Talk:Air France Flight 358

message: Is a TV image better (legally etc) than http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/traveller/compass/camera/pictures/loc37.jpg? Paul Weaver 21:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally are we allowed to use images like Google's satelite picture? I thought not, but I'm not an expert Paul Weaver 21:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: don't think so, no UkPaolo 22:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Aren't the captures I took fair use? J2rome 21:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i would have said so UkPaolo 22:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, once again I took many captures on August 3 and I had uploaded and placed one picture of the aftermath in the article, but someone deleted it and I didn't bother to add it back. Check back on the history to see one of my last edits, you can add it back if you think it's needed. J2rome 17:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if people will find it ugly, but I added your capture right under the CNN one. I really find that before and after type view shocking. ("Wow everyone survived?") Anyway, I still think it's more important than those smaller thumbnails midway in the article. By the way J2rome, I think someone accidently saved over your edit instead of merging them together (history shows your pic was removed a minute after you posted.) --Mrtea 00:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Is it possible to get some photos of the plane after it was extinguished and crews started working on it? Apparently the plane was barely recongnizable.. I think this would give the article more impact, seeing as no one was seriously injured after something that ended like that. --Mrtea 16:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, once again I took many captures on August 3 and I had uploaded and placed one picture of the aftermath in the article, but someone deleted it and I didn't bother to add it back. Check back on the history to see one of my last edits, you can add it back if you think it's needed. J2rome 17:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if people will find it ugly, but I added your capture right under the CNN one. I really find that before and after type view shocking. ("Wow everyone survived?") Anyway, I still think it's more important than those smaller thumbnails midway in the article. By the way J2rome, I think someone accidently saved over your edit instead of merging them together (history shows your pic was removed a minute after you posted.) --Mrtea 00:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath 

message: I like to think of Wikipedia has being authorative, but judging by the opening paragraphs of this article that's wrong... Why can't we wait until we are sure of the facts before putting them in? If people want to do news, try Wikinews. Dan100 (Talk) 22:12, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
:For this kind of an article I think it is fair to put in some unconfirmed information, as long as it is clear that it is in fact unconfirmed. It must ofcourse be removed when it becomes clear it is irrelevant, or replaced when confirmed facts become available. This is not an "Cities of Belgium" article. BsL 22:23, 2 August, 2005 (UTC)
This is an encyclopaedia, not a news service. Dan100 (Talk) 23:49, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
This is more than a traditional encyclopedia; and don't forget, this event will eventually go down in encyclopedia's, just like all major events.--Mad Max 03:44, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
:I don't mind some reasonable speculation that's clearly identified as such, but this paragraph goes too far IMO:
::"Discussion heard from Global news reports that since the visibility was so low, the pilot overshot the runway. It was the pilot's decision whether to re-power the engine and take off and do another land attempt or stop it. Of course, taking off again would be too late as the slow ground speed would stall the plane. The pilot decided to hit the brakes, thus causing the plane to skid."
:I've heard nothing of the sort, and AFAIK (IAAP), there is no practical way that this detailed an explanation for the accident could be known at this point. It does seem like semi-realistic speculation on what happened, but there are lots of other possibilities. It also contains some minor misconceptions, and IMO, it should be removed promptly. -Lommer | talk 02:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any more speculation anyone can think of? 

message: The Metar for the airport was as follows:
CYYZ 022020Z 34024G33KT 3SM +TSRA FEW015 OVC040TCU 23/ RMK SF2TCU6 CB ASOCTD
Pearson, 2nd of the month at 2020UTC Wind from NNW at 24knots, Gusting 33KT Visablity 3 Miles, Strong Thunderstorms and Rain. Few clouds at 1500ft Overcast at 4000ft
I am alittle rusty on METARs, can anyone understand the Remarks at the end?
cyyz- station identifier
022020z- August 02, 2020 hours (zulu)
winds from 340 at 24 knots, gusting to 33
visibility 3 statute miles
Heavy thunderstorms and rain
Clouds- few at 1500 ft, overcast at 4000, towering cumulus
Temp- 23 degrees celsius
remark- surface visability 2 miles,towering cumulonimbus (thundercloud) 6 miles is associated with the weather (unsigned comment by: 68.163.44.98)
:The above interpretation of the METAR is correct except for the remarks section. "RMK SF2TCU6 CB ASOCTD" means "Remark: Strato-fractus 2, Towering Cumulus 6, Cumulonimbus associated". The SF2TCU6 is related to the cloud heights given in the main METAR. Few clouds means that 1-2 eighths of the sky are filled, the remark is specifying that its exactly two eighths, and that its strato-fractus type clouds. Likewise, it's also specifying that the overcast (can be 6,7, or 8 eighths) is exactly 8 (6+2=8) and its composed of towering cumulus clouds. -Lommer | talk 02:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The prime responsibility for declining a landing lies with the aircraft commander. Unless the airfield itself is unsafe in some way it will usually be kept available. treesmill 20:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remarks on the METAR

message: The page currently says:
:The A340 has eight emergency exits, with two at the extreme front and back, and the majority in the middle.
Can this possibly be right?  I've never been on an A340, but I have been on many other airliners, including several Airbus models, and the front emergency exits have always been in pairs, left and right.  Rear exits also are almost always in pairs, though a few planes like the 727 have a central stairway.  I would expect 2 exits at the front, 4 in the middle, 2 at the rear, same as on several other large planes.
--Anonymous, 01:45 UTC, August 3, 2005
:It is wrong. I doublechecked, and sure enough this cathay pacific A340 seating plan shows 4 pairs of two doors, two in the front, two in the back. The article should be changed/clarified. -Lommer | talk 02:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok then sorry for the misinformation I added, I heard that and copied exactly what I heard from one of the news sources on TV, I believe CNN. J2rome 03:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Hey no worries - it's bound to happen in an article changing as fast as this. As long as we get it right eventually... -Lommer | talk 03:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: The lesson here is that we should never, EVER take flight attendants for granted. It takes a crew of skilled professionals to evacuate that many people in that short a time. I use the term 'professional' purposely. When everything is great, they're the folks who give you orange juice, but on those rare occasions when everything goes wrong, they're highly competent pros who know their business inside and out. Bravo to the crew. Dave Walker 09:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Emergency exits

message: The Globe and Mail has details about four other A340 accidents here, if anyone feels like incorporating them into this article or the A430 page. As it stands the one-paragraph mention is pretty useless. -Lommer | talk 02:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I already heard about this on the news reports earlier and placed a small mention in this article. I also added Pearson to the A340 page, and I plan on expanding it and adding pictures of the four other accidents (photos that I captured earlier today (I think it was from GlobalTV) J2rome 03:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The other A340 accidents seem so different from the present one that they may not deserve much space or any image representation in this article. The closest apparent match (landing gear failure) was traced to the dislodging of a pin on takeoff; and the landing was undertaken with full prior knowledge of the exception and appropriate special preparations.  Myron 08:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other A340 accidents 

message: Why does this article, a story which took place in Canada, need to be American biased? What am I talking about? Well, don't you find it odd that the picture at the top is from CNN while the other pictures from CANADIAN networks are pushed down? If this isn't blatant American slant, I don't know what is.SD6-Agent 14:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Actually, that's incorrect.  CNN was rebroadcasting CBC and CP24 broadcasts, which were first on the scene. Snickerdo 02:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: * However that's irrelevant. SD6-Agent was referring to the pictures in the article which were of CNN rebroadcasting the CBC news feed. I think he was just asking why the Canadian feed wasn't there, which has been answered. Certainly that American network was not "first on the scene" or they would have had their own feed. Unless I've misunderstood you. --Mrtea 01:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  American bias 

message: If you're going to bother speculating as to the cause of the crash (even the early eyewitness reports suggest all kinds of widely varying things, from lightning strikes to power failure), you may as well add the theory that the aeroplane simply aquaplaned on the heavily flooded runway.
Certainly I doubt linking to other A340 incidents has much relevance, the only other incidents worth mentioning are similar runway overshoots (it certainly seems that, whatever the cause, this was the main reason for the plane crashing/burning - i.e. taxi-ing into a ravine).
Apparently mostly simple runway-overshoots can result in no casualties when there aren't other factors (like motorways *directly* after the runways).
The coverage here is very biased towards North American coverage. The above items were discussed on BBC World.
zoney ♣ talk 15:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a rather funny comment, because those of us here in Canada think the article is too American biased. Snickerdo 02:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm Canadian and don't find the article biased. The only thing that would throw me off is the first CNN capture but that's only because no one captured the original Canadian feed. I don't know about BBC World being biased but I think the article is rather neutral. --Mrtea 20:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation 

message: I split the last introductory paragraph in two here because it was very bloated and the content I split off the second paragraph wasn't really "necessary" as an introduction. In fact, I'd like to move this down to a lower level if possible, because I don't believe that the content in the new third paragraph is really necessary to place as introductory content above the TOC. I'd like to move it down to maybe "News reports" in the appropriate chronological location. What do you think? --Deathphoenix 18:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move third introductory paragraph down? 

message: I do feel we have way too many images on this article. One may think that there is no problem since we aren't limited in space, but they can be a pain in a couple of ways:
* Currently, wikipedia is humbled by image traffic. A more conservative use of picture would mitigate this issue.
* Second, and very important. Some users are not lucky to be sitting behind a fat pipe. I mean, there are millions of people who still use dial up, and especially very noisy dial up. Linking this number of images almost garantee the article is not accessable to them. Try visiting Kenya sometime.
I would say the first two pictures provide the same information and one has to be redundant. Please unlink some of the pictures
* There are parts of the world which still use very slow internet. However that share is decreasing and decreasing, and so there is not as much pressure to make "fast to load" articles as there used to be. It should more be a matter of "is X picture necessary in the article or is it the best such picture" and if not, we have the commons. Also Wikipedia mobile may be useful for dialup users. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many images 

message: I appreciate that there were bruises and stuff. The template just says "injuries", and   when there's only two categories, they being Deaths and Injuries, one presumes that the injuries were pretty serious but survivable. I don't know if there's any rule of thumb here, but I think it's pretty obvious that the injuries in the template won't be  minor.
Otherwise we could pretty well list just about every airline flight where hot coffe is spilt down someone's cleavage, or the drinks trolley runs over a passenger's foot or some klutz cracks their head against an overhead locker and boy, didn't that one leave a bruise. --Jumbo 04:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how Canada's TSB counts injuries (which would be the relevant agency here), but I assume they do it much like they do in the United States, where there are four categories of injury; uninjured, minor, serious, and fatal.  I disagree with you; I think we should count every injury that is counted by the official report — minor injuries are still injuries.  I also don't think it will cause your slippery slope, where we include little turbulence events where one person received a minor injury.  This is a major incident that happened to also have some minor injuries, and no point in not counting them if the TSB does. —Cleared as filed. 12:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Injuries 

message: This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it.  Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed.  I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy.  In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright.  If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally.  Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 07:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube links 

message: The Update Report doesn´t explicitly say something about a downburst. So it think it´s questionable to keep this information or speculation inside the article. 172.174.107.185 14:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Downburst 

message: This crash was featured on Discovery Channel's Mayday, perhaps some information may be sourced from there (including the cause of the crash to be due to a combination of factors including bad weather, bad runway conditions, choices made by pilot, co-pilot and air traffic control and airport runway policies.) 70.83.165.112 22:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crash featured on Discovery Channel's Mayday 

message: It says 70 knots = 145 km/h = 90 mph in the article. Which simply isn't true. 70 knots = ~130 km/h = ~80 mph. But 90 mph IS equal to ~145 km/h. I want to correct this, but don't know which is correct. Anyone with sources? 80.202.122.192 11:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed 

message: I've added "B-Class" criteria to WikiProject Aviation because it says that it is "Start-Class".  Anyone willing to do the "B-Class" criteria is welcome to do it. Adamdaley (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Aviation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Air France Flight 358. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081226022835/http://www.krem.com:80/sharedcontent/breakingnews/stories/080305cccacwintmiracle.3b1903d3.html to http://www.krem.com/sharedcontent/breakingnews/stories/080305cccacwintmiracle.3b1903d3.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080604235857/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/story/2005/08/02/airfrance050802.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/08/02/airfrance050802.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Air France Flight 358. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080227112438/http://www.cvh.cvhon.ca/news/annualrpt/Final%20Report%20Accreditation%202006.pdf to http://www.cvh.cvhon.ca/news/annualrpt/Final%20Report%20Accreditation%202006.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Air France Flight 358. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1123019209131&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Air France Flight 358. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news10now.com/content/top_stories/default.asp?ArID=46605
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116074821/http://www.aviation.ca:80/content/view/1181/117/ to http://www.aviation.ca/content/view/1181/117/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1128204610920&call_pageid=1020852958068&col=1020852955095
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Air France Flight 358. 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/20080324013249/http://www.ctv.ca:80/servlet/an/story/CTVNews/20050802/passenger_jet_050802 to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/an/story/CTVNews/20050802/passenger_jet_050802
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070408183636/http://www.ctv.ca:80/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051116/air_france_FAQ_051116/20051116/ to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051116/air_france_FAQ_051116/20051116/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Air France Flight 358. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar%2FLayout%2FArticle_Type1&c=Article&cid=1123019209131&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home
*Added  tag to http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/credits/aem2776.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aviation.ca/content/view/1181/117/
*Added  tag to http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=2398046
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar%2FLayout%2FArticle_Type1&c=Article&cid=1128204610920&call_pageid=1020852958068&col=1020852955095
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120327061207/http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/toronto/toronto.php to http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/toronto/toronto.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bea.aero/anglaise/actualite/actu.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060423184126/http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/media/fact_sheets/a05h0002/chronology_a05h0002.asp to http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/media/fact_sheets/a05h0002/chronology_a05h0002.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060430055534/http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/media/photo_database/Air/A05H0002/A05H0002_thumbs.asp to http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/media/photo_database/Air/A05H0002/A05H0002_thumbs.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080108001945/http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/col/smith/2005/08/12/askthepilot149/index.html to http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/col/smith/2005/08/12/askthepilot149/index.html
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) 17:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Question
Any passengers from Japan? 73.87.74.115 (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a table in the article that lists where passengers are from. MilborneOne (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

text: You dont really need a link to read the article, just use the "Article" tab at the top of this page. MilborneOne (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off-topic chat 

message: I think the coverage on the lawsuit launched by Air France is incomplete. I couldn't find much information, but these two articles seem to be of some interest:  . However, neither of these gives any information about the final decision. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible sources 

message: Hello, I've been doing some work on this article recently and I'm a bit concerned about the passenger list, which is unsourced and the numbers just don't add up (the figures total 306, not 297). I noticed that an IP (73.87.74.115) made some edits on 20–22 January 2018 without providing a source for the changes, but no-one challenged the edits. Does anyone know where the information came from? After a thorough search, I just can't seem to find any source out there, reliable or otherwise, for the passenger numbers/nationalities. As far as I can tell, the only source that ever mentioned a passenger list was the Canadian CBC report (I found an archived copy of this), but this was incomplete so was obviously not the source of the figures in the table that is currently in the article, which is not much use to anyone if it can't be corroborated.
I noticed the issue was brought up in the Off-topic chat above, where MilborneOne points IP 73.87.74.115 to the very table that the same IP then makes random edits to without providing any sources. Rodney Baggins (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As it really cant be sourced and as this was a non-fatal accident, and we are not listing victims, I am not sure the passenger list by country is really relevant and perhaps should just be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 10:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've since realised that the table is actually unnecessary because it's simply a passenger list, not a list of fatalities (as there were none). Will remove it as suggested! Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passenger list