Talk:Bashkirian Airlines Flight 2937

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Does anyone know what happened to the Russian man charged with the murder of the flight controller? I have been researching this since I learned of the incident and would like to know if the trial has gone ahead.

Apparently, not yet. --apoivre 16:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This entire article, consisting of a mere 57 sentences, and while using reasonable good English, contains a staggering number of commas, NINETY-SIX commas in fact, an average of nearly two commas per sentence, and could use a gentle rewrite, to remove a few, you know, commas. 68.195.27.48 21:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 New development 2 Sliced through fuselage? 3 stand-by controller 4 Possible damaged PDF? 5 Category 6 There's more to the story 7 Human factors 8 Cite Sources 9 story about missing/resent envelope 10 DHL 11 POV statements 12 Title proposal Überlingen Mid-air Collision 13 Regarding Bashkirian Airlines page 14 Article Title Proposal 15 Split? 16 Undid improper Move 17 Requested move 17.1 Survey 17.2 Discussion 18 Introduction 19 Third Opinion 20 Requested Rename

[edit] New development

Don't know where this goes, but the airline has sued the German government in connection with the disaster almost 4 years later...Ranma9617 06:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sliced through fuselage?

Wouldn't that have destroyed both airplanes, instead of destroying one and damaging one? How can they hit at a right angle and one of them still survives for a small while longer? Could someone please add a diagram of the positions of the airplanes in the crash? Thank you. Ilikefood 19:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Only the tail of Flight 611 hit the Tupolev. The rest of that plane passed underneath. So while its tail broke off, dooming the flight and causing the pilots to lose control, the plane remained mostly intact until it crashed. Fagstein 01:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I added the requested diagrams, which are from the official crash report. I also tried to smooth out some of the phrasing in one section to hopefully improve the readability a little. There's another section that I think needs some help, namely this:

"Russia commented on that same report, that the Russian crew was hindered to obey the TCAS advisory, since it was given when they were already at 35500 feet, while the controller (ATCO) wrongfully stated, he had conflicting traffic at 36000 feet, that the controller did not contribute to a successful solution, and that the DHL crew had a real chance to solve the situation, since they heard the communication between the Russian crew and the ATCO."

Perhaps it's just me, but I have a heard time following what's being said there. It's a very long sentence that could be helped by being broken up and rephrased. Itsfullofstars 03:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

After reading Appendix 10 in the official crash report, I've gone ahead and made changes to the long sentence I mentioned above. - Itsfullofstars 20:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] stand-by controller

"Due to maintenance work Nielsen had a stand-by controller and system manager on call, but he chose not to use them in order to avoid dangerous boredom or he did not know of this possibility." -- I can't understand the reasoning why he didn't use them. Can someone explain? 83.29.249.53 14:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

We will never know possibly, since the mental state of Nielsen before his death did hardly allow tough questions, and since Nielsen will never be able to answer any questions. There are 2 possibilities mentioned in the official report: 1. Nielsen was not briefed thoroughly, so that he did not know the extent of the maintenance work and other related special details for that night; 2. Nielsen was afraid that 2 ATCOs would be so bored, that they are hindered to work, which could be dangerous. --Homer Landskirty 22:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible damaged PDF?

I've tried to download this from the external links section:

"Intermediary report by the German BFU"

http://www.skyguide.ch/scripts/ueberlingen_docs/happen/e/BFUStatus_Aug02_E.pdf

Several times I've tried to download it, and after getting 15 KB of it, the download stops. The latest version of Adobe Acrobat (7.0.9) refuses to read the PDF. If anyone else has the same problem we should probably delete the link. In the meantime I added a notice next to the link to indicate it may not be working properly.

I'll add this Skyguide page about the accident, while I'm at it: http://www.skyguide.ch/en/Dossiers/DossierUeberlingen/ Itsfullofstars 04:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That PDF File does not exist anymore... The URL is redirected to a generic page. So I deleted it. --Homer Landskirty 05:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the original publisher (some swiss private organisation?) withdrew that document from public, I removed that link the second time today. Furthermore we find the final investigation report on a really official web server (BFU; the official german authority for that investigation) in the link section. --Homer Landskirty 17:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's best to simply remove the link. Thank you. Itsfullofstars 18:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category

I'm questioning if this article really belongs in the following category...

"Airliner crashes caused by design or manufacturing errors"

I thought this was a human error accident. Should that category be removed from the article? - Itsfullofstars 22:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

(aa) Since the operation procedures belong to the design of the piece of technique (TCAS), and (bb) since those operation procedures (russian versus international) were contradictious, this accident is caused by a design error (this accident could have been avoided by a simple prohibition of access for the non-standard russian pilots, who want to enter non-russian airspace, years in advance). In that situation it was nearly impossible to rescue those people due to the not-so-well-laid design of the security measures (maybe other crews would have avoided that accident by chosing another sink rate (the acceptable range for that kind of pilot (I prefer test pilots) seems to be 2500-3000)) or another bearing (I still wonder why the russian aircraft moved so funny... strong side-wind?) or by doing something else different (flying slower, starting later, oversleeping, ...) -- but that would be more a happenstance than a consequence of a well-laid design). Furthermore that TCAS does not do an active radar scan but just a passive transponder read-in, which could explain the careful sink rate (it looks like the Brits were afraid of traffic below them). --Homer Landskirty 23:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore: The german defendant in that compensation-related law suit stated, that the russian pilots are not fully responsible for the accident (they r thinking of 60%). So the official opinion concurs at least partially with mine (contradictious orders (see section heading in article) are always a design flaw, because the design of a system must not endorse contradictions). --Homer Landskirty 23:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] There's more to the story

I've recently been reading various online accounts about the tragedy, and I've realized there are aspects of the story that might be worth mentioning in the main article. A sampling of a few stories I've read are:

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=455&id=717372002 http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20020703/ai_n12633934 http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4153/is_20020702/ai_n12012074 http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20051127/ai_n15874125

From those articles above and others, I learned a few things that the wiki article hasn't mentioned yet:

• Most of the passengers, and all of the young students traveling as a group, were from the eastern Russian Urals region of Bashkortostan, where the tragedy had a large impact; there were 3 days of official state mourning in Bashkortostan (and elsewhere in the Russian Federation?... I'm unsure at this point, but I hope to find out.)

• The students, some of whom were children of influential people in Bashkortostan, were supposed to attend a festival organized by Unesco, the UN's education and cultural body. The children as a whole were a bright and gifted group, and as such the trip was a reward for their doing well in school.

• A series of events delayed the excursion of the students, who should have already been at the Estival Park Hotel in the seaside resort of Salou near Barcelona when the accident occurred. They had missed their original flight and were stranded in Moscow. Flights to Barcelona on scheduled passenger airlines were full, so a charter had to be hastily arranged with the airline of their home region. The charter itself was said to have been delayed in Moscow for 18 minutes from its scheduled departure, but I'll have to double-check on that.

• The family of the man who murdered the flight controller only got on that flight because of circumstance of fate, and were not part of the group originally chartering the plane, nor were his family from Bashkortostan; they lived in North Ossetia, in the Caucasus.

• The article as it stands now doesn't mention that some buildings were set on fire on the ground (without injuries, however), or that Lake Constance was searched by a flotilla of boats looking for remnants from the crash.

Those are just some rough ideas, and would be re-worded for entry into the article itself. I believe that some or all of these things could be added to the article, as long as it is done with a neutral point-of-view without sensationalism or blatant 'heart-tugging', and if the sources (preferably multiple ones that can be collaborated) are reliable. I'd like to find more articles that are about the subject that weren't written just a few days after the collision; often articles written in the immediate days after events such as this one can be full of misleading or simply wrong information. It takes time for the facts to come to light. For example, the number of students on board fluctuates from source to source. The wiki article states an exact number of 45, which could very well be correct, but some sources hedge their bets and only state a rough number. I'm assuming exact numbers (and much more detailed articles about the incident, in general) are probably available on Russian websites, a language I sadly can't read. I wonder how the English version here compares with the same article on the Russian or German wikipedia?

I just thought I'd propose adding some additional material such as what I've outlined above, and I'm curious what people think about the idea. If there's disagreement from others here, perhaps because the content I'm proposing may not be encyclopedic enough, that's fine. Any thoughts? - Itsfullofstars 01:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Those facts are too far away from the chain-of-causes for my taste (delays, mismanagement, gifted or not). If we would mention that, it would create a bad impression, I think. The age of the dead people is not so important, too (the published official report does not say anything about the age of the passengers). Furthermore the buildings are almost nothing in comparison to the fatalities (the german authorities call it "minor damage", IIRC). But I was quite disturbed by this trivia, too, when I heard it some years ago. It is important to see, that not a delay in Moscow or an unforeseen passenger caused that accident, but contradictious operation procedures and negligence (ATC officials) and panic (ATCO, flight deck crews). --Homer Landskirty 02:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand some of what you're saying, but I have to ask... Does the article have to consist solely of the chain-of-causes? Shouldn't the social impact of an incident have some weight as well in an encyclopedic article? I don't think the addition of other delays in the original schedule dilute the fact that the root causes were problems with Skyguide, etc. I know the official reports issued by government entities don't delve into social issues, and that's expected, but should wikipedia articles also follow that same sort of inflexible rule? I'll readily admit that some of the articles on wikipedia already are far beyond what you might see in other encyclopedias; I see too much pop culture 'fluff' for my tastes, but I don't think an entire region going into official mourning would be categorized as fluff, to mention just one of my proposed additions. I want it clear I'm not proposing the article be made into something sensationalistic like you'd see in a 'rag' tabloid. Well, in any case, I hope a few people reading this Talk section who only have a casual knowledge of the incident, like myself until recently, will be intrigued enough to delve further, and go beyond the dry 'nuts and bolts' of what happened. - Itsfullofstars 08:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Addendum to my response immediately above: I'd like to point out that WP:PERFECT lists this as one of the guidelines:

"A perfect Wikipedia article...

• acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject; i.e., it covers every encyclopedic angle of the subject."

I'm suggesting that coverage of an airline accident shouldn't be restricted to just the immediate causes. Otherwise, one could argue why is the cold-blooded murder of the controller even discussed, since it happened long after the accident? I'm not advocating that the murder be dropped from the article, just pointing out what I see as an inconsistency. To eliminate the sole sentence mentioning that most of the passengers were school children (as suggested prior to my comments above) would be to remove a major part of what made the incident even more noteworthy, worldwide. - Itsfullofstars 09:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

OK - that sounds convincing... I wouldnt revert it anyway... Maybe an own section "social impact in russia" before or below the "murder" section? --Homer Landskirty 09:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Your idea of adding a separate section sounds like a good compromise. - Itsfullofstars 09:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

How is it a compromise? I mean: Which of ur wishes r not mentioned... Again: I will not revert changes of the nature u described above... --Homer Landskirty 10:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have simply said it was a 'good idea'. :-) Itsfullofstars 11:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like more information about this:

• Why the bearing change by the russian crew (20 degrees sounds a lot and in appendix 1 to the official report I can see a strong deviation of a straight course)? Was it an early attempt to change something about the potential conflict?
• Is there any international instance that checks national operation procedures for such contradictions? Or is it possible, that the russians or others send more pilots, who are trained to be a threat to safety?

If u find something about it, I would be interested (I would be glad, if u could add that to the article then, because my english is not so good possibly)... --Homer Landskirty 10:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll be happy to help in any way I can, but I suspect that the reasons for the course changes will never be known. By the way, your command of the English language is infinitely better than my German will ever hope to be! I lived in Germany in the early 1970's, but have forgotten what little German I learned. The only language I know is English, which hinders my ability to find information on events such as this one. I'm envious of those who know multiple languages. - Itsfullofstars 11:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

IC - I can try to translate the german texts... I have found a swiss official source, that says in the russian plane were 57 passengers and 12 crew members, although the german official report says 60+9... http://www.efd.admin.ch/dokumentation/zahlen/00579/00612/00666/index.html?lang=de --Homer Landskirty 14:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Human factors

The following is a PDF I found today that might be of some interest, and a citable resource for possible future article expansion:

Identifying the factors that led to the Ueberlingen mid-air collision: implications for overall system safety.

Proceedings of the 48th Annual Chapter Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, September 20 - 24, 2004, New Orleans, LA, USA

http://www.humanfactors.uiuc.edu/Reports&PapersPDFs/humfac04/nuneslaur.pdf (322 KB)

Nunes, Ashley & Laursen, Tom (2004)

University of Illinois, Aviation Human Factors Division Savoy, IL, USA

- Itsfullofstars 01:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cite Sources

Shouldn't we cite a source for the near-miss between the two Japan Air aircraft under "Mixed messages in prior incident" to improve this article? 86.140.153.252 02:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There is already... reference #5: [1] --Homer Landskirty 07:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right and I apologise. I have edited the paragraph though. Please feel free to check to see if I was incorrect in doing so. 86.140.153.252 12:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops... I thought the Japanese pilots understood the international TCS operation procedure... I corrected some typos... --Homer Landskirty 14:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I found the wrong source? Was there possibly another similar incident with Japanese planes? But this example is quite useful, too (it shows, that no appropriate action has been taken in order to clarify the meaning of TCAS)... --Homer Landskirty 14:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] story about missing/resent envelope

I just reverted this edit: [2]

1. formatting and another issue
2. relevance (who cares for an envelope, that can be "resent"; especially when there r human fatalities)
3. correctness (why dont they fax such "documents", that can be "resent"?)

--Homer Landskirty 18:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DHL

I notice a DHL plane was involved yet is not mentioned in the title. Why? Thanks. Djminisite - Talk | Sign 16:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont know, but there is a redirect: DHL Flight 611... It seems to be a common practice, to mention just one of the involved flights in the title: Category:Midair airliner crashes (I dont know which one... Maybe the one that was further away from common practice?)... --Homer Landskirty 06:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but all of the ones including only one flight's name is when that flight collided with a non-commercial airlines (private or military). All of the disasters involving two collided commercial airliners are named by location. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.173.53 (talk • contribs) 2007-12-09T05:01:40 (UTC)

see my reply to ur idea below... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 08:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV statements

I've tagged 2 statements in 'Consequences' section as non-NPOV. How could author(s) of this article know that Nielsen was "struck with grief and guilt"? Any articles, links, citations? Judging by Kaloev's description of accident, Nielsen didn't feel grief nor guilt, striking Kaloev's hand with children pics in it. I'm sure such a statements are indeed against the NPOV. Thanks. 213.33.157.245 13:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Human psychology is quite complicated and needs much concentration... It can be well true, that he was struck by grief and guilt since the event until his death, so that he couldnt work anymore due to a lack of concentration, _and_ that he shows aggression, when he was forced later to concentrate on that event, or when even accused of being responsible for the mis-designed TCAS and for misbehaving and/or unconcentrated pilots... I personally have heard in TV, that he even showed a nerval breakdown shortly after the event, but I dont find a source, although I concentrated some of my power on that search (maybe TV or me made it up)... The whole emotional part could be removed, if somebody asked me, so that we can concentrate on the technical aspects... --Homer Landskirty 06:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not really a "POV" problem, the question is whether he stated that as his reason for retiring, which is a question of fact. If he really did say that then it's completely NPOV. A POV problem is more like, "She was mean during the interview" or "Religion X is the best religion," where it's more a matter of pushing a point of view or opinion, rather than stating an objective fact. In either case the problem can be solved by pointing to a source that supports that statement. -- HiEv 18:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title proposal Überlingen Mid-air Collision

Who wants the title Überlingen Mid-air Collision ? WhisperToMe 21:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I forgot his name... But I think, the majority is for the current name... And stop adding information from first newspaper reports, that doesnt match with the official report... --Homer Landskirty 07:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen a similar discussion that ended in favor of "Bashkirian Airlines Flight 2937" - Either way, this is a mid-air collision, and the article title should be balanced between the aircraft. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Somebody already moved it to "2002 Lake Constance Crash" or so... But it was moved back... I think, the naming policy is, that both flights get an article (like in airdisaster.com)... But then we combine both articles via a redirect... Since the russian plane was the one which behaved worst, and since the russian plane is more important, the article about the russian plane is not the redirect... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 07:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the best step is to check the naming policy and see if this actually exists. There is a similar issue with 1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision - Anthony Appleyard moved to reflect one plane, but others raised issues with that name, so I temporairly moved it back. If there is a policy, it should be found. Perhaps the said policy can also be revisited. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We dont really need a special policy here... The cause is more important than the victim or the location, so that the misbehaving flight gives the name for the article (this is especially important in the categories -- but luckily there r not so many articles in that mid-air coll cat...)... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the blame is still being passed around, I think this one is best as "Überlingen Mid-air Collision" ... or something close to that. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not... Überlingen didnt cause that event and it didnt even happen there... Furthermore the 2937 flew too strange (they were below their assigned flight level... they trusted an ATCO, although it was proven that he made a mistake...)... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 07:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Landskirty, pieces of the wreckage fell over Überlingen and a neighboring town - I'm not saying the towns caused it, but those are the towns which got the wreckage. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

So u want to stress the location and not the cause? --Homer Landskirty (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

In [airdesaster.com] they use the plane number as identifier... they have an article for each crashed plane... no combo articles... I dont know who decided to use flight numbers, but i like to be conservative and consistent, if it is not wrong... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

They have two separate entries with one per plane, while here we have one entry for the mid-air collision. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, the crashes involving two commerical airliners have names which refer to the date and the location. The crashes involving one commercial airliner and a non-commercial airliner have the name of the commercial airliner as the title. As such, I am requesting that this article be retitled "2002 Uberlingen Mid-Air Collision"--Vreddy92 (talk) 05:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC) --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.173.53 (talk • contribs) 2007-12-09T05:01:40 (UTC)

This convention (if it really exists) would make no sense... 1. It almost never happens in that city or lake or other location mentioned in the article name... So the name would be always inaccurate... 2. Why not "Überlingen"? 3. Why not "Lake Constance" anymore? 4. Login before u use a signature of a logged in user... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 08:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

See how others articles named - Mid-air accidents. It's clear that flight number for article name is good. 1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision is an exception from pattern. --TAG (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

After looking at the category, Tag, I noticed that the accidents that mention one flight number tended to have been airliner and private plane, NOT two airliners. Charkhi Dadri, 1960 New York air disaster, 2005 Logan Airport runway incursion ???!?!?!? Please, please, PLEASE take a second look at the category. It seems like you did not read the entire category, nor did you read the entries in the category. It helps to become informed before posting a reply. Notice how the accidents that mention flight numbers tend to be airliner and private jet accidents? WhisperToMe (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Bashkirian Airlines page

Regarding this statement "And stop adding information from first newspaper reports, that doesnt match with the official report..."

Or perhaps the best way to deal with it is to use the sources to state that the early sources are incorrect, no?

How about X early source stated Y; Z does not mention Y.

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not relevant... Why should we mention irrelevant rumors? The article is already too long... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 07:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This was a press source that apparently made an error. We should have sections describing what errors were made in initial reportings of the disaster, which may help if people initially hear incorrect information from otherwise Wikipedia:Reliable sources and do not tune in to see other sources. See, I saw nothing in the original article that contradicted the "Stop to Munich" - I generally give the benefit of the doubt to a press source, so I add the information.

Now, with SQ006 (I worked on that one a bit), I mentioned one very early unconfirmed report (that was later confirmed false) that the SQ006 plane hit a China Airlines plane (in fact it hit construction equipment) WhisperToMe (talk) 10:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds ridiculous to me, since rumors have no encyclopedic relevance... We describe the facts of the case and not minor consequences of the accident (in this case that would be a silly mis-worded ill-founded newspaper report)... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a consensus that this has "no encyclopedic relevance" ? People believe what they read (in the newspaper), and also there are cases where the press makes mistakes in coverage (and this press is read by hundreds of thousands of people). See, if it was Joe Blow making the error, it would not be encyclopedic. On the other hand, CNN is the party that made the mistake... WhisperToMe (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, by watching the Air Crash Investigation video and seeing some later sources, they still say that UNESCO was involved with many of the kids in terms of planning the trip. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Would that be relevant? UNESCO is related to people who give un-respectful and un-useful advice (like "more condom automatons in US prisons"), but that doesnt make it relevant... It more just a reason more not to mention them, even if it was true... dont feed the trolls... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Landskirty, this has nothing to do with internet trolls - You and I are the only people in the discussion, and I found official citations (UNESCO itself). WhisperToMe (talk) 12:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

hmm - i thought of trolls in a more generic sense... the question remains: would it be relevant? --Homer Landskirty (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The group organizing the actual trip was a committee affiliated with UNESCO, but the name seems to be so well tied into it that Koichiro Matsuura gave an address about the incident: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001265/126505e.pdf - The involvement of an affiliate of UNESCO is a well-documented fact and it is relevant since it was involved in the planning of the trip that ended in disaster. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Title Proposal

I have an idea which might settle the issue of how this article should be titled. We know that the two jets collided over Owingen and Überlingen, with some of the wreckage falling into the Überlingen city limits. Secondly, two airliners were involved, even though the DHL plane was built strictly as a freighter. Third, the collision occurred in the Bodensee district of southern Germany. Finally, Überlingen is located on the northwest shore of Lake Constance. As such, I propose the following article title suggestions:

2002 Überlingen mid-air collision (As first proposed by WhisperToMe)
2002 Bodensee District mid-air collision
2002 Southern Germany mid-air collision
2002 Überlingen air disaster
2002 Lake Constance mid-air collision

Last month, I moved this article to the last name on the list, unaware that a discussion about a title change was already taking place. I deeply regret any inconvenience this may have caused, but it seemed the thing to do, since this was done with incidents such as the Zagreb collision and the Saudia 763/Air Kazakhstan 1907 collision.

And003 (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm, now that I think about it, I like "2002 Southern Germany mid-air collision" or "2002 Germany mid-air collision" as it is more general. Still, I am still thinking about which one to choose. Maybe we could try Überlingen since the wreckage seems to have been mostly in Überlingen (I think) WhisperToMe (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Why not "2002 TCAS induced collision"? Or "2002 Swiss collision"? Or "2002 Money/Fuel saving collision"? Argl! I say: We stick to the flight number of the most deviating flight... And: We should do that with 1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision, too... It just makes no sense to bind that event to a location... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• You'd think it wouldn't make sense, anyway. In the case of a single plane disaster, or a mid-air collision involving a jetliner with a smaller plane like a Cessna or fighter jet, it wouldn't make sense. However, we are dealing with a mid-air collision involving two jetliners. Also, as far as location goes, some of the wreckage fell into the Überlingen city limits. I even have some footage of it. Whenever two jetliners are lost in a single accident in a certain location, an article is given a title to reflect that location, such as the Tenerife disaster, even though there would be a few exceptions, such as the Linate Airport disaster, which involved a ground collision between a jetliner and a smaller Cessna Citation, and the 2004 Russian airliner bombings, with each bombing taking place in a separate location. I have no plans to move this article at this time, however. I'll leave that up to others. --And003 (talk) 13:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• The bottom line is, either we change this article (the only exception to the rule), or we change every article that has a location name...--Vreddy92 (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • This current title is an exception to a rule, so I do not see a problem with changing this article name. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    • And if we do, we will also have to add a redirect from "Bashkirian Airlines Flight 2937". Any administrators or whoever can change things agree with us? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.178.63 (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
      • We are willing to move the page if necessary. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • Who is "we"? The Queen? If yes, which? --Homer Landskirty (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
          • By "We" I mean administrators (I am an admin) - See, the guest asked "Any administrators or whoever can change things agree with us?" - Anyhow, the people in favor of moving are me, Vreddy, and And003 - that is 75% - I won't move yet, but I will wait a little while. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm in agreement, but you certainly have been waiting a great "little while". -- VegitaU (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it's done now. -- VegitaU (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Split?

Should we split the article into a new one for Peter Nielsen? I think that there is enough information to do so. --Vreddy92 (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undid improper Move

1. There is no good reason to move that article to any of the proposed names, since that accident neither happened in Lake Constance nor in Überlingen...
2. respect the work of other authors: No single user can take over the work of 10s of users... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 14:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Uberlingen is where this accident happened. For proof of this, check the following links:
PlaneCrashInfo.com: Bashkirian/DHL Entry
National Transportation Safety Board - Bashkirian/DHL Report
Aviation Safety Network - Bashkirian 2937 Entry
Aviation Safety Network - DHL 611 Entry --And003 (talk) 11:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually Überlingen is not where this accident happened. It happened in about 34900 feet (about 11 kilo metres) orthogonally above a place on land that is "near" to Lake Constance or Überlingen or Owingen... That's what I try to make clear since several weeks, but nobody reacts on that... The question would be how far away from Überlingen is still Überlingen... And I say: 1m away is not Überlingen anymore... Furthermore upper air space is in federal administration and not administrated by every little city or forest/lake administration that is below... We should be conservative here... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Then why is the Chakri Dadri Midair Collision called such. Its FEDERAL administration, right? --66.32.178.63 (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

ur 1. q: I think, the name is bad/wrong/misleading... ur 2. q: Ah? Yes!? Federal... Not city (like a library, that might be administrated by a city...)... F.Rep.GERM's upper airspace is administrated by a federal authority, which delegated for some reason (somehow they believed it is better to trust a swiss company than having the area near Zürich airport controlled by 2 ATCs... somehow they didnt implement that wish correctly (they forgot to make a contract with the swiss federal government -- and even then it would be questionable)... but the "feds" r still responsible for that airspace...)... What is the background of that question? Did I misunderstand it? --Homer Landskirty (talk) 09:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It was sarcasm. I was simply mentioning that the Chakri Dadri Collision was named for the location where the crash took place, even though technically it was in Indian Federal Airspace. Even if you want to argue airspace jurisdictions, why can't we have it be "2002 Southern Germany Mid-Air Collision"? --66.245.97.18 (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"the location where the crash took place": isnt it more like the crash took place very high above the location, where it didnt took place? --Homer Landskirty (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that this crash did not take place anywhere? All we are trying to say is that the crash was not the crash of Bashkirian Airlines Flight 2937, it was the crash of Bashkirian Airlines Flight 2937 WITH DHL Flight 611. And that should be noted in the title of the article. Even the Japan Airlines article about the accident 1 year earlier isnt named after one of the two planes, and the situation was almost exactly the same. --65.12.173.53 (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, that the location where the crash took place, has no common name in the public... Especially it is not "Lake Constance" or "Überlingen" or "Owingen" or such... I dont know how the experts name it (maybe with GPS coordinates or old-fashioned beacon-related coordinates)... It is certainly true, that the BTC flight crashed, so that I have no problem with that article name... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 08:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

So you agree that the BTC plane crashed, but are you implying that the DHL never crashed? Because if it did, then the article title has to be changed to reflect that. If the plane did crash somewhere, the name can reflect that somewhere, that's why 2002 Soutehrn Germany Collision seems to be the best option to make everybody happy. It is a common name. If they can call the Japan near-miss the 2001 Japan Airlines mid-air incident , then we can surely find something to call this crash.--66.245.97.18 (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the DHL did crash and both pilots died. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont c a reason to reflect anything in the name of the main article... u certainly may create a redirect article from "2002 Germany mid-air crash" or from "2002 BTX/DHL mid-air crash"... But as long as we do not have a binding regulation about naming of catastrophy articles, we shouldnt take this article-move-effort (IMO)... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Then we should at least rename the article as "Bashkirian Airlines Flight 2937 and DHL Flight 611" with redirects from each flight name. I think that that is a compromise that would best suit everybody. The DHL would be included, and we wouldnt have to change a lot. In the meanwhile, I think there should be a binding regulation about naming of catastrophy articles because Wikipedia is meant to be a common-use encyclopedia, so it SHOULD be consistent...--66.245.97.18 (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

We already have redirects from the other names - the point is that many other editors believe that the current name is inappropriate because two commercial flights collided. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Common-use criteria can be reached via redirect-articles... I dont c any reason for a move/rename... Can u explain, why u want to rename? For the category? BUT: If somebody finds it there he/she can just look at that article (there arent so many) and I doubt that the year and the other plane would help so much to identify that incident... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No, but it would definitely help in making sure that both planes involved in the accident are identified, as is the norm in Wikipedia as evidenced by the other mid-air collision articles. This isnt a crash between a general aviation plane and a commercial aviation plane, this is a crash between two commercial airliners, and both planes involved in the crash, both of which ACTUALLY CRASHED, should be included. Why do you not want the rename so badly? It makes more sense to cover all the bases than to lazily sit down and make Wikipedia become non-consistent. It is our job as Wikipedians to make Wikipedia the best it can be, especially in Consistency.--216.130.128.47 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Not true: There is no such norm... There r even articles, that do not mention any plane at all, but just a city name... Consistency is not endangered... I still see no reason to change the article name... I think we r spending undue much time on this matter... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 07:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

[edit] Introduction

I retouched the introduction, but I think that it can still be improved. The causes of the accident are kind of complex, and it's a bit challenging to put the most important stuff in a 4-line introduction. I'd say that the introduction should state the result of the official investigation, while the main body of the article can deal with conflicting views.

I also removed the statements about the "inadequate performance", which is not really true anyway - but it's a bit touchy, depending on your POV.

What the official report says is that the Boeing crew did nothing to cause the accident. However, the flight controller and the Tupolew crew did do something that caused the accident (not seeing the danger/not following TCAS instructions). But the mistakes were not a result of people being too stupid and/or reckless (inadequate performance), but because they were in a situation where it was difficult or impossible to make the right call.

I think for the introduction we should stay with the summary results of the official report.

Averell (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

the official report clearly states that the vertical speed of the boeing was never as high as the situation demanded it (2500 to 3000 was ordered by TCAS)... since TCAS clearly shows the conflicting traffic with vert distance and position 3000 would be a expected (even if some parcels shift and even if the fuel wouldnt suffice for the rest of the remaining way...)... 2400 is even a failure to obey TCAS (and that is the vert rate of the boeing that the tupolev recorded...)... 4000 would have been legal, desirable and possible (test pilots can do even more possibly)... so i changed it back to the more generic version... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm... I checked the official report again. The table on page 50 gives the required descend rates as -1500 for 'descend' and -2500 for 'increase descend'. I'm not an commercial airline pilot, but I just assume that this is correct. The 'increase descend' for the Boeing was issued at 21:35:10. According to the table on page 55 the Boeing descended with a speed between -2700 and -2400 after receiving that, so that matches up quite nicely.

Furthermore, the conclusion on page 95 states about the Boeing crew: "It is the BFU's opinion that they have reacted correctly and followed the specified procedures as best as possible given the particular circumstances."

I would like to "revert" the introduction back to something that also mentions the Tupolev's crew's actions as a cause (and not the Boeing crew). Reason: I think that the introduction should give the official cause for the accident (you can deal with the details in the main body). And the official report gives two (immediate) causes: 1. The failure of the ATC to ensure separation. 2. The Tupolev crew's failure to follow the TCAS. The report does not mention the Boeing's crew's actions as a cause of the accident, so we can't say so.

What is it with the sink rate anyway? I don't recall that this was mentioned as a problem anywhere. Even the Russian comments on the report (which explicit try to hold the Boeing crew responsible) don't mention this with a word.

If you think that the Boeing crew didn't react correctly please state your sources (especially since this would be contrary to other sources in the article, and it shouldn't be difficult). Please also explain how that is relevant to the accident in that case. Averell (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

timing timing timing... that's important here... 2400 is less than 2500... 2400 is the final rate before the crash... 3000 was never reached although the situation became worse and worse... there is surely a sentence in the russian op manuals, that forbids to disobey the ATCO... and we all know what that means in russia... furthermore the TCAS misdesign is/was not just a russian problem since japan is not russia... these were paraphrases of the official report plus school mathematics plus some documentation shows on tv (i saw myself how they kicked helpless soldiers on the belly... one after another...) and need no extra source... i personally would like to know what changed due to the bearing change... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I know that it's fun to play this accident through, since almost any change would have avoided the accident. Heck, even if the wind had blown from a different direction it would probably not have happened - You can play a lot of what-if games with that. But not every thing that could have gone differently is a cause of the accident.

The interesting part is: What do we put in the article? Wikipedia is about what is said about an event (WP:V), not what I believe or what you believe. It is also not a place to make new theories (WP:OR).

The introduction of the article says something like "the official investigation found the accident was caused by...". The official report says the accident was caused by the controller's actions and by the actions of the Bashkirian crew. The official report also says (quite clearly) that the DHL crew reacted correctly. That's why I want to write this: Not because it's my opinion, but because it says so in the official report. If you think the official report says something different, please tell me where. If we can't agree about what the report says, we can also ask for other's opinions.

If you want to say that the accident was caused by an error of the DHL crew, or by the Russians being afraid of being kicked in the stomach, you'll have to find a source and tell us who says this - even if you think it is quite clear. Otherwise it would be original research. Averell (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

if the report stated "humidity condensed at dust" (russian crew), it would be ok to write into the article "it rained" (belly hurts)... it is not necessary to emphasise or document or repeat or lampoon the dumbness of german authorities (24..27 is clearly not contained in 25..30... especially when the little number behind the other plane stays zero or very small...)... dont analyze me (that situation feels like they threw all my real-life-nightmares together... so no real fun... just puzzled-ness and frustration...)... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 07:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

All right, for now I have modified the introduction to something that (I think) is quite neutral and still accurate. If that's ok I'll just let things cool down for a while... I'll also ask a third opinion so that it's not just us two discussing on this. Averell (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third Opinion

Hi, I saw this page posted on Third Opinion. Presently, I am reading the article and talk page and trying to learn some background info. I would note that I am impressed by the level of civility occuring in this debate, nice work and extremely professional. Thank you! Lazulilasher (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I gather the question is: whether it is appropriate to include unsourced information in the Lead. I reviewed this article and also read the Investigation Report itself. My opinion is that we are forced via Original Research to stick to what is written in the Crash Report, thus we cannot synthesize or provide independent analysis. In fact, I would make it quite clear in the Lead from where the information comes, along the lines of: "The Official Investigation Report indicates...." and cite the report. If a further reliable source is found which disputes the Investigation then it would be appropriate to mention this, however we are unable to mention an unpublished analysis.

I hope this helps and once again, I thank both of you for being extremely civil. Good collaborative work. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

thank you for taking time to care for this problem... i'm ok with ur opinion... i just thought that i was paraphrasing the report, which would be no OR... but if u both say the official report says different, i won't object anymore... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind comment and no worries! To explain a bit, my concern was that in an issue as contentious as this, it is probably better to err on the side of caution. So, thanks again! Lazulilasher (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Also thanks from me for the discussion (to Homer) and the opinion (Lazulilasher). In any case, I suppose we can leave the intro as it is for now - I think we can agree that there were problems with the ATC and the TCAS. Have a good weekend everyone. Averell (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Rename

I am making another proposal to change the article name to one that incorporates the fact that TWO airlines collided, and not just one. I think that any of the folowing should be sufficient:

• 2002 Southern Germany Mid-Air Collision
• 2002 Germany Mid-Air Collision
• 2002 Bashkirian Airlines/DHL Mid-Air Collision

If you look at the pages of other midair collisions, there are a lot of them (and I believe actually all of them) that have standard names for both planes in the form of a location and a date, with the exception of General Aviation planes crashing into civilian airliners.

This article's title implies that the focus is a single plane accident, while it was two planes, both of which were commercial airliners. --Vreddy92 (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

how does "2002 Germany Mid-Air Collision" show the number of involved planes? why not "2002 Mid-Air Collision"? wasnt it "DHL Aviation"? can we agree that the russian party was most prominent/important in this case? why not "2002 Skyguide Mid-Air Collision"? --Homer Landskirty (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just offering suggestions of POSSIBLE names. My point is that using one plane's name implies that there is only one plane. Saying both plane's names, a combination of their airlines, or just saying mid-air collision (which in itself means that two planes collided) will give importance to both planes. Why is the Russian party most prominent in this case?--Vreddy92 (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

ok - i c - i think the much bigger number of fatalities in the Russian plane makes it more prominent... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

All right then. I have posted in the naming convention section asking for a naming convention to be created. I guess we'll wait and see what their verdict is. I just thought that cuz they were two commercial airliners with IFR flight plans, that they would both be equally important. But let's wait and see. OK?--Vreddy92 (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

sure... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)