some input

 * 1) http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/11090419.asp
 * 2) http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/11095890.asp?gid=229
 * 3) http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/11086968.asp?gid=233
 * 4) http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/yazarlar/11095221.asp?yazarid=91&gid=61
 * 5) http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/yazarlar/11095841.asp?yazarid=148&gid=61

An eyewitness (Jeroen Jonkers), who identified himself as being a former armed forces servicemen (of the Netherlands I think but that's not specified), stated that the pilot carried out a series of maneuvers to minimize causalities. He talks about how the pilot pulled the planes nose up to preform a hard "air brake" right before the crash which increases the survival rate of the passengers. Same eyewitness also states that while such an air brake saves the lives of people on board it decreases the survival chances in the cockpit. He further added that by avoiding the A9 Highway the pilot managed to avoid any causalities on the ground. (first source) All this eyewitness report is consistent with the info we already have (such as the tail hitting the ground first and cockpit getting crushed).

Reportedly (second source) talks about the plane loosing speed at an altitude of 90kms prior to crash for unknown reasons.

The reason might be due to a vortex (Wake turbulence) from the Boeing 777 that landed prior to the TA Flight 1951 (third source).

Columnist Yalçın Doğan has criticized the misinformation by the Turkish authorities calling it a scandal (fourth source).

Another columnist Mehmet Yılmaz has criticized the Transportation Minister Binali Yıldırım for "not bothering to return to the capital to handle the crisis" (fifth source).

I am uncertain what the best way to incorporate this info is. -- Cat chi? 02:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Single eyewitness accounts and early speculation about causes, even if sourced, are rarely correct and never reliable. There's little point in putting them into the article. In a few days there will be hard data from the black boxes to tell the tale accurately. Let's just wait for it. Opinion pieces by columnists or editorials aren't much use to us either, they are WP:Primary sources. If someone else writes about those columns, then those WP:Secondary sources could be usable. LeadSongDog (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * On wikipedia articles generally present sourced speculation. The blackbox data will be released with the official report which will take months. In the meanwhile notable claims should be in the article.
 * The use of primary sources are just fine. It isn't banned and is good practice to cover sections like "reaction" and "criticism. Also stuff written by columnists or editorials are secondary sources. It is them reacting to the news covered by someone else.
 * -- Cat chi? 16:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * At the moment we're only getting one theory after the other, including the most bizarre conspiracy theories. I've lost track after about eight theories. I suggest we wait and see which possible causes remain alive for longer than a few days. There's no rush. Aecis·(away) talk 18:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Similar accidents
Are there any known accidents similar to this one? In the case of the spanair accident in barajas it was fair to assume that the failure rested with the 0º flaps and slats at takeoff because of the previous MD82 accident with Northwest 255. (Similar aircraft, similar conditions, similar trajectory). Nelievsky (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

nationalities
Five victims were Turkish citizens and four were Americans

This should be expanded, which were the pilots, Turks or Americans? 76.66.193.90 (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There was NOT Finns in plane. Finnish authority says that person is in Finland and is very well. So Passport was wake. English cituasion and better English to the article. :) --EsaL-74 (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a link to a reliable source that says this? As far as the three deceased pilots are concerned, their nationality hasn't been made public afaict. I assume they were Turkish, but my assumption obviously is not relevant. I'll see if I can find some information about this. Aecis·(away) talk 17:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As I say, i need English sources... Finnish news services isn't best choice for this. :) Anyway, Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland says he or she was in Finland.. --EsaL-74 (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can understand a few words of Finnish, and I didn't see any such statement, either on the ForMin website or in Finnish media. The Dutch authorities have just said that among the five Turkish victims were three crew members, btw. They didn't say anything about their position on the plane though. Aecis·(away) talk 20:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * *MTV3 (Finnish Commerical TV3)... (Finnish)
 * *YLE (Finnish National bradcasting company) (Finnish)
 * *From STT (Finlands News Room), in English STT1 and STT2 STT news are English. :)
 * --EsaL-74 (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just come across an AFP report from yesterday evening, which says: "Weterings said there had been 60 Dutch and 51 Turkish nationals on board the flight, as well as seven Americans, four Iranians, three Britons, two Syrians, and one passenger each from Germany, Bulgaria, Finland, Italy, Taiwan and Sudan. The nationalities of two have yet to be determined. The Finnish foreign ministry has denied one of its citizens was aboard the ill-fated flight, saying the person whose travel documents were found at the crash scene was safely at home." See and. Aecis·(away) talk 21:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Boeing
added the death of a third Boeing employee to the article. This update was based on an article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The news report only states that three employees are "believed dead", and it has based that assertion on the statement from an unidentified "person familiar with the situation in Amsterdam". This vague report is inconsistent with our certain claim that "three (Boeing employees) have been identified as being among the dead". Only two Boeing employees have been identified as being among the dead. When the death of a third Boeing employee is confirmed, it should obviously be included. But as it stands, all we've got is one report based on hearsay, which contradicts the official information. Aecis·(away) talk 18:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sadly, there is an official announcement from Boeing, from their corporate website, stating that three out of four of their employees who were on that flight are now confirmed to have died in, or as a result of, the crash, the fourth one is still in hospital: http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2009/q1/090227d_nr.html According to at least one Dutch news source, they were returning from Turkey after a business trip for Boeing's defense division. http://www.nu.nl/vliegramp-schiphol/1924537/boeing-rouwt-om-dode-medewerkers.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.85.172.58 (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The three deaths have now indeed been confirmed :( Aecis·(away) talk 16:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Maintenance History
According to Turkish Airlines, two days before the accident the pilot of this plane reported a failure with the "Master Caution Light" while taxiing. The part was replaced by the maintenance team and the aircraft subsequently had eight take-offs and landings without any problems, until the accident occurred.

Master Caution Lights happen from time to time.. it has no relevence with this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.38.26 (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It and the Labor Union Dispute section are probably not needed, unless we have a reliable source that it is related to the accident. MilborneOne (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Black Box
The "Onderzoeksraad voor Veiligheid" (Dutch NTSB) has recovered the black box and are in conflict with the "Openbaar Ministerie" (Ministry of Justice) for jurisdiction over the black box. The OVV is concerned with the cause of the accident and the OM is considered with determining possible guilt. The problem is that discoveries made by the OVV might be viewed, but in many cases not used again by the OM to prosecute possible guilty parties. This regulation is in place to ensure independance and neutrality of the OVV. So far the OVV has not officially replied to the OM's request to turn over the Black Box, but in all probability they will not hand it over.Lgonggr (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * is that why this is taking so long? With an undamaged tail section the data should only take minutes to download from the recorder. 72.0.187.239 (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. The investigation is proceeding, both boxes have been sent to Paris, France, because they have the required equipment there to read out this specific type of Black Box. They expect to reveal details from what they've learned from the recorded information after the weekend. There is no dispute, the OM (Openbaar Ministerie or prosecution office) has no reason to investigate the information themselves considering that there is no evidence of foul play, at least not as yet. And in case of pilot error or somesuch, there would be no one to go after, considering no members of the cockpit crew survived. So unless and until something giving grounds for a -criminal- investigation comes to light, jurisdiction over the Black Boxes will remain with the technical investigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.85.172.58 (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Video
http://videogaleri.hurriyet.com.tr/Video.aspx?s=5&vid=3149 --144.122.250.141 (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Terrorist involvement?
Is it possible this was a terrorist incident that failed? All three pilots are dead including a trainee. The timing of the crash coincides with a Dutch politician travelling the world showing anti -Islamic propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.204.6 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not likely. As far as I have heard all officials assume an accident. Arnoutf (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"Crash" or not
Rather than revert again, I'll point out that we avoid the term "crash" in all but the most extreme accidents. Given that this a/c came to earth in a fashion that permitted the survival of 126 of 128 passengers, the use of "crash" is hard to justify. It smacks of tabloid journalism. LeadSongDog (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's debatable but, irrespective of the survival of the majority of those aboard, 'landed' doesn't seem applicable to a plane falling uncontrollably to earth (according to initial reports) and then breaking into three pieces on impact. It seems likely that only the plane's lack of altitude before it fell prevented far greater loss of life. Dubmill (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It was a crash landing, that is entirely appropriate as a description of the event, and is used in the sources. If this had indeed fallen "uncontrollably to earth", it most certainly would not be recognisable any more as a plane. It crashed on an attempted landing, hence it was a crash landing. MickMacNee (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Passengers and witnesses have reported a very sudden descent. It has been suggested that the plane stalled due to lack of airspeed (cause of that unknown). If so, that would be 'falling to earth', not a semi-controlled landing. The amount of damage caused by impact after such a descent would surely vary according to the height the plane was at at the time. No doubt the investigation will reveal to what extent it was a 'landing' (implies crew had a degree of control) or a 'crash' (implies lack of control). Dubmill (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The applicable generic term is "accident". If we wish to be more specific, it is not a stretch to call it "controlled flight into terrain" although we normally wait for the official call on that. But "crash" is tabloid sensationalism.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * From the wikipedia page for 'Controlled flight into terrain':


 * Controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) describes a collision whereby an airworthy aircraft, under pilot control, inadvertently flies into terrain, an obstacle, or water. The term was developed by engineers at Boeing in the late 1970s.undefinedThe pilots are generally unaware of the danger until it is too late.


 * The key words are 'controlled' and 'airworthy'. In this case, it appears (at least from initial reports) that the pilots lost control of the plane, for whatever reason. Dubmill (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a crash. Whether it was a controlled flight into terrain, or otherwise, is still not known. We don't actually know if the pilots had control of the aircraft at impact. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There have been reports suggesting that pilots had at least partial control. -- ZhiraeerMkrtchan (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed the lede from "crash landing" to "crash" a few days ago. A crash seems like the right description for what happened here. --John (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * From the ECCAIRS 4.2.6 Data Definition Standard for Events, Published by the ICAO, dated 12 January 2006:

2050201 Aircraft collision with level terrain/water "An event involving an aircraft collision level terrain or water."