THC Science

	Aviation portal This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

	This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Current events

This article is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events articles

Death B‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management B‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Indonesia B‑class Low‑importance

	Indonesia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ethiopian Airlines Flight 409

WP:NOTFORUM from previously blocked IP, now suggesting "suicide by pilot" theory

Should we mention this accident in connection with Sriwijaya Air Flight 182? 87.116.78.205 (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sorry, only those with Wikipedia articles can be put in See also. Gerald WL 11:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

IP87, kindly remove or redact your personal attack above. Thanks so much. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wow, wow, wow. You know, at least homosexuals are attractive.^[FBDB] Gerald WL 08:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Banhammer exercised. Just gotta clean and polish it before I put it back into its case. Mjroots (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

And how's the weather in Sofia, Bulgaria this week, IP87? Kind regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Martinevans123: - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good idea:

Done. - Ahunt (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. Y
Organized tidily using section headings. Y
Reasonably well written; does not have major grammatical errors. ?
Contains illustration where appropriate. Y
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. Y

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

@Gerald Waldo Luis: - see my comments in the Polishing section above. I'd give a tick to both of those {{hmmm}}s - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Done; JP source is enough. Gerald WL 13:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have slightly expanded, with the FlightGlobal source, to describe the data. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Done Feel free to adjust as needed. - Ahunt (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

fatalities = 62 | survivors = 0

CLOSED

Now beyond doubt that there were no survivors. Mjroots (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@WikiHannibal: 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)[reply]

Reuters now confirming that Indonesia has halted search for survivors. Mjroots (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...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)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

When I say something I'm usually right

CLOSED

something something something. Gerald WL 14:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 (Redacted), 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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?? [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Just for the record, I never tald you anything. - Ahunt (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please, Do not feed the troll, just disregard his remarks. Kind regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 07:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saschaporsche, 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)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 here; 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, a very good explanation. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 173: / Line 173: @@
 ::Thanks.  I looked there, but there is not yet any section on recovery protocols.
 ::[https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/637944-737-500-missing-indonesia-12.html#post10966969 This, at message #232] (amongst much dross) explains it well, but is uncitable. [[User:Davidships|Davidships]] ([[User talk:Davidships|talk]]) 22:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
+:::Yes, a very good explanation. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 22:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

THC Science

Bringing Science to the Cannabis Conversation!

Cannabis Ruderalis

Revision as of 22:21, 23 January 2021