This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation: Accidents B‑class 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 Low‑importance 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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance 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 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.

Flightradar24 is a good and valid source. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing, yes they are indeed. However the original file is lost. A lot of news outlets rely on them, so nothing to worry there. GeraldWL 11:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No file was cited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflicts are tough to compete, so here are sources:

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

GeraldWL 12:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A flight path map would be a good addition, and an update when they find the crash site to indicate that -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is, actually, the flight map from Flightradar24, however I'm not sure if I can give critical commentary in the caption, as United States fair use requires that. Usually we just wait for the govt to release a map, on which it could be under public domain. As of now, various editors are sticking to news updates. GeraldWL 14:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone with graphic skills can edit one of the base maps for the region, if it is available on COMMONS, to put in a flight path, in a new image file -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://geohack.toolforge.org/geohack.php?pagename=Pulau_Laki&params=5.9575_S_106.52139_E_type:isle for coordinates. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 15:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PaPa PaPaRoony: according to The Aviation Herald, there were 56 passengers onboard, with 6 being non-active crew for a later flight.[1] Would we include this in the crew section in the infobox? I wouldn't say so because they were (from my understanding) passengers waiting to be crew on a later flight. I don't think we should value primary sources over secondary sources either, does the official statement say that there were 6 inactive crew? FozzieHey (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @FozzieHey: It was from the official statement of Minister of Transportation himself, Budi Karya Sumadi. I think we shouldn't change the number since it IS the official number given from the government. If the final report stated differently, however, THEN we may change the number.(talk) 23:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PaPa PaPaRoony: In your citations it says that there were specifically 6 active and 6 inactive crew. Unless you can cite the exact statement from the government saying there were 12 crew total then I don't think we should include the 6 inactive crew in the crew section? FozzieHey (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • • @FozzieHey: The citations did state 6 extra crews but nevertheless they were included as crew members by the airline and the government. Technically, they were included in crew members, not passengers.(talk) 23:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PaPa PaPaRoony: Where does it say they were included as active crew members on the flight by the airline and the government? Do you have a link to the actual government statement rather than a mashed up syndication of it on other news sources? If the 6 inactive crew were simply just passengers waiting to start being crew on a later flight then I don't feel like we should include it in the crew infobox section. FozzieHey (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FozzieHey: It was stated DIRECTLY in a video conference held by the ministry. I don't understand how to cite it here but there's literally a whole 1 hour conference on it. The ministry itself stated that there were 12 crew members, so it is NOT a mashed up syndication. Parts of the statements in the articles were taken directly from the video conference itself.FozzieHey (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PaPa PaPaRoony: 12 crew members or 6 active and 6 inactive crew members? I think the difference is key here. If the 6 inactive were simply just passengers waiting to start work on a later flight then would you consider that a part of this specific flight's crew? FozzieHey (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FozzieHey: You're punching the bushes again. It IS a number given from the official statement. Until there's another different report from official statement, then do NOT use personal opinion on the subject .PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PaPa PaPaRoony: What about this is a personal opinion? The cited sources state that there are 6 inactive crew members. Do you really consider being a passenger and having the occupation of a crew member should classify as being a crew member in the info box? If so then I think we should take this to the WikiProject instead to get some sort of a consensus on this. FozzieHey (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FozzieHey: Currently, the only decision that I could agree is to list 12 crew members in the infobox, with an additional information that 6 of whom were inactive (pay attention to this sentence).[2] If you want me to make your day, I actually DID think the same way like you did, even earlier, right during the video conference. But again every Indonesian media alongside with the ministry itself released a statement that there were 12 crew members and this is NOT UP TO DEBATE, so the infobox should stay that way UNLESS there's another statement from the airline or the ministry itself. This discussion should no longer up to debate.PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saving it here to be included later on. I fear edit conflicts, so.

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

GeraldWL 08:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Consequently, we cannot provide any type of guarantee and are neither responsible for the correctness, validity, thoroughness and accuracy of that information published, nor for the suitability of their usage for purposes other than informational only. There's no editorial and fact checking process for this. Are we sure we gonna use it? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 09:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeromi Mikhael, Flightradar24 is a tracking service highly respected in the aviation community, and is used by various sources, Indonesian and international, to give a glimpse of what happened. Until KNKT or NTSB released a report on what actually happened based on the CVR and FDR, Flightradar24 is a good temporary source.

They are also significant in the investigation: the track showed a hard right bank, but debris is found on the left, which aviation analysts marked as a mid-air accident (the plane broke mid-air and scattered to places). GeraldWL 09:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The "Reactions" section had only three entries: "... the leadership of Malaysia, Russia and Saudi Arabia". I added a ^{[citation needed]} tag with the edit summary " why only these three?", but this tag was hastily removed as inappropriate. "Turkey, Bahrain, Jordan, and Pakistan" have now been added. The question remains - why only these seven? There is a larger question, already expressed by some other editors, over whether this material is really encyclopaedic at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martinevans123, the citation needed and clarification needed tag is not for tagging incomplete information. However, I'd like to note that this is a one-of-a-kind section in an aviation crash article-- although articles like George Floyd protests may have one, I'm not sure if condolences from international countries are even valuable in this article. GeraldWL 12:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had hoped my edit summary would have made my intentions clear. I was seeking clarification of why those three countries were in some way significant. Which tag is best for "incomplete information"? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martinevans123, perhaps Template:Missing information would be viable. GeraldWL 12:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'll add that one, then. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know others are missing? Perhaps only seven nations could be bothered to comment. WWGB (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we don't know. Their comments may go reported. But is the information currently in the article, whether it's compete or not, really useful? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, no. We don't need condolences every time a plane crashes. It doesn't add much value either.PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We normally omit the the world leaders' meaningless "thoughts and prayers" stuff as it is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and adds nothing of value to the article. The only reason we would add any of this at all, is if any of them had anything substantive to say. - Ahunt (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should put an edit notice to stop people from saying that all passengers died before any official announcement.Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 11:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeromi Mikhael, agree. However, only admins can create an editnotice page. I'll just create the template here.

READ THIS REGARDING FATALITIES OR DEATHS There have been numerous attempts on assuming that all souls onboard are dead, due to the severity of the crash. Although logically they may be dead, it is dangerous to assume so without official announcements from the search and rescue team. Please do not add fatalities or death numbers without official statements published via reliable sources.

GeraldWL 12:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To me is seems 99.9% probable that all are dead. As with most air accidents of this kind, the remains of most victims are never identified, and so it is eventually assumed all are dead for legal/compensation purposes. But I agree an official statement is required. Usually one is issued even before the interim flight accident report is published. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed all of the peripheral articles required to make the readers know about people/things that were involved in this accident. I would create them at some point, but it is always good to have a helping hand.

• Laki Island
• Regent of Thousand Islands
• Bagus Puruhito - head of BASARNAS
• Soerjanto Tjahjono - head of KNKT

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

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

@Martinevans123: Puruhito was a three-star general who previously served as the deputy chief of staff of indonesia's air force — practically the second highest man in the air force. Tjahjono is Indonesia's equivalent to Robert L. Sumwalt. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 13:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By all means create your four articles. Their relative notability will be duly assessed, I'm sure. Just for context, how many articles, on en.wiki, do we have for UK or US generals who were "deputy chiefs of staff of the air force"? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martinevans123, that'd be hard to know the exact number. But I'm sure there's a category somewhere. GeraldWL 13:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current RAF Deputy Commanders to Chief of the Air Staff (United Kingdom) are Air Marshal Gerry Mayhew and Air Marshal Andrew Turner. I guess similar incumbents, for that position in the Air Forces for non-English-speaking countries, would be judged on their own merits. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123: No offense, but non-English-speaking countries is a bit condescending. WP:SOLDIER don't mention any specific countries and Puruhito fulfilled number 2, 3, and 5. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 14:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No condescension intended. My point it simply that en.wiki tends to focus on English-speaking subjects. Looking forward to your articles. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123: Well then. Have a nice day. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 13:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]