Talk:Germanwings Flight 9525/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Deliberate vs. intentional

Suicide by pilot describes aviation disasters in which pilots "deliberately crash or attempt to crash an aircraft..."

Deliberate is synonymous with intentional.

The Germanwings Flight 9525 crash was "intentionally caused" by the co-pilot, Andreas Lubitz. ITfan1990 (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@ITfan1990: For the benefit of other editors, you are referring to your edit to link to suicide by pilot. My only response is that I believe the edit is contrary to current consensus. Per the guidelines regarding disputed edits, the change needs to stay out until there is consensus for it, and I'm going to revert it again now. Please do not re-revert again, per WP:BRD. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:BRD states to be bold and I don't see a consensus anywhere stating that these two words are defined differently. Please don't revert this change. ITfan1990 (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@ITfan1990: Please read WP:BRD more carefully. You were within guidelines to be BOLD, and I was within guidelines to dispute your bold edit by reverting it. At that point, the guidelines say you leave the edit out until consensus is reached for it. That way, the article never contains a disputed edit that lacks consensus. Does that help? I hope so, because repeated re-reverts are edit warring and can result in sanctions. The guidelines regarding this are there for a good reason. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
In your edit summary you stated that this has been "discussed at length" and that it is "contrary to consensus" that aviation crashes caused deliberately by a pilot are Suicide by pilot. Please provide a link to to this lengthy discussion where that consensus was reached, because I cannot find it.
  • Side note It appears the actual consensus on Wikipedia is that Suicide by pilot describes deliberate plane crashes resulting in deaths, such as this one. ITfan1990 (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
He appears to not have reinstated the link to suicide by pilot, and "deliberate" is the word that's been used in the infobox for quite long, so this should be OK. Alakzi (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree, we're cool for now, didn't mean to imply otherwise. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The editing dispute seems over, and doesn't seem to have been in bad faith. @ITfan1990: Since Andreas Lubitz is recently dead and information about his death has implications for his family/friends, he is protected by the WP:BLP policy per WP:BDP. In this case, the investigation needs to run its course. Wikipedia isn't a source, nor are we expected to be, and WP:BREAKING suggests we write these articles conservatively. It's fairly likely at this point that it was a suicide, but nothing will be lost by waiting for the investigation to run its course. ― Padenton|✉   15:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Deliberate or intentional, it certainly was not "controlled flight into terrain". Looking at the Suicide by pilot list. That descriptor is the most accurate. At the time, when the incident was still "fresh news", people were incensed by the term suicide and instead replaced it with "murder". Latest news point out, the pilot practiced the descent before. [1] KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 20:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32604552

No need to create a new paragraph every time new information appears

As most of us already know, new information about this event was appearing daily in the reliable sources when the event was new. Every time new information came out that needed to be added to the article, we didn't breathlessly add it to the article into a new paragraph, beginning with the phrase "On [date]," we instead inserted it into existing paragraphs to allow the reading of the information to flow evenly. We usually avoided entering the date that the information appeared, occasionally using a date relative to the day of the crash. The current article isn't a series of short, choppy paragraphs each starting with a date.

Recently, relatively "not earth-shattering" new information has appeared that Lubitz practised setting the auto-pilot controls in an earlier flight. An editor keeps reverting my attempt to combine this information into the previous paragraph to allow it to read better, even though the new paragraph that he prefers contains only a single sentence and has a phrase that is nearly identical to a phrase in a sentence in the previous paragraph (Lubitz set the auto-pilot to 100 feet.) Prhartcom (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

In your first reversion of my addition your edit summary was this: "Remove redundant (and poorly spelled and punctuated) sentence, keeping reference"? My apologies for poor spelling, which another editor has kindly corrected. I'm still unsure why you thought it was poorly punctuated and, more importantly, why you thought it was "redundant". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Poorly punctuated because you have one too many commas. Commas are not inserted when a reader pauses or takes a breath, they are inserted according to grammatical rules of writing. Redundant because the article already mentions that Lubitz set the autopilot to 100 feet; that is a phrase that should not be deliberately repeated. We say it once, then say it was practised earlier, without saying "set the autopilot to 100 feet" again. Prhartcom (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Please explain how the sentence "breaks the rules of grammar". It's not redundant, it's news, as revelled by the interim report whuch has just been published. The fact that Lubitz "practiced" the setting seems quite significant to me, and to the BBC whose source I used. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I have explained; please re-read my explanation. See below for my answer to your question about "news". Prhartcom (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The BEA interim report has been published - with the practising bit in. There may be additional material. I don't have time to go through it now. But it may deserve a new section of its own.Mattojgb (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
It is mildly gratifying to have my suspicion that the plane was descending in OPEN DES mode (p. 8) confirmed, and my having resisted a vigorous attempt to insert WP:OR in the article having paid off. Alakzi (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

If information is new, this does not mean it requires its own paragraph or section. A new paragraph or section is warranted when a new topic is being presented. Please consider how this article will read next year or next decade. By then, we won't care when the information was revealed to the world. To make it easier to read, facts of information should flow well for the reader, without redundancies or choppy, one-sentence paragraphs each beginning with "On [date] it was revealed". Prhartcom (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not alone in my view that it deserves prominence. You are editing against consensus here. We can't guess how an article will look in a year's time, we edit as events unfold. Many things may change over time. And you came to my Talk Page with a question about "ego"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree, this is significant enough to have its own para. - Ahunt (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
To be convincing, you may wish to give reasons why you think so. As you do, please consider trying to refute my main point that, just because something is new, it doesn't deserve it's own paragraph. (Otherwise, this article would be filled with one-sentence paragraphs like, "On May 29 it was revealed that the students were on their way home from a student exchange with the Giola Institute ..." etc.) Prhartcom (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I have not argued that the format of this sentence is in some way sacrosanct. I merely thought that a date gave context. I’m also not claiming that it must stay as a single sentence paragraph. As Mattojgb has suggested there may be other significant material in the interim report. I’m arguing that it is significant insofar as it shows Lubitz active planning of this event. It wasn’t a “one off spur-of-the-moment reaction to something”. I think it’s the sort of evidnce that would be deemed significant in a criminal trial. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
As I noted, I think this should be presented separately due to its significance. It is not just part of the description of what he did, but what he planed and practised. It goes beyond what happened and shows motivation. - Ahunt (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
That motivation is unmistakably evident in the succinct text, "a manoeuvre he had practised".
I have a suggestion: As the two of you are apparently unaware, we have two separate discussions here: 1) Adding new information into the article but into its own paragraph and insisting on including the date it was revealed to the world, and 2) the release of the new preliminary report by the BEA. No, these are not the same thing. No, the edit you have both argued to keep made no mention of the report. Why not move on from discussion number 1, and focus on discussion number 2? Let's leave this discussion number 1 alone. You both may be right that discussion number 2 deserves its own section elsewhere in the article. Prhartcom (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah yes, I'm "apparently unaware". wow. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Err... this new tidbit comes from the preliminary report (p. 23). Alakzi (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Correct. And the fact that the report was released is not in the article. That is a separate fact than one item that was in the report, which we have been discussing here. Prhartcom (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
My original point was that the two issues are linked. I could possibly be persuaded that if this was the only significant finding in the interim report that it should just be incorporated into the existing text. If not then a separate paragraph would certainly be justified. For now I've amended the article to include a separate paragraph linking the publication of the interim report and this new information, which would be my preference. Mattojgb (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
That's fine. And that may have been your original point, but no one ever stated it. I had to be the one to point out that no one had inserted the fact that the report had been released. You subsequently added this fact to the article, in a new paragraph, but I agree it looks fine. When this new paragraph mentions the only significant fact that the report reveals, it does not do so redundantly; it does not repeat the phrase about 100 feet, which is good. It does mention the date, but that is fine also, as I have added "a month later" to give such a date context for our readers. Prhartcom (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I think what we saw today was: People were whining, but were failing to clearly state what they were objecting to, and were failing to objectively realise what their edit was clearly missing. But it seems to be somewhat resolved now. Prhartcom (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, that's what we saw. Thanks for the revealing explanation. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Lubitz is NOT "practiced" suicide maneuver...If there was such evidence, they suggest only that this person has tried to commit suicide earlier but he did not have the courage to do it. There is no need to practice this maneuver because it is much more elementary from "landing maneuver" and each pilot can perform it without any effort. These investigators are exclusive nonprofessionals and against them was lodged complaint in EU Commission under reference number CHAP(2015)01014. Do not write anything rash in the wiki like "practiced" because it will soon become "tried".Enchev EG (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree we're speculating on his motives a bit - although this is what is being reported.Mattojgb (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, it's the media spin on it. The report concludes, "several altitude selections towards 100 ft were recorded during descent on the flight that preceded the accident flight, while the co-pilot was alone in the cockpit." If they were certain about the purpose of these, they would have said. Alakzi (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

UNPRODUCTIVE SUICIDE ATTEMPTS or why the word "PRACTISED" is not the case of Lubitz's earlier actions. Very often people who intend to commit suicide have had many interrupted attempts to do it when "suicidal impulse" is not strong enough to overcome "natural fear" and "resistance of rational thought". For example, people trying to commit suicide with a gun often put the weapon to their head and then they interrupt this action moments before they pull the trigger. Viewed from the side, those unsuccessful suicide attempts are like theatrical act but this is just an illusion because every such attempt has the potential to end tragically. In the case of Lubitz - in the situation in which he intended to carry out his suicide there are several circumstances that limit his freedom of choice to interrupt the suicidal attempt - such as "returning of the Captain" or "what you are doing in the cabin?!". These circumstances can force his unproductive suicide attempts to became productive one in any moment and he knows that after them he will have no choice to turn back. For this reason it is "normal" he to do first timid attempts - which were unsuccessful in the first flight "Duesseldorf to Barcelona" because time is not limited. On his return back "Barcelona to Duesseldorf" the end destination is forcing him. As I said he has not "PRACTISED" but was "TRYING" to commit suicide or in other words - he had unproductive suicide attempt. This information speaks only that the decision of Lubitz to commit suicide is not impulsive one, but pre-planned - i.e. - that he even before the flights (Duesseldorf-Barcelona and Barcelona-Duesseldorf) has decided that he will not return to Duesseldorf alive. To tell that this unproductive suicide attempt in the flight "Duesseldorf to Barcelona" is something like "general rehearsal" for Lubitz - is so absurd that I just do not understand how anyone would say that. There is no more simple thing to break this plane for one pilot, and he is realy don't need from "testing" his actions in advance.Enchev EG (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Did he lock the door first time round? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
May be not. As I said, he was afraid that is not yet ready for do it, and locking the door would put him in an awkward situation if the captain is back and tried to enter. So first he is rotating knob on the autopilot to start descent and when plane is gettin noticeable reaction for him he put knob for increase altitude trying to compensate this "descent". "Now (knob to 100 ft) - no, no, I can't do it(knob to 49000ft, next to normal flight altitude)!". http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/82793000/png/_82793411_german_wings_altitude_624_v2.png Every suicide goes through this phase of uncertainty. After last actions to commit suicide, when suicide person taken a final decision - comes next phase "Mental Stupor" whose characteristics resemble the deep depression. He became just passenger of his destiny and do not try to do nothing to stop what comes. Probably in this phase he locked the door, next flight (when everything has already been decided). I also do not understand why everyone is wondering how he breathe "calmly". This is typical behavior of a man who has surrendered. Such "mental stupor" and "piece" you can see it on people's faces when ISIS execute them. It is an extreme form of reconciliation before death. Enchev EG (talk) 11:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I apologise for my rhetorical question. I think maybe we are straying way beyond the available evidence here? A WP:RS, quoting some kind of "expert", discussing such things, might be approriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes we talk beyond the available evidence, but they(media) do it too. For example, some of them talk about Lubitz's "attempt" to save plane seconds before crash with manual controls. YES, MAY BE IT TRYING IT - but this was simple "fear" reaction before death, nothing more and it should not be called a "rescue attempt" giving hints of remorse and heroism of his suicide act. I am shocked how far the media can go for cheap sensation.Enchev EG (talk) 11:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
By the way do you know why they call it "PRACTISED" not "ATTEMPT FOR SUICIDE"? Because "attempt for suicide" will bring to Lufthansa numerous lawsuits from passengers who were on the flight "Duesseldorf to Barcelona". Enchev EG (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Preliminary report

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

On 11 June, 2015 ...

It's funny, but pretty much every single time new information is added to this article, the editor, no matter who it is, tends to add it as follows: "On 11 June, 2015, [something happened]." (The appropriate date is always used of course.) Can you imagine how the entire article would read if each of these were allowed to stand? Every other sentence would begin with "On 10 June, 2015 ..." "On 11 June, 2015 ..." Certainly every paragraph would. Let's stop doing this. I believe one reason this is happening is because editors tend to consider the new information as an exciting new development; an entity all to itself, and not as part of the entire article, and they overestimate the importance of the date. The other reason may be the editor isn't imagining how this article will read next year or five years from now; as by then these dates (which are of course quite close together) will no longer be so important. Now, the relative date may be important, in other words, how much time has elapsed between the tragedy and the new development. For that reason, I usually change these "On 11 June, 2015 ..." phrases to something more like "The following week" or "Three months later ...". I welcome others thoughts and opinions on this. One of these "On 11 June, 2015 ..." facts were just added to the article again; would someone else like to fix it? Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Fully agree. No article should read like the courtroom evidence of PC Plod. A mixture of styles and sentence structures is always welcomed. As events fade, days should give way to months, or even years. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
My take on that is that some folks are good at copy editing, some aren't. Some are good at finding and evaluating sources, some aren't. Put the two types together, and you end up with good content. I'm good at copy editing, and I appreciate others who do most of the "legwork". ―Mandruss ☎ 21:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
That is a brilliant statement. Fully agree. You could boil the jobs to create a good article down to those two expert editors. Fortunately, this article has a lot of volunteer editors who want it to succeed, so there are multiple of us here of each type to achieve both. Prhartcom (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

LAM Mozambique Airlines Flight 470 - Inspiration?

Surprisingly, I have found huge analogy to the events on the flight LAM Mozambique Airlines Flight 470 in Mozambique. 27 passengers on the board have died after the captain have locked co-pilot away from cockpit (after he left to toilet) and manually set the autopilot to descend to 180 ft. Co-pilot tried to get in, banging on the door. Plane crashed eventually, killing everybody. Reo + 17:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

So far it was only my intuition and original research of course, so I have googled to find out, if I was the only one noting. No, there is plenty full of sources noting the similarity: list by Google Reo + 17:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Deliberate vs. controlled

Could somebody explain why we're contrasting deliberate with the unhelpful "controlled" flight into terrain? CFIT is aviation jargon for unintentionally flying a serviceable aircraft into the ground; quite obviously, a deliberate crash is also "controlled". Alakzi (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

As long as CFIT is never mentioned in the article, maybe we don't need to remind people that CFIT means "an accident in which an airworthy aircraft, under pilot control, is unintentionally flown into the ground." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
We're supposed to avoid jargon in general, although this rule is violated a lot in aviation articles because they're edited by aviation buffs. The problem is so widespread it's a lost cause. But I don't think we need to contrast deliberate to the jargon "controlled" (and we still do, in footnote [f]). ―Mandruss ☎ 16:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Seems to me the problem arises from the similarity between "deliberate flight into terrain" and CFIT. Are we married to that phrase? What would be wrong with "intentional crash" or something? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleting the footnote looks like the way to go. For a minute there I thought it looked like encyclopedic, helpful information after I saw someone add it, but there aren't any reliable sources that mention CFIT in relation to this subject. Prhartcom (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Germanwings Flight 9525/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 07:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


Glad to review this. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer to review, Zwerg Nase. This was a group effort by many editors including myself who were all devoted to accuracy and the Wikipedia policies. I will be happy to facilitate your review. Prhartcom (talk) 10:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

A very good article about one of the many horrible news items this year. Just a few things to take care of.

Zwerg Nase; Good eyes. I'm excited about resolving these; thank-you for spotting them. As well, I will ensure that similar errors are not also being made. Prhartcom (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Infobox: I don't really think that there is a need to point out (all) when there is also the information that there were 0 survivors.
When you pointed this out, I rushed to check other Wikipedia articles of pilot-induced crashes (the specific incidents are listed in the "See also" section). I saw that other articles format it the way this article does. EgyptAir Flight 990, LAM Mozambique Airlines Flight 470, Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, and SilkAir Flight 185 all format something similar to:
Fatalities 100 (all)
Survivors 0
Even Federal Express Flight 705 did:
Injuries (non-fatal) 4 (all)
Fatalities 0 (all)
Survivors 4
And there are other articles in the See also. However, one article, Royal Air Maroc Flight 630, did it this way:
Fatalities 44
Survivors 0
You and I should now answer the following question: is Royal Air (the one immediately above) doing it right and are the other six or so including this article doing it wrong? Or is the Royal Air one doing it wrong and are the others and this article doing it right? Note: I am not above fixing any of the other articles for consistency, a concept that is important to me. I thought about it and I vote for the latter: I believe it is important that the infobox reflect the sources: give the number of fatalities and state that this is all of the lives on board, in the way the other articles do. The zero in the survivors row is not applicable to the matter. I'll add "(all)" after the "44" to the Royal Air article. I am interested in your thoughts? Prhartcom (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Investigation: Why is the French bureau name in French but the German one in English?
  • (talk page stalker) I think this is because the article title of the French bureau is in French but the article title of the German bureau is in English. sst✈ 13:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
A plausible answer, but I still believe it should be consistent in the article here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Zwerg Nase, you are correct; it should be consistent. This has been corrected; the bureau name is now stated in English. Prhartcom (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Investigation of Lubitz: but unfortunately "medical secrecy requirements" prevented this information from being made available to his employer Germanwings. - two things here: 1) the term unfortunately should either be removed (because not neutral) or quoted which leads me to 2) the quotation given is not in the provided source.
You are right about the unfortunate use of the word "unfortunately"; this has been removed. Prhartcom (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I researched this edit and discovered I had inadvertently replaced the original source of the "medical secrecy" quote; this has been restored. Prhartcom (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't believe that Rappler qualifies as a reliable source.
This bad source has been removed and multiple reliable sources remain to cite this portion of the article. Prhartcom (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

That's it from me. Good work so far! Seven days on hold. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Please note
As of my timestamp I'm working on a requested Guild of Copy Editors copy-edit to this article. If I haven't finished there by mid-day 11th October UTC, please consider the c/e  Partly done. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Requested GOCE copy-edit  Done. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again, Baffle gab1978, it was an honor! Prhartcom (talk) 05:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase, I have completed replying to these suggestions. As stated above, we are fortunate indeed that a member of the Guild of Copy Editors has made significant progress copy editing this article and should finish soon. Thanks again for your review! Let me know what you think of my responses. Prhartcom (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase:, are you available to continue the review? I have addressed each point you raised. Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: I just arrived back from Korea last night, so I was unable to react over the last couple of days, so please excuse the delay. I have checked on other GAs about plane crashed and there does not seem to be any consistency on the matter of including the (all)... I would prefer it to be removed but I will not push on this point since it is no reason to fail the article. I am glad to pass it now! :) Congrats! Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your review, Zwerg Nase! The work of many editors went into this article; I believe it is looking good now; all should be proud. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Use of "accident" in lead

I (and it would appear at least one IP) object to the use of the word "accident" in the lead. Accident applies it wasn't a deliberate act which this clearly was. Now I know "accident" and "incident" have specific meaning in aviation circles and this event meets that definition of an "accident" but articles on wikipedia are for a general audience and calling it an accident is likely to cause confusion amongst this group. As such I don't believe we should be using it, especially in the lead. If calling it an "incident" would be confusing to those in the aviation community then we should find a word suitable to both. As a compromise for now I've changed it to "aviation accident" and linked to that article so hopefully general readers we realise it's a term with a specific meaning that may be different to the everyday meaning. However ideally I'd like to see it removed entirely from the lead. I'd be happy with it's use in the body where it could be explained properly but don't think that's appropriate in the lead. What are other people's thoughts. Dpmuk (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we could put a footnote into the article, positioned immediately after the first use of the term here? However, the wikitext conventions for doing that escape me at the moment. -- The Anome (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I have no objection to the expression "aviation accident". Dolphin (t) 02:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Incident is probably better than accident for most readers. Yny501 (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
If users have a personal preference for one word rather than another they should state their preference. But please don't try the old confidence trick of pretending to speak on behalf of "most readers" or some other equally expansive expression. The truth is that none of us can accurately gauge the preferences of some or all of the millions of people who read Wikipedia.
Where there is a choice of words, the final choice must be based on reliable, published sources; and rational argument about what will best serve the stated objective of the encyclopedia. Dolphin (t) 10:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I can live with the term "aviation accident"(i.s.o. "accident"), i can't live with the term "incident" which would indicate that "nothing severe" happened to the plane..... Regards Saschaporsche (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Dolphin51 - You make a reasonable point. Here's a article which seemingly makes it pretty clear they don't consider it an accident. I'm trying to prove a negative in showing that it's not referred to as an accident but I could only find one BBC article that referred to it as an accident ([1]) and from the language used there they don't yet seem completely convinced it wasn't an accident. All the other more recent articles I've found (e.g. [2], [3], [4]) refer to it as a crash. I did wonder whether it may be BBC style but they use accident in other articles (e.g. [5], [6]). They also use accident for an event which, to me at least, does not appear to meet the aviation accident definition ([7]).
This strongly suggests to me that the BBC doesn't consider this an accident and so using that term is likely to confuse people. I also agree that incident could be confusing if people are aware of aviation terminology. Hence why I suggest we find a third word that both groups find acceptable for the lead and then explain it's a aviation accident and go into more detail in the body. Dpmuk (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It wasn't an accident. I've replaced the word with "crash", which at least is accurate. --John (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree, it wasn't an accident, it was an intentional act and the article needs to continue to reflect that as it does right now. - Ahunt (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't an incident. Dolphin (t) 20:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


The Oxford English Dictionary defines Accident among other things as (I tried to find the most appropriate entry to plane crashes).
a. In generalized use: an unfortunate and typically unforeseen event, a disaster, a mishap; (also) unfortunate eventuality. (In early use not always distinguishable from sense 5a.)

b. A person injured as the result of a mishap.

c. An unfortunate and unforeseen event involving damage or injury; spec. a collision or similar incident in which at least one of the parties involved is a vehicle.industrial, mining accident; automobile, motor, railway, road accident, etc.: see the first element.

Nowhere here does it suggest that the root cause of the "accident" could not be deliberate on someone's part. just found this interesting and wondering if we are reading too much into what we think Accident means. Is something that happens because of a mental illness deliberate anyway. Andrewgprout (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

As the editor who brought this article to GA: I agree that this was no accident and the word should be changed to a whatever term the community agrees is more accurate. Sources support the word crash. Prhartcom (talk) 12:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
No problem with using the word "crash" as long as we don't call it an incident..... Saschaporsche (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Archive of documents

Final reports:

Summaries:

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this. I looked through it then read the reliable sources reporting on its release (e.g. [8]). We may need to add it to the article, but at least the article is already fairly consistent with the information in the final report. Prhartcom (talk) 07:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Families of victims sue US flight school

I don't know if this is worth adding to the article. 80.2.106.75 (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, although experts say it has no chance of success. This is probably the first and last we'll hear of it. Prhartcom (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
It is only worth adding to the article if it goes to court and if there is a judgment one way or the other actually decided. Until then it is really just "noise" around the subject. - Ahunt (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
This, and the question of compensation, has been discussed several times in German media. In a nutshell some families of German victims feel that they are getting a worse deal because of the legal situation in Germany. The flight school is obviously used a link to the US, that the families want to use to receiver higher compensations under US law (either through the suit, or through a settlement with Lufthansa). The airline's take is that while the "compensation" is less than elsewhere, they will also provide compensation for lost income and other financial aids on top of that. The situation is a bit complex, with both sides having reached out to the public to support their points.Averell (talk) 09:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I think that discussion of lawsuits is appropriate in an article about an aviation crash with fatalities, even before it is actually settled (most cases take a couple of years). There are plenty of Google search results for "Germanwings lawsuit" for the lawsuit against the aviation school. AHeneen (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Tend to agree. The unusual circumstances of the crash have put it very firmly in the international spotlight. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
If more reliable sources appear and then this gets added, it should certainly go in Aftermath and probably in a new subsection coming after Commemorative, just to stick to the time line. Prhartcom (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
One sentence could be added now to Compensation; the lawsuit seeks compensation. There is already some time overlap between those subsections, and readers have no expectation of chronological sequence when information is organized into categories like that. If it's thrown out of court or something, the sentence can always be removed as not significant. At this point, it's "potentially significant", and that seems enough for one sentence. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Splitting Andreas Lubitz

Sources such as this and this has since given his life extensive coverage, the unique nature of this crime and three AfDs first closed as keep, second procedural closed and third AfD not given a full discussion, I'd like to give this another chance. The full protection seems unnecessary. Also to note he has received extending coverage over a period of time with recent sources such as [9], [10] and [11]. Valoem talk contrib 00:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Valoem, it's exciting to hear that you would be willing to create the new Andreas Lubitz article, providing, as you said, more reliable sources than first thought to exist; enough notability to support a separate article. I agree that the full protection on the creation of that article title is no longer necessary. Months ago I had to ask an administrator to remove some other similar protection on this article, because the article was once very contentious, as you may have guessed, but now has calmed down. As that request was immediately honored, I think yours will be also. Give it your best shot! Best, —Prhartcom♥ 01:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I thought the full protection was unreasonable to begin with as there was never any disruption. Valoem talk contrib 01:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment does anyone have any issues if I restore this version and we can work on it as collaborative effort? This case is so unique I believe he is the only confirmed person in commercial aviation history to commit suicide in this horrific manner. Valoem talk contrib 01:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Valoem, I'm just one editor's opinion; and it doesn't have anything to do with what "you believe"; it's all about the reliable sources. You're going against consensus found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreas Lubitz (3rd nomination). It would only work out for you if you provide more than adequate reliable sources proving that the situation is different now than it was one year ago. Good luck, —Prhartcom♥ 01:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
That AfD was closed in 4 days the prior AfDs were in favor of keep. The issue is I can't start working on it until I at least know it can go to AfD as an opinion. I would actually prefer a 4th AfD to determine stand alone. Valoem talk contrib 01:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I agree a 4th AfD is needed. Now that it is a year later, it may easily pass. Best, —Prhartcom♥ 03:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Opposing a split. Andreas_Lubitz should be covered at Germanwings_Flight_9525#Andreas_Lubitz. Currently, that section is very brief. I think it needs a brief re-introduction, because readers interested in this person will likely go straight to that section. As it reads, it is unclear that you are reading about the main protagonist. User:YSSYguy thinks my first attempt was clumsy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Lubitz is only notable in relation to this event. The article would be a content fork, and per WP:CRIMINAL, "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." Smurrayinchester 11:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:CRIMINAL states:

    The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role

The subject has received last coverage over an extended period of time, his actions have also influenced aviation legality so there is a lasting impact, therefore WP:BLP1E should not apply. Valoem talk contrib 19:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • He is dead. BLP doesn't apply. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Expand section now, consider splitting later The life and issues facing Lubitz are very relevant to understanding the subject of this article and I don't think it serves the interest of readers to have separate articles. Currently, this article is only at 17kB "readable prose size". I think that the section about Lubitz could be expanded 3-4x and comprise nearly half of this article before it is worth considering a separate article. See WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Just because it can be a separate article (per WP:CRIMINAL quoted above) doesn't mean that it should be a separate article. AHeneen (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I definitely agree. The coverage of the human cause to this crash is very brief. Where the Lubitz story becomes broad, coverage might be suitable at Murder–suicide. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose He has no notability other than as an insane person who crashed a plane into a mountain. The appropriate place to discuss Lubitz is in the article about the plane crash that he caused. Jsc1973 (talk) 08:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I went ahead an expanded the section per this discussion. Valoem talk contrib 16:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Valoem, you could expand it by a few sentences, but you have added the entire former Lubitz article to this article, giving that subject undue weight in this article about the flight. I have removed your expansion. —Prhartcom♥ 23:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
If that is the case then we are going to need to split the article. The whole point is that they are saying go ahead and expand to avoid the split. So this discussion does indeed suggest my expansions are fine. Valoem talk contrib 23:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
With due respect, we must allow consensus to decide that. And until then, I can't allow you to make such a large change to this good article that the continuity has built to this point, especially since I was part of the creation of this article nearly every step of the way. Check the article talk archives; the size of the Lubitz section has been previously discussed.
Please create a new RfC that asks specifically if you can splice in an entire biography article, complete with infobox, one previously deleted by consensus, into an already existing good article about the doomed flight, without getting off topic and giving this particular topic undue weight. Or instead, simply expand the Lubitz section with several new sentences that you wrote yourself based on new sources you found. Remember, Valoem, you started this discussion by bringing us two links that you said were new sources. I was hoping it may slightly improve the article. If you want to add the new sources to the existing Lubitz section, yes, please do that, anyone would be welcome to. Best, —Prhartcom♥ 01:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Prhartcom's strong objection was unexpected, at least by me from the DRV perspective. Strong local objection may need to be mentioned at DRV. However, I think an RfC is the better way to go. The question is where the coverage of lubitz should go. I agree that the current level of coverage is too little. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Prhart @SmokeyJoe:, @Jsc1973:, @Smurrayinchester:. I am personally against massive expansions to a GA, highlighting the necessity for a split. If this RfC was opened I would oppose additions to undue mention of Lubitz well documented history. Lubitz has received enough coverage and per WP:CRIMINAL does warrant a split. The information I added is only a small part of what can be added. And there is an RfC opened, this one. Might I mention he is the only person in history confirmed to have committed suicide by crashing a commercial jet. This is certainly notable for a stand alone article. Any personally disdain for documenting such a criminal does not override our GNG policy. Valoem talk contrib 02:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I support significant expansion of this article by including better coverage of the protagonist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I think you mean antagonist right? Valoem talk contrib 05:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes. I don't mean to trivialise anything here, I went away worrying about that. I meant to emphasise that the story of this crash is not complete without the story of Lubitz. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
100% agree, though this article has reached GA status. Valoem talk contrib 15:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

While I don't think all of the added content in dispute should have been added, I also think that some of the comments above are inappropriate. Just because this article has reached GA status does not mean that the article can't be expanded with relevant information. The GA criteria only require that the article is broad in coverage: "The 'broad in its coverage' criterion is significantly weaker than the 'comprehensiveness' required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." It also requires that the article "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." The links to Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:Summary style in that criterion indicate that it's about "summariz[ing] and distribut[ing] information across related articles in a way that can serve readers who want varying amounts of details, thus giving readers the ability to zoom to the level of details they need and not exhausting those who need a primer on a whole topic...What constitutes 'too long' is largely based on the topic, but generally 30 kilobytes of readable prose is the starting point at which articles may be considered too long" (from Wikipedia:Summary style#Rationale). As I noted in my vote above, this article is currently 17kB "readable prose size", so it can be expanded greatly before a split off of an article about Lubitz should be considered. Pretty much the only reason people will be interested about him is in relation to this crash.

Before going further, splicing the former Lubitz article into this article was not the best way to expand content about Lubitz in this article. I think that adding some information about his career that may be relevant to understanding his mental health is appropriate. Because Lubitz and his mental health is an element to the subject of this article, it would be appropriate for meeting the "comprehensiveness" requirement for FA and is not "undue weight" just because it would comprise a large part of this article. However, I realize that part of the objection was because the "spliced" content was not entirely relevant.

That said, in my view, the comments above about preventing the addition of content because the article has reached GA status is not entirely appropriate. I don't see a clear consensus in the archives (namely #5) against adding content about Lubitz to this article. See Wikipedia:Ownership of content#Ownership and stewardship. The addition by User:Valoem did not create undue weight (there was a consensus above to add content about Lubitz), but the bad structure of the added content ruined the quality of the article, which falls within the "stewardship" part of Ownership policy. AHeneen (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

AHeneen there is a lot of information out there regarding his life, do we really think it is more beneficial to merge the content over a split? Split is by all means cleaner. Valoem talk contrib 22:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Possibly, a more extensive coverage of Lubitz belongs after after "Investigation" (subsections "Cause of Crash" & "Investigation of Lubitz") and before "Aftermath". At that point, the narrative flow is focused on Lubitz. Heavy coverage in the crew section seemed awkward. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I readded the information per discussion. Valoem talk contrib 16:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Gentlemen, this is not an article about Lubitz. We are not adding thousands of characters from the formerly deleted-by-consensus Lubitz article to this article, giving it undue weight. Provided there are new sources, one or two original new sentences that you write yourself may be added citing the new sources. —Prhartcom♥ 16:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus to have an expanded version here, if you do not want this covered then split it. That is on you now though I will support that idea and help you if you desire, otherwise this section is fine. Valoem talk contrib 18:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

All of us agree that it would be a positive step for anyone to improve this article's comprehensiveness. Even though the article is finally stable, we all would appreciate any editor's scholarly expansion on the topic of Germanwings Flight 9525. Such an expansion should of course be: a) newly researched facts from newly published reliable, secondary sources, and b) newly-written, original, copy-edited prose. I would be interested to see these new sources ("new sources" meaning secondary sources that are new to the article, not already cited in it, published recently, and shining new light on the existing topics of the article, therefore meriting such an expansion). Does the editor who wishes to expand this article have these new sources and can they provide them below? —Prhartcom♥ 23:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Small change

As an airline pilot I'm a little annoyed by the phrase ' he locked out the pilot' by itsself that is a true fact however it would be more correct and would also instantly explain who he locked out if the word pilot would be changes to captain, yes he locked out the pilot, but he himself was also the pilot. Or anyone else in that flight could have been a pilot, even in daily life it's annoying how people refer to the captain as the pilot and the copilot as such, both are Pilots with the same licences and therefore talking about the captain and first officer / copilot makes much more sense,

Regards Jemdy (talk) 14:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 Done - Ahunt (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

murder

The 9/11 attacks have been categorised under "Mass murder in 2001", but this article has not been similarly categorised. Why the discrepancy? --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 09:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Because there remains no solid evidence that this was a murder. Murder is an intentional act and this may just have well been an intended suicide with other people killed incidentally. Keep in mind that severe depression seriously clouds people's thinking and makes them very self-centered to the point of not even considering anyone else. Murder requires intent and we still don't know the intent here. We still have no reliable refs that have resolved this issue and probably will never have, now. The 911 attacks were attacks, intended to kill people, this may not have been. - Ahunt (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Concur with above. The term connotes a specific mens rea. Because the co-pilot did not expressly state his motive on the cockpit flight recording, nor leave behind any express statement (e.g., a note) or other evidence of specific intent, it would be speculative and probably original research in violation of WP:NOR to use that term. --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Andreas Lubitz father questioned the veracity of crash investigation

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/24/father-pilot-crashed-jet-killing-150-disputes-inquiry This should be mentioned. Thank you, Francesco Talarico — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.21.234.167 (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

EDIT - Sorry, this fact is already mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.21.234.167 (talk) 10:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

deliberately?

Hi!
We say in the 2nd paragraph of the article “deliberately caused”...
and: some news papers claim, that L. was diagnosed with a psychosis (that his M.D.s wanted to treat in a hospital with L. as an in-patient) shortly before he crashed...[12]
but: M-W says: “to think about or discuss issues and decisions carefully”.
I think, there is a severe contradiction, that cannot remain unchecked... Thx. Bye. --Homer Landskirty (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Most native speakers would understand "intentional", as the meaning, As given here'. My paper Collins 'easy learning' German-English dictionary, gives only 'absichtlich', under the English headword 'deliberately'. Language is a funny thing. William Avery (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
@Homer Landskirty: what you quoted is the meaning of the verb 'to deliberate'. If you scroll the M-W page further down, it shows the meaning of the adjective form: 'done or said in a way that is planned or intended : done or said on purpose', which is what the term in this article refers to. --Deeday-UK (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
1. i do not agree... here on my screen it says: “characterized by or resulting from careful and thorough consideration” (rather much the same as the meaning of the verb... i do not think that it is strabismus or F20...)... it is strenuously recommended, not to lie about the capabilities of a psychotic patient, who gets wrong treatment due to legal reasons... btw: the official reports r said to b insufficient, since the psychology-expertise of their authors and investigation/investigators is negligible... 2. i m not familiar with the english/french versions of the official reports... do they really say that L. acted “deliberately” with “consideration”...? and “thoroughly”...? and “carefully”...? and “thoughtfully”...? huh? --Homer Landskirty (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Please consult a variety of sources to help your understanding of 'deliberately, rather than fixating on Merriam-Webster. "Deliberately"/"deliberate" is the commonly found translation of the investigators' language. See for instance the headlines on the following examples:
William Avery (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
mmhmm... philosophy/psychology mid-age... do u have a psychologist/psychiatrist who talks like those journalists? i doubt that anybody has... nowadays... maybe 500+ years ago... let's c... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Look at the top of page 8 of the official report in English translation. "Deliberate flight into terrain". translating the French "Collision intentionnelle avec le sol". The German version has "Kontrollierter Sinkflug mit Autopilot, Kollision mit Gelände", though. William Avery (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Inauguration_crowd_size_comparison_between_Trump_2017_and_Obama_2009.jpg Just a quick note about non-free image use. Non-free files may only be used (i.e., displayed/activated) in the article namespace per WP:NFCC#9. If you want to discuss a particular non-free image on a talk page, etc., please link to the file instead.-- Marchjuly (talk) 02:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

“deliberate” & “intentionnelle” sounds both not like a psychologist wrote it (AFAIK they also cite all the notes of his M.D.s regarding his florid severe mental illnesses at the time of the crash later in that report...)... but the article seems to cite that questionable report quite accurately... so the question remains, if WP wants to use knowingly and deliberately the extremely out-dated pharaselogy of those authors... i think, we should withdraw to a more secure POV... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
We have to go with what the refs say and there are plenty of refs that say "deliberately flown". It is not up to us here to try to over-rule reliable sources. - Ahunt (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
we also have plenty of refs, that say, that L.'s alleged illness can cause unability to act deliberately, which proves that the official report provides “alternative facts”... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I would love to see a ref that says "unability". - Ahunt (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
there: “unability”... :) now u upgrade the article... right? --Homer Landskirty (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
You missed the word "obsolete". We don't use obsolete language at Wikipedia.
In deliberate (adjective form, which is the only thing that matters here), you missed "characterized by awareness of the consequences" and that the list of synonyms include "voluntary" and "intentional". I perceive a tendency to miss things that don't support whatever argument you wish to make, a bad habit on Wikipedia talk pages. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I was also asking for a ref that says "unability", meaning a ref for this article, about this story, not a dictionary definition for an obsolete word that is no longer in use, forsooth. You really haven't made any sort of case here. - Ahunt (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
1. “awareness” is not a word, I would use, if i had to describe a psychotic person's mental processes, because I had to laugh too hard... it s the same with “intentional”/“deliberately”... i wonder how all those psychiatric experts (who wrote that report, that WP uses so much) could do that... oh wait! there were none... 2. so WP does not tolerate obsolete language, but WP propagates demonstrably wrong theories...? I don't think that's wise... bye. --Homer Landskirty (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources. If the reliable sources disagree then we note that in the article. Above have been cited several reliable sources that state that this crash was a deliberate act. If you can cite some sources that disagree with that assertion then we can add that and indicate that disagreement amongst sources. Do you have any? - Ahunt (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I interpreted "bye" as exiting the discussion, and I'm more than happy to leave it there. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
User:Mandruss:, sorry, I missed that. - Ahunt (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Germanwings Flight 9525. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Andreas Lubitz seperate page

Thoughts on creating a separate page for Andreas Lubitz? DeAllenWeten (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Already been there: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreas Lubitz and the Talk:Andreas Lubitz after that. - Ahunt (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Two Pilots (and co-pilot) reference

Two pilots or one pilot (Captain) and a First Officer. The use of the term co-pilot seems amateurish other than in summary use. Co-pilot is a rather outdated concept especially in a article like this. A First Officer - a pilot still under training/supervision really should not be loosely mixed. The fact that he had not the status of Captain in charge was very due to his medical problems, and likely he would never have made the grade. I think it better that role of Captain and First Officer be stuck to in this kind of incident. Some people never "make the grade", this guy was surely one of them. To suggest the two roles as almost equal is ROTTEN. (Hope I'm making my point here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.87.97 (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

In civil aviation use, "co-pilot" and "first officer" are synonymous terms. In this case he was not under training, he was a trained first officer, and was gaining experience for a possible promotion to captain. - Ahunt (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Murder in German law

In Germany, and indeed in France, murder is a criminal offence. I'm not sure that either penal code, however, allows for a retrospective prosecution if the suspect is dead. Perhaps someone more expert in these matters could advise? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

An editor is saying that it's not known if it was murder because in his state of mind maybe he could not know if other people would be killed. How could that be if he planned the crash (he made a rehearsal in a previous flight) and the other pilot was slamming the door of the cockpit? Was he also deaf? Odemirense (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I removed it because we have no references that say that this was intended as a murder. All we have is guesses and supposition. "Murder" requires intent and there has been no evidence presented yet that he intended to kill anyone other than himself. There is lots of evidence that he was very depressed and probably suicidal, but for editors here to add that this was intended as "murder" requires that we have reliable references that say that. It is quite possible that he was so depressed that he wasn't thinking about the other people on the aircraft, just about himself. Depressed people can become very self-centered. As per WP:BLP (which applies to recent deaths too), we need to not draw our own conclusions here and instead wait until the official inquiry is completed and see what it has to say on this subject. - Ahunt (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
See also some previous discussions on this exact same topic:
in every previous discussion we have a consensus to not call this murder-suicide until an official source does so. - Ahunt (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
In that case it's manslaughter. Odemirense (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
That is just your conclusion, you don't have a ref for that and no source has concluded that. Please read WP:OR. - Ahunt (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, I've undone that unreferenced, OR addition and advise it not be re-inserted unless Odemirense wishes to be blocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, ok, it's not that relevant. Anyway I guess that most people that read this are more or less informed of what happened.Odemirense (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
While I agree completely with the removal, I don't think it can really be considered a BLP issue for the co-pilot anymore (or 6 months ago) since per WP:BDP "indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside." But it's still important we get it right. Nil Einne (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
1. dead persons cannot be accused in any trial according to german law... 2. it seems like, the people who wrote the article do not know, what a psychosis is... it is well possible, that the patient thought, he would jump into a pool, after he turned on the fridge very high, so that his beer will be very cold, when he returns to his soft warm seat... furthermore he might have been under the impression, that he has to push that "do not disturb" button again and again, so that he can relax nearby the swimming pool... or so... u c now what a psychosis can be? ever called the embassy of a foreign country in ur home-city and told them "the" passphrase, so that they pick u up real quick for ur debriefing, before the germans give u the final treatment in one of their nerve healing centres? huh? no? maybe somebody else here did? maybe? 3. previous section... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually as we told you last time you were here /Archive 6#deliberately?, and you've now been told elsewhere Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#psychology / psychosis and intent? what we need are WP:reliable sources. We don't have to understand psychosis because understanding it is largely irrelevant to writing this article. Modifying this article based on your personal understanding of psychosis, and what it means for the pilot is an example of WP:OR and something we're forbidden to do. Until and unless you can find reliable sources which specifically talk about the pilot and whether his psychosis means it was not a deliberate act then it's not something we have to worry about as writers of this article. Nil Einne (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
1. where is the _reliable_ source for "suicide"? 2. when the official investigation seems to be fishy, one could withdraw to a NPOV by citing the source with quotes... 3. furthermore the citation should be more complete... we do not say anything about a psychotic disorder in the paragraph, where we say, that he acted "deliberately"... 4. as i told u b4: it is not right to spread governmental lies... asfaik WP even helps to spread leaked information (like that footage from that helo that killed a BBC reporter...)... 5. i ll be back later... i hope somewhen WP changes the article... bye! --Homer Landskirty (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Who claims that "the official investigation seems to be fishy", and why? Thanks. bye! Martinevans123 (talk) 10:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
1. i doubt that u r willing to understand... 2. but: the report and WP themselves r fishy, because: "intentionnelle" excludes "psychotic" per definitionem... 3. that was the last attempt to help u... :) bye!bye! --Homer Landskirty (talk) 11:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
bye!bye! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Call sign nomenclature

In the interest of keeping these types of articles attune with each other I'm seeking a consensus on how the call sign should appear in all articles. By far, most articles are formatted as Asiana Airlines Flight 991 is, "Call sign = ASIANA 991". Simple and easy.

However, Germanwings Flight 9525 has a letter at the end of the call sign. On page 12 of the official report (reference #108) the description states with the callsign GWI18G". Further in the report, on page 25, one of the pilots radio communication is quoted as "Germanwings one eight Golf". I have failed to find any guide on this at Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence.

Call signs with letters at the end are rare. One example is National Airlines Flight 102, another is Manx2 Flight 7100 and of course this article.

Because the vast majority of call signs are in all caps I'd like to suggest the GERMANWINGS ONE EIGHT GOLF format, but that's just me. I don't care which format we use as long as one is agreed upon. - Samf4u (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

It is not that unusual for the actual callsign used to be different to the "flight number", a quick look at callsigns around me at the moment shows most EasyJets (example EZY41KT) and Ryanair, British Airways, Lufthansa, Austrian, Cityflyer using alpha numeric callsign that are not the same as the flight number. It is to avoid callsign confusion with the use of similar number. So if it is reliable referenced I dont see a problem but agree that it should be spelled out as your example. MilborneOne (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


Samf4u i dont see a problem with your suggested format, but on most articles the numbers after the telephony are usually not spelled out so i don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.Man21flex (talk • contribs) 17:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
MOS:CAPS applies here. It is my view that there is no good reason to capitalise GERMANWINGS and is absolutely against the spirit of the MOS and makes it significantly harder to read. There is also no good reason to spell out GOLF when you are meaning G it is probably appropriate that the G is uppercase.Andrewgprout (talk) 04:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I kind of agree with Andrew on the caps but the problem is every article has the IATA, ICAO and Call sign in caps except for British Airways Flight 38 and Pulkovo Aviation Enterprise Flight 612. For the sake of uniformity we are stuck with all caps unless someone is willing to change a heck of a lot of articles.
If we could all choose a format of one of the following and vote, the majority rules.
  • GWI18G - which doesn't match any other article
  • GERMANWINGS ONE EIGHT GOLF - would require changes to many articles
  • GERMANWINGS 18G - would require changes to very few articles
  • GERMANWINGS 18 GOLF - would require changes to very few articles
  • Germanwings ### - would require changes to many articles
Feel free to add to this list.
My vote is for the GERMANWINGS 18 GOLF format. - Samf4u (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Agree callsign should be GERMANWINGS 18 GOLF, SPEEDBIRD 9 BRAVO, or AMERICAN 123 format. MilborneOne (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
What a ridiculous non-discussion. Callsign is about what a flight is CALLED (on the radio, that is). There is no capitalisation in spoken language, hence the whole argument is moot. That said, be aware of the difference between flightnumber (Germanwings 9525, which means the item # 9525 from the timetable of the airline Germanwings ) and call-sign, in this case Germanwings 18G. Another factor of confusion is that this kind of data used to be exchanged by teletype, which has no upper/lowercase distinction. But we might as well discuss the gender of angels - totally useless. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
It makes however no sense at all to write "one eight golf" or such - that is only a way of pronouncing 18G. Nowhere in aviation will one see "one eight golf" written out, it will always and everywhere be written as "18G" or "18g". Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
All the reliable sources I have seen always have the callsign in upper case. MilborneOne (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Again, CALLsigns have no case neither lower nor upper - they are CALLED not WRITTEN. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
So why do official orgainisations write them down in upper case rather then distribute them by word of mouth. MilborneOne (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps because it is not incorrect? Perhaps because they've always done so, ever since the days of the teletype? Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree, it is an artifact from the days of teletype. We don't need to continue that here, can go with WP:MOS instead. - Ahunt (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
On a side note ("pour la petite histoire :)"): yes the teletype is a piece of antique. But ADS-B is not, and I recently learned that the text information in ADS-B messages has no capitalisation either... Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Just to note that ADS-B transmit callsigns in the "EZY28JU" or "BAW2761" format rather than the spoken word. MilborneOne (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is now seven days old and I'd like to wrap it up. It seems the consensus is against all caps. If no one objects I'll start changing call signs tomorrow to a - Germanwings 18G - format. The IATA and ICAO will remain in all caps. - Samf4u (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the "subject revival". Myself have, tentavively, deliberately choosing a defunct airline, changed the callsign to "Rubens" on the page of VLM Airlines; and no objections came... Allow me to insist that "18G" should be preferred over "18 GOLF" as currently shown. Jan olieslagers (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I dodnt have an issue with using lower case and 18G in the accident infobox but object strongly that we change it in the airline infobox. This is not the place to agree on changes to an infobox that is not even used here. MilborneOne (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
But there is a relation: a flight's callsign is built from the airline's callsign, with the addition of some kind of indication of this particular flight. If we have a concensus that a flight's callsign need not be all upper-case, there is an implicit consensus that the airline's callsign follows suit. What are your arguments for strongly objecting to the parallel change in the airline's info-box? And btw I would have much preferred discussion BEFORE action. Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
You are right, I was trying for a compromise, if that is being used to global change I will object to any use of the callsign in lower case anywhere. MilborneOne (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for striving for a compromise, really appreciated. But you do leave me genuinely bewildered: what are your arguments for insisting so strongly on upper-case only? I have repeatedly pointed out that, if one sees this here and there, it must be due to limitations of the communications equipment? Surely MOS:CAPS takes precedence?? Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Probably because I have spent a number of years maintaining the code and callsign data in the airline articles, my very first edit in 2006 was to correct a callsign. Having had to hand a fair number of official sources over the years that always use uppercase, perhaps because of were they came from but certainly Eurocontrol, FAA and ICAO still use uppercase. Also remember that some callsigns are not real words or phrases so I would argue that MOS:CAPS doesnt apply. Still not seen any official document with non-upper case callsign and they stopped using teleprinters a long time ago. MilborneOne (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Lufthansa memorial site still active

As an FYI Lufthansa has maintained a memorial website at http://4u9525.lufthansagroup.com/en/index.html . I'm not sure if it would fit in the EL section, but I find it interesting that the site is still active. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

It is an official website, so I would think it bears a link; I will add it. - Ahunt (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Lufthansa also maintained indeepsorrow.com/de (also official) though the site was closed down (it is still visible on the Wayback Machine). WhisperToMe (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Germanwings_Flight_9525/Archive_6&oldid=1136353611"