Talk:Iran Air Flight 655/Archive 1

message: ICJ's November 6, 2003 (Press release) vote on US Navy's presence in Iranian territorial water was about Operation Praying Mantis not IR655 incident. The only record about IR655 on ICJ's site is . I'm a bit busy these days but I'll try to incorporate these sources into corresponding pages. --Pouya 20:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Court of Justice 

message: Software development expert Steve McConnell wrote:
:Iran Air Flight 655 was shot down by the USS Vincennes's Aegis system in 1988, killing 290 people. The error was initially attributed to operator error, but later some experts attributed the incident to the poor design of Aegs's user interface. (Professional Software Development, page 166)
I recall hearing something "conspiratorial" at the time, about how the passenger plane was thought to have deliberately sent a transponder signal identifying it as military. McConnell seems to contradict this theory. Uncle Ed 15:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Operator error or poor user interface?

message: The first picture says it is an Airbus, however it is a Boeing 737.
Cut from Independent Sources section:
:Independent investigations into the events have presented a different picture. 
This section gives no picture at all of the incident, but presents only the conclusions of journalists from Newsweek magazine.
Perhaps we should balance the points of view as:
*The government said the ship's officers were not to blame; vs.
*Two Newsweek reporters drew a different conclusion, accusing them of ...
Generally speaking, investigations report facts as well as drawing conclusions. Uncle Ed 16:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Different picture?

message: I watched the Discovery Channel documentary on the incident last night and there were some interesting things in it.
*Initially the plane appeared to be squawking both mode 2 (military) and mode 3 (civilian) IFF codes. This was attributed to two things. On initial acquisition on the Vincennes computer screens, there was an Iranian F-14 on the ground at the airport (which was both civilian and military) so two codes came back. Then although the aircraft trace moved, the acquisition cursor remained over the initial acquisition location, picking the F-14 IFF.
When the system updated, and was showing only mode 3, this was interpreted that the plane had switched mode 2 off to deceive the Vincennes.
*The Vincennes was on course to another area of the gulf, when they requested permission to support another US ship. Permission was denied, but permission was given to launch their helicopter in support. When the helicopter came under fire, the Vincennes headed full speed for the helicopters location. The documentary didn't make clear whether the Vincennes had already changed course before the helicopter was fired upon. This is a crucial point. If the Vincennes changed course towards the north BEFORE the helicopter was fired upon, they were disobeying a direct order. AFTER the helicopter was fired upon, they were of course permitted to make best speed towards it, in order to support it.
*US Navy radio operations guidelines at the time did not require ships to broadcast the IFF code number of the plane they were trying to contact during warning transmissions. Had they done so, it is highly likely the Iranian pilot would have recognised it, and responded.
::This is the point that really gets me.  Guidelines or not, this is a serious failure of the crew of the Vincennes to simply think outside of a very very small box.  That 655 is "unidentified" *and* squawking at the same time is absurd.  It seems odd to me that no one thought to refer to the unidentified craft with it's transponder code when that is the only specific thing that would allow the crew of the 655 to recognise that the Vincennes was trying to contact them, as opposed to an ambiguious heading and an incorrect air speed.  -- GIR 03:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery Channel Documentary 

message: Is it just me or does this entire section from the article read like an apology for the US Navy killing 290 people? Especially reading the last bulleted point, to the effect that this incident may have been instrumental in ending the Iran-Iraq war, seems over the top. So, let me see if I get it right: this 'aggressive Captain', by accidentally blowing up 290 people, actually did a good, nay, noble thing? It's not surprising to read a quote from GWH Bush further down, in which he said that the US will never admit any wrongdoing, "no matter what the facts are."
:None of it is sourced either except for the last bit about the software developer. Unless the author can cite a source for these claims, I'm removing the section. SouthernComfort 06:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Other factors that may have been contributing" 

message: "The American ship tried more than once to contact Flight 655, but there was no acknowledgement."
"The American version of the tragedy of Flight 655 has been questioned by many, including a writer of the Newsweek magazine, who said that, since all talks in international flights between pilots and control towers must be done in English, the occupants of the USS Vincennes should have known that the plane nearing them was a commercial jet-liner."
Is it just me or that a contradiction?
: You answer is here: Iran_Air_Flight_655#Radio_frequencies.  Vincennes crew also addressed the Airliner pilot as an F-14 on distress frequencies. So how could he know they were talking to him.
: I am reverting back your edit. 203.48.45.194 01:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, the Vincennes was not equipped with civilian aviation band radios (not even receivers).  There were unable to listen to Iranian ATC then.  From reading the investigation reports it seems that a huge lack of miscommunication contributed to this event.  Again emphasizing the need for international cooperation. Additionally, the Vincennes did have Civilian and Military hard coded transmission radios in such an event as this however altering the VHF frequency on this certain radio required upwards of an hour to modify—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cjsoques (talk • contribs) 02:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction?