Talk:Pakistan International Airlines Flight 661

Number of PIA hull losses

OK, can we get this issue settled please. The source clearly states ATR crash is PIA's tenth hull loss since 2000. That is ten hull losses from all causes. Yet it keeps getting changed to state only seven, despite the headline of the article used as a reference. When I first added the information, I was careful to point out that one hull loss was due to weather damage, two were due to terrorism and seven were due to crashes. Pinging @YSSYguy: and @Aizads: as involved parties. Mjroots (talk) 12:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I changed it to seven hull losses in accidents, because I thought including the other three had the effect of somewhat distorting PIA's record - and I feel that is what the writer of the source article wanted to do as well; a headline saying "ten planes lost" sounds worse and grabs the attention more than "seven planes lost". A person comes along, reads that the airline has lost ten aircraft since 2000 and fixates on that; a more accurate picture is presented when the reader learns that the airline has had seven crashes and that one other crash resulted in fatalities - still far from a stellar record. If you think it is important to mention that ten aircraft have been written off, then perhaps a sentence may be added following, along the lines of: "Another three parked aircraft were written off, one after being damaged in a storm and two as a result of a terrorist attack." That way the article says that there were seven crashes and oh, by the way, there were these other three aircraft that were lost through no fault of the airline. YSSYguy (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@YSSYguy: - which is exactly what I said in my original addition (see diff above), which included the sentence Of the ten, one was due to weather damage and two were due to terrorism. Mjroots (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

It isn't exactly what you said, the emphasis is different. One version says "there were ten hull losses" (which would cause many people, if they read just the headline, to immediately think 'ten crashes') with a second statement - a postscript if you will - saying that seven were crashes and three were due to other causes; another version would say "there were seven accidents" (which surely is the most pertinent information to the 'average reader') with a second statement saying "there were three other hull losses as well due to these other causes". The two aircraft destroyed in the terrorist attacks weren't even in service anymore according to the source article, so including them further distorts the picture - were they even complete aircraft, or had they been stripped of parts? If they had been in the boneyard in Victorville but still registered to PIA and something happened to them there, would we still treat them as part of PIA's fleet? Which version is more accurate from a perception point of view? YSSYguy (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Summary

The summary is too broad. What should we change it to? Tntad (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The summary is always 'too broad', but how about "engine failure resulting in wing damage"? YSSYguy (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hold on guys. How is "engine failure" already listed as the cause of the crash? Planes can fly just fine on even one of the two engines. And the main body of the article stating that one engine failure caused enough damage to the left wing that the aircraft became impossible to fly.... is false. There is no concrete evidence for this. Neither the BEA (French) or the SIB (Pakistan) have stated this in any clear terms. I recommend changing the cause of this investigation to "engine failure issues, investigation ongoing."

AND edit the main body of the article to say that the investigation is on going. No one knows for sure yet if the wing was damaged beyond flying ability from one engine failing. The investigation is still ongoing. Here is the BEA page link: https://www.bea.aero/en/investigation-reports/notified-events/detail/event/accident-to-the-atr-42-registered-ap-bho-operated-by-pakistan-international-airlines-on-07122016-at-havelian-investigation-led-by-aib-pakistan/

There is no conclusive reason yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.230.78.38 (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Wykx (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Final report

The Aircraft Accident Investigation Board of Pakistan has published its final report of their investigation of the crash. Mjroots (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)