Talk:Jeju Air Flight 2216

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2024

Change

"the aircraft involved was making four flights a week between the airport and Bangkok" to "the aircraft type involved was making four flights a week between the airport and Bangkok".

[Rationale: Clearly flights on that route were not operated only by the specific aircraft involved in the accident, that's not how airlines work. Jeju operates around 3 dozen B738s]. DaveReidUK (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done - Source specifically states "Flight 7C 2216, the airliner that crashed, traveled between Bangkok and Muan four times a week." Unless you have a source that supports your request, I'm afraid it can't be made @DaveReidUK CommissarDoggo^Talk? 10:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The source IS correct; but it does not support the statement that cites it, although you don't appear to understand the difference. A better form of words (which the citation does support) would be "The airliner that crashed was operating Flight 7C 2216, that traveled between Bangkok and Muan four times a week". I hope that helps you to understand the issue. DaveReidUK (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@CommissarDoggo I believe DaveReidUK is correct here – just because the same flight number was used for all flights on this route doesn't necessarily mean the same aircraft was used for all such flights. Toadspike [Talk] 21:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Toadspike @DaveReidUK I'm totally fine to be proved wrong here, and I don't doubt that that's the case, but the source itself does not make that distinction. The exact text of the source more makes it sound as if that plane specifically is flight xyz, not that it was one of multiple on one route, which is an absolute pain in the ass. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 22:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems both are right, strangely enough. The source does say "flight 2216 traveled four times a week", which technically doesn't imply only this aircraft, but flight tracking websites do show aircraft HL8088, specifically, flying from Bangkok (VTBS) to Muan (RKJB) five(!) times between 22/Dec and 29/Dec: once on the 22nd, once on the 23rd, once on the 26th, once on the 27th, and the accident flight on the 29th — all numbered as flight 2216. Further data also confirm this was the only aircraft carrying out this flight number since the 22nd, with various others doing that job before then. At this point this might qualify as original research, maybe, but the claim is technically correct, if poorly phrased. —Lokarutlot (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for confirming. This is exactly the kind of technicality a journalist might miss, but if more technical sources confirm it, then I drop my objections. Toadspike [Talk] 22:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Yep, I suppose whoever wrote it in the source didn't know better to distinguish a plane's tail number from a flight number but still came to the correct conclusion by chance due to this specific situation — which, on second read, is what I think DaveReidUK meant on their second message. Could still mean we might need an extra source verifying it was indeed the same aircraft and not just flight number (archives of flight trackers?), but I'll defer that to someone who actually knows policy better than me. Lokarutlot (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I may be missing something, but the solution seems pretty clear to me. Leaving aside the fact that the source conflates "aircraft" with "flight", there appears to be a consensus here (supported by the source) that the flight number in question operates 4x per week from Bangkok to Muan. Why not simply leave the Wiki entry at that? Yes, it happens that the last few instances of that flight number were operated by the accident aircraft, but so what? - that has no more relevance to the accident than the (equally verifiable) fact that the aircraft flew on plenty of other servicew, on other routes, in between times. Nobody, as far as I can see, is suggesting that events would have been any different had the flight been operated by a different tail number, so the past history of that specific tail number is totally irrelevant and any reference to its history is needlessly confusing and unnecessary. DaveReidUK (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I was mostly going off of What's Already There, but I tend to generally agree with this sentiment, to be fair. Until some unknowns are answered, weekly time or distance flown have no bearing on the outcome of this flight (despite what some media outlets have been suggesting). A rewrite along the lines of what you propose here (e.g. "and the Bangkok-Muan flight operated four times a week, a service[...]") seems appropriate. Lokarutlot (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Do we have rights to use the images of the crash?

I've posted a discussion on the filetalk for the image. I have no experience with the Filespace so I hope some experienced editors can assist. guninvalid (talk) 08:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

This is used under non-Free criteria WP:NFCI. If you don't feel that its use is justified, you can nominate it for deletion - WP:FFD so that other people can discuss whether to keep or delete it. Hzh (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Guninvalid, @Hzh: FYI, The two accident related images have been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 December 31 separately. – robertsky (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

On the conditions of the go-around (protected edit request 2 January 2025)

Quoting from the #Accident section:

A minute later, it issued a mayday alert. At 9:00 a.m., the plane attempted an emergency landing, being forced to go around after the landing gear was not deployed. A minute later, it received authorization to attempt a landing from the opposite direction.

This reads as if the crew attempted to continue the approach after the bird strike, experienced a landing gear deployment failure, then performed the go-around and the belly landing, which is not supported by the given sources. Only The Independent has a timeline that kind of alludes to that, but that itself looks like a slight misread of other sources.

According to Reuters, BBC, and the AvHerald (all of which are already reference in the article), the crew declared "mayday, bird strike, going around" and immediately discontinued the approach. This was followed by a request to land on the opposite direction, which they were cleared for^­†, a 180° turn, and a touchdown without the landing gear (unknown if it failed, as somewhat alluded to by the current text), all within less than three minutes. The sources given also agree the crash against the ILS structure happened at 09:03 LT, not "between 9:03 and 9:07" as stated in the beginning of the following paragraph, with the touchdown having been some time after 09:02.

Proposed rewrite:

Two minutes later, the crew declared mayday, citing a bird strike had happened, and advised ATC they were going around. At 9:00 a.m., they requested clearance to attempt a landing from the opposite direction, which they were then given at 9:01.

Though also requesting help from more experienced editors on phrasing here.

^†Speaking of clearances, this passage also uses the terms "authorization" and "authorized" (for landing/to land), which I imagine might be direct translations by existing sources from Korean material (perhaps "허가" also meaning "permission"? See also Wiktionary and Collins dictionary entries) — the proper phraseology in English for landing (and other) permissions is "clearance" and "cleared" (as I've used them in the proposed rewrite), but I'm unsure if that specific rewrite qualifies as OR. For what it's worth, the AvHerald does phrase it as "[ATC] clears the aircraft to land".

References

— Lokarutlot (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

This looks like another instance of an assertion in the article that isn't cited in the source. "Being forced to go around after the landing gear was not deployed" makes it sound as if the go-around was a consequence of not being able to deploy the gear. It is perfectly possible that the go-around decision was a consequence of the bird strike, and the confirmed fact that (as in any go-around) it was performed with the gear stowed does not rule out it having been previously lowered prior to the bird strike and then retracted for the GA. At the very least, the current wording needs to have a [citation needed] tag. DaveReidUK (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 January 2025

In section "Investigation", in the 6th paragraph starting "The barrier in question", change "about 250 meters (820 ft)" to "202 meters (663 ft)".

The distance is provided by reference 81 ""Exclusive: Muan Airport fails to meet safety regulations on localizer setup". The Chosun Daily. 31 December 2024. Archived from the original on 31 December 2024. Retrieved 31 December 2024." linked to in the previous sentence. Jcaron (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 January 2025 (2)

Please change "Within the last year" under "Aircraft" to a more specific date. Please add a date to the first sentence under the "accident" heading.

Optional: Please change "a service that Jeju Air had begun on 8 December." to "a service that Jeju Air began on 8 December." JarJarInks (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Please change "Within the last year" under "Aircraft" to a more specific date. –  Not done: The cited reference does not specify any dates, although if you have sources that include dates, feel free to cite then.
• Please add a date to the first sentence under the "accident" heading. –  Done.
• Optional: Please change "a service that Jeju Air had begun on 8 December." to "a service that Jeju Air began on 8 December." –  Done. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Aviationwikiflight is it possible to use the December 2024 publication date (edit: of the source https://www.reuters.com/graphics/SOUTHKOREA-CRASH/MAPS/movawoejova/, which is the cited source for that sentence) as a basis to change "Within the last year" to "During 2024", or would that be considered OR? The source uses the phrase "over the past year," so I feel confident that its referring to 2024. (I'm new, so I'm unsure of the scope of the OR rule). Thanks for the other changes as well! JarJarInks (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Wing spoilers and thrust reverser in lead

Discussion of the wing spoiler and thrust reverser deployment seems like excess detail in the lead. Carguychris (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Not to me. That helps explain why the plane overran the runway, and indicates a problem beyond landing gear. Of course, other information is likely to emerge soon (e.g., from the cockpit voice recorder). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Although I made an edit to that sentence, I tend to agree that it's a bit more than needed in the lede. I think the information that it landed long helps readers understand why it overshot. Of course, there's plenty more info in the body text. DonFB (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)