Talk:Aeroflot Flight 366

message: The article shouldn't be called "Tupolev 124 ditching in Neva River". It should be something like "Pulkovo Airlines Flight 2093" (just an example).
Furthermore, it should be encyclopedic and start with the title (in bold).
--Ysangkok 17:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality standards 

message: This article strikes me as being a bit odd. It asserts that this flight is one of the few cases of a commercial flight ditching without loss of life. Which is very peculiar since I personally know 3 people who have ditched in (different) commercial flights, each without loss of life. On the other hand, I know as many people who have ditched in commercial flights where there has been loss of life. I am, of course, talking about commercial helicopter flights, servicing oil installations. Which makes me wonder about the way that the aviation industry (or people writing about it for Slashdot (I mean Wikipedia! Whatever.) are using the term "commercial". I'm not going to follow this up, becasue I don't particularly care about aviation except as a user, but maybe someone from the plane-nut wing of Wikipedia might want to take this up to a more appropriate level in the Aviation discussion.
I think that "commercial" is being used here to mean something it doesn't mean in normal English. I read "commercial" and I think - 'a business, run for a profit'. In which case obviously the helicopter industry is commercial because the companies are run for a profit, and people fly in them for a profit (our pay-cheque). But I think that the aviation talk-shop are using "commercial" to mean "not military". which appears to be a false dichotomy. In terms of the training we receive before flying in helicopters, the equipment and survival suits we're required to use for flying, the ban on alcohol, food, or anything to listen to ... in all these respects we're more like "military" flying than pissed-up businessmen sharing a plane with first-time-flyers going on holiday. But we're most definitely not military.
There seems to be a split here between the popular use of terminology in aviation and the reality which someone really needs to address, because it leads to nonsensical statements like the one that headlines this article.
Anyway, 2 €c worth.
If anyone interested in aviation wants to discuss this more, I do actually occasionally look at my talk page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Karley (talk • contribs) 00:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, it saddens me that a man with a degree in geology can't write coherently. Even though this isn't part of your professional work, it's just impenetrable. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aviation EQUALS fixed wing ?? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1963 Aeroflot Tupolev Tu-124 Neva river ditching. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612231559/http://www.scramble.nl/databases/sovdb/sovdb_airframe.php?af=44142 to http://www.scramble.nl/databases/sovdb/sovdb_airframe.php?af=44142
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The Russian version of this article states that the pilot Vasily Chechenev had previously served in naval aviation and had experience landing on water. If this is true, then this is an important detail. 193.233.70.48 (talk) 09:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pilot