Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 16:41, 14 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 4 days

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243, along with other pages relating to politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are: Only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, though editors who are not extended-confirmed may post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area on article talk pages. Should disruption occur on article talk pages, administrators may take enforcement actions against disruptive editors and/or apply page protection on article talk pages. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even on article talk pages. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. Remedy instructions and exemptions Enforcement procedures: Violations of any restrictions and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

A news item involving Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 25 December 2024.

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Aviation: Accidents 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 This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. This article is supported by the Aviation accident project. Central Asia: Kazakhstan Low‑importance Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Kazakhstan (assessed as Low-importance). Russia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Azerbaijan Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Disaster management Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Section sizes Section size for Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 (13 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 5,507 5,507 Accident 19,943 22,542 Timeline 2,599 2,599 Background 17 8,763 Aircraft 2,669 2,669 Passengers and crew 6,077 6,077 Aftermath 19,008 40,001 Reactions 20,993 20,993 Investigation 21,655 27,952 Hypotheses 6,297 6,297 See also 226 226 Notes 24 24 References 1,201 1,201 Total 106,216 106,216

RfC: Should we principally refer to this as a "crash" or an "accident"?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Maths, science, and technology Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should we principally refer to Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 as a "crash" or an "accident"? guninvalid (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: The article currently principally refers to it as an "accident", and uses "crash" as a verb or part of a larger noun (e.g. "crash site"). I hope this isn't a bad RfC again guninvalid (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

• Crash: Common sense, reliable sources, WP:NPOV, and WP:AT all demand we call this a crash, not an accident. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
• Use both with no preferrence over either – There is no reason to discard either crash or accident since the event was both an aviation accident and a crash. Both are neutral terms. Per the ICAO, accident does not imply that nobody is at fault. Instead, Annex 13 defines an accident as an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft: in which a person is fatally or seriously injured; in which an aircraft sustains damage or structural failure requiring repairs; after which the aircraft in question is classified as being missing. Other sources that define the word: (Extended content)

Additionally it has also been used in multiple sources in their own voices. Sources include: (Extended content)

Clearly, the word is neutral, as defined by multiple different entities, and has been used by multiple independent reliable sources. WP:AT specifically refers to article titling so the policy bears no weight on the article's content. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

You've reverted myself and other editors who have attempted to use the word crash in the article. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Quit it with the passive aggression dude. Remember to assume good faith. guninvalid (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I am stating a fact. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Regardless of the technical definition, in common use the word "accident" excludes the intentional act of any human being. Under this usage rule, it's still unclear if the crash could be called an accident. Animal lover |666| 02:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Why should any article about an aviation disaster proceed "regardless of the technical definition"? We rely on official technical investigation reports to determine the cause. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Because, without gaining consensus, you removed every single mention of the word accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

You did the same thing when you reverted the edits by Muboshgu. Then I stepped back to meet you in the talk page. And so it goes Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Because again, there was no consensus to do so. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Use both with no preference over either – as per Aviationwikiflight, context and grammar permitting. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC) p.s. this dichotomy seems to sidestep the question of whether it should be described as "a shootdown".

  Admittedly, when I started the RfC I was mostly interested in diverting attention away from the "Accident" vs "Crash" thread because I felt it had long since stopped being useful. I've noticed several editors discussong whether and when to use "shootdown" though so it's not completely lost. guninvalid (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Accident for the entire series of events, including speculated causes, that ended in a crash. CurryCity (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Concur with CurryCity's comment above, as this accident involves an unusually long sequence of events over a large geographical area. Carguychris (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Crash/avoid accident - I may be WP:CRYSTALBALLing here a little, but we're all convinced at this point that this was a case of mistken identity leading to shootdown, right? If that's true, then I think we should try to reflect the language seen at Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 and Korean Air Lines Flight 007 (i.e. a similar incidents), which don't use "accident". It seems to me a little awkward to use the word "accident" in relation to either a friendly-fire or collateral damage type incident. It could be interpreted as meaning there wasn't an intent to destroy. NickCT (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  We have no idea how far this was "mistaken identity" by an automatic machine process, or by unnamed person/persons, or a bit of both. There seems to have been an overarching systemic failure that did not exclude the airliner from flying into that airspace to begin with? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  If it was an automatic process versus a person, would that make it more or less of an "accident"? I'm not sure about the "airspace" question. My understanding is that the plane was heading to Grozny and was shot on its intended route, but I'm not 100% sure on this point. If it was in the wrong airspace, it makes the parallel with Korean Air Lines Flight 007 even better. NickCT (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if that would be more or less. Oh, and the other unknown here are the swarms of Ukrainian drones that were supposedly all flocking around Grozny, by coincidence, at the time? Not sure Mr Putin has presented any actual evidence for those yet? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  For what it's worth; the Times cites "residents and local news media reports" for there being a drone attack on Grozny on the day in question. I think the drone attack was real. NickCT (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  I would support changing the wording to "shootdown" once some sort of formal declaration is made by an investigative body, but until that time, I would prefer to use "accident" per WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCRYSTAL. I think the article does a good job of clarifying that this is most likely a shootdown. In either case, per my previous comment, I think "accident"/"shootdown" should refer to the entire sequence of events, while "crash" should refer to the ground impact and its consequences. Carguychris (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  This could be reasonable. It might be too soon to definitively call it a "shootdown". Maybe until then we should call it simply an "incident"? I guess one possible issue with "accident" is that "accident", in some cases, can imply no blame. NickCT (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Azerbaijan Airlines' no-claims bonus not looking too healthy, is it. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  @NickCT: It might be too soon to definitively call it a "shootdown". Maybe until then we should call it simply an "incident"? No, "incident" has a specific statutory definition in aviation, and this event is clearly more serious than that. Carguychris (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• The problem is that crash and accident are somewhat two different things -- "accident" relates to the cause, and "crash" relates to the result -- it could be any combination of the two... such as an accidental shootdown that led to a crash, or an intentional shootdown that led to the crash. It could be in fact the unlikely birdstrike (as first reported) that led to the crash, and possibly still considered accidental. What role, if any did the drones play? I think "crash" is clearly the just the result, but until the cause is established we should avoid the term "accident" because we still don't know if it was, perhaps, intentional. TiggerJay (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Tend to agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Ok. So agreed that we may not be 100% sure today whether it was intentional or not. But if that's the case, why not use "incident" until we do know? "Accident" could be interpreted to mean there was not intent, and the truth seems to be that we're saying we don't know if there was intent or not. NickCT (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  I suspect that Russian air defence teams were fully intent on shooting down anything that didn't give a friendly IFF response. But yes, that's just my personal speculation. You might describe the situation as "an accident waiting to happen". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah. This does sorta make me wonder about how Russian air defenses look at airline transponders. Commercial airplanes are usually broadcasting their identity and location, right? You'd think air defense systems would take those transponder signals into account. I wonder where the breakdown was in this case. NickCT (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  I would think that there is some sort of system in place. But the failure of such system could be on either end of the equation. There have been plenty of documented cases were the object shot down was essentially in error, so even if it was confirmed an anti-aircraft soft of defense system, there is still the question of responsibility. TiggerJay (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Tiggerjay, @Martinevans123, @NickCT: I think we're getting way ahead of ourselves with this line of discussion, but I'll make one comment based on past shootdown incidents: NEVER assume there was a clear line of communication between civilian ATC and the military air defense forces. Carguychris (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  I would absolutely agree that it is possible there was no communication. I’m not sure if there was one but I am saying even if there was that is does not automatically ascribe fault. TiggerJay (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Commerical airplane transponders are independent of civilian ATC. In theory, anyone can pick up a plane's transponder signal. NickCT (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Agree. But here we seem to have had (at least) three sets of players - the civil airliner, the Russian civil ATC and the Russian military. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  That’s not correct. “Accident” refers to the entire sequence of events the befell this aircraft, from the moment the missile was launched to the moment it hit the ground in a crash-landing, this article deals with. “Crash” refers to the end of that sequence only. “Shooting” refers to the trigger of the sequence. Tvx1 16:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Crash. The word "accident", in common usage, excludes any intentional action on the part of any human agency. For example, the Tenerife airport disaster article says that it is the deadliest aviation accident of all times, even though its 583 dead is less than the number of dead on the ground from each of the crashes in New York from the September 11 attacks. Animal lover |666| 15:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  That's simply because the September 11 attacks are considered terrorist attacks, thus they are not considered as aviation accidents. See how aviation accidents are classified via SKYbrary. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Not to get nit-picky, but SKY seems to have a very broad definition. "an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft" could probably apply to 9/11. NickCT (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Actually, reading a little harder, note that Sky excludes "terrorism" and "direct military action". I think we're agreed that the 8243 crash was likely "direct military action"? NickCT (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Note: The following are not considered accidents: experimental test flights, sabotage, hijacking, terrorism, or direct military action. It depends whether or not the shootdown was intentional. If the shootdown was accidental, it would not be considered a direct military action. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  How does one unintentionally fire a surface-to-air missile? NickCT (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Intentional in the sense that that the plan was to destroy the aircraft involved. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hmmmmmmm.... If I fired a surface-to-air missile at something, what would my plan be other than to destroy the thing I was firing at? NickCT (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  If their intention was to destroy and shootdown a drone, and somehow, they misidentified the E190 as a drone, it wouldn’t be a direct military action since their intention wasn’t to shootdown the plane, hence an accidental shootdown. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  If you were walking down the street and US military incorrectly identified you as an enemy and drone struck you, I'm pretty sure it would feel like "military action" directed at you. In general, incidents of friendly-fire and/or "collateral damage" are not refered to as "accidents". The problem with refering to that stuff as "accidental" is that it makes it sound like a perpetrator may not have intended to attack a target, when indeed, they did. They just attacked the wrong target. There's intent to attack, and intent to destroy a specific target. Using "accident" by itself is sorta ambiguous, and makes it sound like there may not have been intent to attack. NickCT (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  There is no doubt that the subject of this article is a crash. There is a doubt as to whether or not it was intentional, in which case it would not be an accident. Animal lover |666| 17:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Well the outcome was a crash. But I'm not so sure it's as clear cut as you suggest. That's why we have all the prior explanation. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  My reading of Animal lover's comment is that this case is not clear cut. It's not clear it was an accident. It depends on your definition of "accident". Let's just not use that word. NickCT (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  @NickCT: It's not clear it was an accident. It depends on your definition of "accident". I think that per WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCRYSTAL, we need to presume it was an accident until an investigative body formally declares that it was in fact a shootdown. Once that happens (and I think it will happen), the event should be identified primarily as a "shootdown" in the article text even if most evidence suggests it was accidental (e.g., Iran Air Flight 655). Carguychris (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Commenting as a non-expert in aviation, and we must remember that those reading the article will in general not be experts in aviation. I’m also a Brit, so my comments may reflect a British English approach, but I recognise that this article is written in American English.
  

  “Accident” certainly has a place in the article, both because it is the correct technical term used within the aviation industry, and because we have no sources suggesting that the aircraft was specifically targeted in the knowledge that it was a passenger aircraft, let alone this particular passenger aircraft, so the apparent shoot-down was to that extent “accidental”. However, to use the term “accident“ exclusively means that the tail of the technical meaning of the word is wagging the dog of the word’s common meaning. It would make the article misleading.
  

  The word “ crash“, referring to the eventual fate of the aircraft, is the most natural one to use at various places in the article. When it hit the ground, it crashed.
  

  “ Shoot-down“ (I would prefer the gerund based phrase “shooting down“, but that ship sailed long ago) also belongs in the article, although in some places we would need to prefix it in some way, eg with “apparent“, “alleged“ or “probable“ - but for readability there would be no need to do this in every case. However, there is something of an issue over the time between the apparent missile strike and the crash. In my mind, in a shooting down the missile or whatever hits the aircraft and the aircraft then crashes straight away. The damage is immediately fatal. That is not the case here. The apparent missile caused severe damage which ultimately led to the loss of the aircraft, despite the skill and heroism of the pilots, but “shoot-down“ does not seem the most natural word to use. Still, not calling it a shoot-down seems more odd.

  
  

  Finally (you’ll be pleased to read that word) when it comes to the Info box summary I would go for something like “Crashed on approach during emergency landing after apparent anti-aircraft missile strike”

  Springnuts (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  I cannot disagree with that summary or its conclusion. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  By unintentionally pushing the fire button. Tvx1 10:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  Does the Pantsir-S1 system have a "fire button"? Can it be set up to fire automatically if the correct interrogation parameters are met? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  Sure it has one, no? How else do you think the launch of its missiles is executed?? There must be some sort of “fire button” be it a physical button or a digital one on the on-board computer. And if it also has an automated system that was in use that day, that only increased the chances of an accidental launch. Tvx1 17:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Accident I don’t even understand that this is debated. The entire sequence of events this article describes is an accident as per this context of using that word and nothing else. Crash only refers to the end of the sequence.Tvx1 16:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, all aircraft crashes have preceding causes. They don't just happen for no reason. Most are not intentional. Would you agree that Accidental shootdown might be more accurate? Although that still looks like a bit of a grey area. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  For the initial trigger of the event, yes. For the entire event, no. The latter is typically described as accident only in this context. And shootdown actually doesn’t appear rather correct either. The plane retained some level of control and made an emergency crash-landing survived by a number of the occupants. Shootdown is typically used when a plane loses all control and crashes or even disintegrates entirely in the air following a shooting. Tvx1 17:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  I guess there are degrees of accidental shootdown. It seems the weather conditions also played a large part in the sequence of events, if Russian ATC are to be believed. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Crash I believe using the term "crash" best adheres to WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NPOV. This crash is still being investigated and there does not yet seem to be clear cut evidence that this was an accidental crash. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the investigation is concluded and ruled to be an "accident." Additionally, this fits in line with WP:NPOV which states that we must "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." I believe "crash" is a less charged word than "accident" in this context. Even for Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, it opts for the usage of "crash" instead of accident in the lead when it states, "The JIT found that the Buk originated from the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade of the Russian Federation and had been transported from Russia on the day of the crash, fired from a field in a rebel-controlled area, and that the launch system returned to Russia afterwards.". Additionally, many of the prominent RSes opt for the term "crash" over the term "accident" at this point. Therefore, I think crash is the better term to use here until we receive more final and concrete proof that this was indeed an accident. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  On the contrary, we do not need any more concrete or final proof that this was an accident, because we already know the entire sequence of events was an accident per the common usage of that word in the aviation context. Crash, or crash-landing, only accurately describes the moment it touched the ground. The moment the plane started its period of distress flight is NOT a "crash". The distressed part of the flight that took over an hour is NOT a "crash". An aviation incident's cause does not need to be accidental for the use of the word accident to be used. And referring to the entire sequence of events or its trigger as crash is just patently incorrect. You demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of these words, especially in this context.Tvx1 15:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  Just because other pages follow a certain format doesn't mean we have to do the same. The NPR article that you linked also uses accident. Accident does not imply blamelessness. ICAO's Annex 13 only defines an accident as "an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft: in which a person is fatally or seriously injured; in which an aircraft sustains damage or structural failure requiring repairs; after which the aircraft in question is classified as being missing." Unless the shootdown was intentional, in the sense that it was intended to shoot down an airliner, the occurrence was an aviation accident. Unless reliable sources report what happened as deliberate and intentional, using the correct terminology would not be "stating seriously contested assertions as facts." Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Crash. There are very few true "accidents", that is, blameless occurrences. If I trip over, it's because I was inattentive or someone put a hazard in my path. If two cars collide, it's because at least one driver was inattentive or did not follow the road rules. Someone or something CAUSED this plane to crash, so it was not a spontaneous "accident". WWGB (talk) 11:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  The word accident is not only used to refer to blameless occurrences in the aviation context. Tvx1 15:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think your analysis is overly simplistic. Aviation incidents and accidents are not really like you tripping over. Cars collide for many other reasons than just driver inattention on rule-breaking. But I agree someone or something did cause this plane to crash. There was probably an intentional act that triggered the course of the accident. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  As you say, the course of the ACCIDENT. You demonstrated there clearly what the most instinctive, logic and natural way to refer to this entire event is. And of course something caused this plane to crash. Can you name one example of one plane crashing without a cause???? And if if there was an intentional act, it remains questionable that the intention was to actually bring down an Azebaijan Airlines aircraft. Tvx1 15:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  Wow, caps AND BOLD. And four question marks.... and that was for agreeing with you. If I ever think of one example, I'll let you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Crash. The term accident implies that no human deserves any blame for this. Crash neutrally tells you what happened. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Crash tells you what happened right at the end, and nothing of the circumstances which led up to that? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  You mean the part where the plane was shot down? Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  We should probably start the narrative before that, with the lack of a no-fly zone? Maybe also with the weather. And the GPS jamming and loss of the ADS-B signal. There's also the mis-diagnosis of the missile strike as a bird strike. And the subsequent directions of Russian ATC.... i.e. not just the Pantsir-S1 missile exploding. It all forms part of the "accident narrative". It's not just the pilot saying "oh, woops, I've crashed the plane", like someone tripping over on the street. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Do you think we should close this RfC? Looks like a consensus on crash has been reached. I'm happy to wait another week. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  No strong view, except that some editors still seem unware (or at least are not too bothered) that "aviation accident" has a technical meaning that does not reflect the ordinary, everyday meaning of "accidental". I think we should ask guninvalid, who opened the RfC, if it's time to close. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment states that Any uninvolved editor can post a closing summary of the discussion; if consensus is undoubtedly clear, even an involved editor may summarize the discussion.. In this case, guninvalid is involved since they started the RFC, and I don't think that as of yet, this discussion has reached a point where consensus is "undoubtedly" clear. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yea. I asked the Teahouse if I could and I was quickly told I shouldn't close it myself. I believe @Liz has not participated; Liz, would you like to close this? Hope you don't mind the ping! Thanks. guninvalid (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  The RfC was a question and you seemed to be quite impartial as to the outcome. But rulez is rulez, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

References

1. • Per the FAA and NTSB, The FAA and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) define an accident as an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, AND in which any person suffers death or serious injury or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.
   • Per Air Safety Support International , SKYbrary , the Ministry of Transport of Singapore , and the Air Accidents Investigation Branch among others:

   • An “accident” is defined as an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which, in the case of a manned aircraft, takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until such time as all such persons have disembarked, or in the case of an unmanned aircraft, takes place between the time the aircraft is ready to move with the purpose of flight until such time as it comes to rest at the end of the flight and the primary propulsion system is shut down, in which:
   • a) a person is fatally or seriously injured as a result of:

   • being in the aircraft, or
   • direct contact with any part of the aircraft, including parts which have become detached from the aircraft, or
   • direct exposure to jet blast, except when the injuries are from natural causes, self-inflicted or inflicted by other persons, or when the injuries are to stowaways hiding outside the areas normally available to the passengers and crew; or

   • b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure which:

   • adversely affects the structural strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and
   • would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component, except for engine failure or damage, when the damage is limited to a single engine (including its cowlings or accessories), to propellers, wing tips, antennas, probes, vanes, tires, brakes, wheels, fairings, panels, landing gear doors, windscreens, the aircraft skin (such as small dents or puncture holes), or for minor damages to main rotor blades, tail rotor blades, landing gear, and those resulting from hail or bird strike (including holes in the radome); or

   • c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible.

   • See Vocabulary.com with states that n accident is an unfortunate event. By their very nature, accidents are not planned. Rear-ending the car ahead of you, spilling milk, losing your footing on an icy sidewalk — all of these are considered accidents.
   • See the Cambridge Dictionary which states that something bad that happens that is not expected or intended and that often damages something or injures someone.
   • Per Collins Dictionary, f someone has an accident, something unpleasant happens to them that was not intended, sometimes causing injury or death.
2. • From The Independent – If Russian air defence action is found to have caused the crash, shoot-downs will be an ever more common cause of fatalities in aviation accidents.
   • From the Associated Press via NPR – The crash is the second deadly civil aviation accident linked to fighting in Ukraine.
   • From the Frontline – Reports indicate that the Azerbaijan Airlines aircraft was shot down. The accident has now transformed into a political slugfest...
   • From the BBC – Both Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan have launched investigations into the accident. Embraer told the BBC it was "ready to assist all relevant authorities".
   • From Bluewin – The cause of the accident is believed to be a bird strike. – Immediately after the accident, there were also reports of 105 people on board. – As the plane crashed near Aktau airport on the Caspian Sea, numerous videos of the accident were circulated on social networks. – Bird strike as a possible cause of the accident.
   • From EFE – A fire broke out at the scene of the accident and was put out by firefighters, sources from the Kazakh emergency services said. – According to the crisis cabinet operating at the scene of the accident, the crew sent a distress signal at 8:35 am reporting a failure in the control system. – Azerbaijan Airlines said that according to preliminary data the accident could have been caused by the collision of the aircraft with a flock of birds.
   • From The Times of Central Asia – The accident occurred during an emergency landing attempt after the plane experienced difficulties mid-flight. – The accident has placed renewed attention on air safety protocols in the region, underscoring the critical need for stringent maintenance and monitoring.
   • From FlightGlobal – It says the accident occurred about 3km from Aktau airport. – Kazakhstan’s government says a commission has been established to investigate the cause of the accident.
   • From The Astana Times – The accident involved an Embraer 190 aircraft, flight number J2-8243, traveling from Baku to Grozny.
   • From Aviation Week – Azerbaijan Airlines said it is suspending flights from Grozny to Baku and Makhachkala/Russia until the accident investigation is concluded.
3. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn4x3jwlewgo
4. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/azerbaijan-airlines-flight-was-downed-by-russian-air-defence-system-four-sources-2024-12-26/
5. https://www.npr.org/2024/12/29/g-s1-40293/azerbaijans-president-says-crashed-jetliner-was-shot-down-by-russia-unintentionally

ASN as a reliable source

This has been danced around in several difference discussions and I see there has still been some article space edit warring going on over the reliability of ASN as a WP:RS for the purposes of Misplaced Pages. I think it is important that we firm up consensus here. Also very much welcome references to prior talks on other aviation articles that might show a broader consensus on the topic. TiggerJay (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Unreliable - but may contain useful information as a consolidator of reliable sources, however, like WP, we cannot cite ourselves as a reliable source per WP:CIRCULAR. So while the admins at ASN might(??) be doing an admirable job over there, I would proffer since it's essentially unvetted user contributed (and we cannot even see the change diffs), that we must have a reliable source to use their information. It is simply a WP:SPS sort of cite which would not be considered reliable. YET, I would have no hard-objection to using some of their rather objective narrative, such as a timeline, but when it comes to conclusions or synthesis, is where we cannot consider it reliable by any means. TiggerJay (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The proper venue for this discussion would be the Reliable Sources noticeboard. RickyCourtney (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed! I didn't have the chance to dig through that yet, hence my encouragement of such... But yes, it looks like the best match I've found broadly speaking has been Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 283 § Airline fansites, which apparently makes a distinction between their database (reliable) and wikibase (unreliable) for which this article is using the wikibase. There might be others out there as well, and we probably should do that before opening another discussion on this matter. TiggerJay (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that since the time of that discussion, ASN has largely changed the way they work. There's no clear distinction between their database and wikibase, because they are now accepting edits from users on all incidents that are relatively recent (like this one). The distinction comes in when it's a major incident (the former definitions used for inclusion in the database), in which case, because of their high profile nature, while they accept edit suggestions, the ASN staff has made 33 of the 55 edits to the page (60%). RickyCourtney (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there a more recent discussion that has been had that also came to this conclusions via consensus? I couldn't find one at RS/N. TiggerJay (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

There is no need to discuss this. The "unreliable source" maintenance templates that I placed have been removed, which means it has already been decided that this is a reliable source. GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

That’s not how it works. Tvx1 10:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Just because it has been removed does not mean that consensus is that it is a reliable source. It just means someone acted boldly, technically it can be reverted which then should bring the discussion here. TiggerJay (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support removal from this article. – Looking through ASN's references, the cited sources include the telegram channel "VChK-OGPU". The source was recently discussed and there was a consensus that the it was unreliable. Additionally, the ASN entry warns that " information is added by users of ASN. Neither ASN nor the Flight Safety Foundation are responsible for the completeness or correctness of this information. If you feel this information is incomplete or incorrect, you can submit corrected information" and that Information is only available from news, social media or unofficial sources. All in all, the inclusion of ASN into this article would be (and is) inappropriate. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  As the article right now it seems like ASN is only being cited for chronological information, and the information therein seems non-controversial. However, I would assume that their might be a more reliable source for that timeline someplace else. TiggerJay (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 January 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

radio transmissions, the pilots attributed the explosion to a bird strike and requested a diversion. They initiated emergency protocols, including squawking 7700 on the transponder. The flight was denied landing in Grozny and Makhachkala and the flight was forced to over the Caspian Sea toward Aktau. 94.204.211.132 (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you proposing some change to the text? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Help revising a phrase in the lead

Good evening all, I notice that we currently say “… the pilots attributed the explosion to a bird strike “. This is clearly not quite right because the pilots never thought that a bird strike could cause “the“ explosion which ultimately doomed the aircraft. But I’m feeling exceptionally stupid this evening and cannot think of a better wording. Anyone got any ideas? Springnuts (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The pilots did indeed think that it might have been a birdstrike, at least according to Source 13 (Ulysmedia.kz). That's quoted in the second paragraph of the body. This sentence isn't about the actual cause; it's just saying that the pilots first thought it was a birdstrike. guninvalid (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems to be reliably enough reported that it was what the pilots actually thought had happened, and is appropriately weighted in the article. I'm not sure if minor grammatical adjustments would make much of an improvement, but I don't think it should be removed. TiggerJay (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• B-Class aviation articles
• B-Class Aviation accident articles
• Aviation accident task force articles
• WikiProject Aviation articles
• B-Class Central Asia articles
• Low-importance Central Asia articles
• B-Class Kazakhstan articles
• Low-importance Kazakhstan articles
• WikiProject Kazakhstan articles
• WikiProject Central Asia articles
• B-Class Russia articles
• Low-importance Russia articles
• Low-importance B-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
• WikiProject Russia articles
• B-Class Azerbaijan articles
• Mid-importance Azerbaijan articles
• WikiProject Azerbaijan articles
• B-Class Death articles
• Low-importance Death articles
• B-Class Disaster management articles
• Low-importance Disaster management articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment