Talk:Yeti Airlines Flight 691

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconNepal High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal articles
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Flight number

Not sure why suddenly there's been 2 edits on the flight number, one to 671 and one to 677. Gonna cite the following from The Kathmandu Post article on the crash:

"An ATR 72 aircraft of Yeti Airlines with a call sign 9N-ANC that took off for Pokhara from Kathmandu at 10:30am crashed at Nayagaun."

Okay. I don't think there's anyone disagreeing that the plane involved was ANC. The problem is with the flight number.

Based on the source provided by the user who edited the flight number to 677, the flight, which was supposed to be flown by ANC, showed up as Unknown. Clicking on the flight history of ANC, on 15 Jan at 08:05am, ANC departed as flight 671. Not 10:30, so I think we can definitely rule out that. ANC next flew from PKR to KTM as 672 and it landed at 09:18. Direction doesn't match so definitely not 672. The next flight it would fly, according to the flight history page, was flight 691. It was scheduled to depart at 10:32 and arrive at 10:59, but right now it's showing up as cancelled. The next flight on the list, which is 677 (the one the user edited to), was scheduled to depart at 11:25 and arrive at 11:50. Yes, this is the flight that I mentioned earlier showed up as Unknown.

Given that we know the plane departed at around 10:30am, I'm pretty sure the closest flight we have here that matches the timing is the 10:32 Flight 691.

talk) 11:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I have restored YT691 until the matter is resolved. WWGB (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Death toll

Can we please add a reference confirming the death toll as I have seen a couple times it has gone from 68 to 72 to 69 to 72 Dubstar44 (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot open the reference for number of deaths, but both
Sydney Morning Herald
both state that there are "at least 68 dead."
  • Ellis-Petersen, Hannah (2023-01-15). "Nepal plane crash with 72 onboard leaves at least 68 dead". The Guardian. Retrieved 2023-01-16.
  • Barrett, Chris (2023-01-15). "Nepal plane crash: Australian, foreign nationals, children among dozens killed in Yeti Airlines crash". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 2023-01-16.
76.14.122.5 (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even I am confused. According to Retuers, it says 71 people are dead and it was last updated 3 hours ago(from google, although the article says 2 days ago). I think we will have to wait for an official conformation, and if we have one then we can confirm it. EmperorXYZ (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates

The lat/long in the infobox are for the old airport. The reporting is the crash was near runway 12 of new airport. 159.196.168.202 (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The coordinates are for the river gorge it crashed into, not either one of the airports.Maple Doctor (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook livestream

I’m not sure I believe the facebook livestream linked under “external videos”. It seems fake. Is there any confirmation on its legitimacy? Tankpiggy18 (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks real to me, at least the initial part prior to the crash. It is the correct aircraft, identifiable by the wings/flaps of the ATR 72-500 and it is the correct city as I can identify several landmarks of Pokhara, in particular the Bhadrakali Temple visible at 0:20 and Pokhara Stadium at 0:37. The specific flight path is consistent with the crash site coordinates too as they appear to have been on a left circuit for runway 30.
If this is the case I question whether this content is too graphic/distressing for Wikipedia, even as an external link. Unfortunately I'm not familiar with the policy on this. Forentitalk 08:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be a bit too much. At the very least, we should provide a warning PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything that is particularly graphic actually. The first part is a man inside an airplane filming himself, his surroundings and the view outside of the plant. The second part is only blurred and black screens with sounds revealing something is seriously amiss. Then it ends with a couple of seconds of fire. There is virtually no graphic content of the actual accident.Tvx1 19:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I see The Daily Mail, Times of India, Business Today and quite a number of other sources acknowledging the stream, so I suppose it is recognized as true for now. If it turns out to be fake we can remove it later.

talk) 05:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Al Jazeera used it in their Newsfeed. Maybe, its real. बडा काजी (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Aviation Herald here [1] suggests very very strongly that the videos are not real. The BLP issues here are real people are identifiable on the aircraft in the video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maungapohatu (talk • contribs) 19:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Maungapohatu The video appears to be real [2]. बडा काजी (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose time will tell but that reference does not look particularly Reliable to me. On the other hand we have a reliable aviation journalist saying his investigations say the video is fake. If it is fake this an issue of
WP:BLP there are identifiable people in the video that we are saying have died who may not have died. We just don't know. Note I did not remove the video - but it does need some qualification as to its status. Also you deleted my reference again please do not do that. Maungapohatu (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Your continued edits without consensus will lead to being blocked from editing. This is your final warning. 46.183.103.8 (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the wording to be more neutral - this should avoid any BLP issues. And please do not delete valid RS sources from the article. Maungapohatu (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to change it back. A few chat-board comments at Aviation Herald don't trump most RS sources. The video deserves a warning for readers. They all died. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC) look at this??[reply]

This is the quote from the editor of the Aviation Herald - you are misrepresenting it above.

Fake Videos around By Simon Hradecky on Monday, Jan 16th 2023 17:13Z

There are currently two fake videos making the rounds:

1) The "onboard" passenger video claimed to have been streamed live. This was another flight until the point the video suddenly gets blurred and shows some sort of crash scene. It does NOT show the aircraft pitching up (that would certainly be seen) and rolling in (the first few moments would definitely be seen too). Clearly falsified video.

2) The video from the other side showing an engine fire. This aircraft rolls to the right rather than the left. There is no evidence of fire on the authentic video published in the coverage. This video from the right is thus not credible whatsoever with respect to this Yeti Crash.

Due to frequent mention of these videos and claims, they are authentic, the comments are now closed.

Maungapohatu (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maungapohatu Avherald has also admitted that the video is credible, Simon changed the comment to this:

There are currently a number of fake videos making the rounds, however, there is also a version of an onboard passenger video of the crash around, that according to the passenger's family had been livestreamed via Facebook (under normal circumstances mobile phones can be operated on board of aircraft only in flight mode, with no transmissions from the phone possible). This video appears credible but remains independently unverifyable. [sic]
...2) There are many doctored versions of that onboard video around rendering these versions not credible and fake.
At first I was not aware of any other version of that passenger video thinking there was only one (my) version around that was clearly fake, therefore profoundly apologize for inadvertently including that credible video in my fake rating.

Basically they saw a doctored and fake version of the video and thought it was the actual version Aaron Liu (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this seems to be the entire onboard video, and at the end you clearly can hear talking human voices while the plane is alreadycrashed and burning, how on Earth may this ever be authentic? Regards --A.Savin (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the background noise of people talking is because this was a screen record from a phone and the recorder picked up the audio from the livestream and the audio from the phone's microphone where there's people nearby talking about the livestream/crash 103.10.65.102 (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia reports the information that reliable sources report. This video is trusted by a lot of reliable sources including BBC. They have confirmed it with a victim's family, so the chance that this video is fake is pretty small. While the AV Herald comment was by an editor the entire site appears to be somewhat of a personal blog, so it probably isn't an RS and we shouldn't give

WP:UNDUE weight to it for now, IMO. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC) Apparently the person behind the blog is an aviation security expert and later admitted that they saw a doctored version of the video and confused it for the real version, see aboveAaron Liu (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't see anything that would disprove the many reliable sources claiming the footage to be wrong, mostly because the person shown filming was confirmed to have actually been on the plane in question. The cited passage from Aviation Herald is actually a conclusion of the general views of the posts in their comments section. Moreover, their first point is actually wrong. If you actually look at the facebook footage and pay particular attention to the last segment showing the view through the plane's left-side windows, you'll see that the left wing actually does slightly start banking left before something goes seriously wrong.Tvx1 19:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:ASOF

@WWGB The entire purpose of dating temporal claims with WP:ASOF is that it will not be without qualification in the future. That is precisely why you do qualify it. Presumably you will not come back to this article when the next ATF crashes and update it. Either revert your changes or delete the sentence entirely. 46.183.103.8 (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:As of, "the 'as of' technique is a method to deal with information that will quickly become dated". I doubt there will be a rush of even deadlier ATR-72 crashes in the near future. The template is more relevant to material like populations and exchange rates. WWGB (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality of the Passengers

According to the Washington Post and ABC News, there were two Americans in the plane crash. Should we wait for conformation news from the U.S. government? The thing I don’t understand is that there were 72 people on the plane crash and the nationality of the passengers is already equal to 72 people. So is there is miscalculation of passengers/nationality of passengers? EmperorXYZ (talk) 03:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps two pax had dual US citizenship, but travelled on the passport of their other nationality. WWGB (talk) 04:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused too because I found some sources like this one saying four Americans aboard. Btw, User:WWGB, I can't find any sources confirming the Dual US Citizenship argument. Filipinohere (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the source says two American citizens and two permanent residents. The PRs are neither American nor citizens. WWGB (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So how we can add the info on the Americans aboard in the list @WWGB? Filipinohere (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added as text. WWGB (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ILS

The paragraph about ILS is just tenuous speculation and is misleading. Why would ILS have been needed at that time? It should be removed. But that source does say "Yeti Airlines said the plane's cockpit voice recorder will be analyzed locally, but the flight data recorder will be sent to France. Both were retrieved Monday". So the previous paragraph needs to be corrected. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. ILS is a system used only when weather conditions don't permit visual approach and landing (e.g., due to heavy fog). Even if it had been installed in Pokhara, it's highly unlikely it would have been used as weather was good on the day. — kashmīrī TALK 12:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that "On 17 January, authorities began returning the victims' bodies to their families" is now apparently unsourced. But I'm not sure it's really part of "Investigation" anyway. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ILS is still often used during fine weather conditions as it provides a simple and consistent track to the runway, particularly at airports with high traffic. However it is clear from the passenger video that YT691 was flying a visual approach where it would only be aligned with the runway for the last few miles, and that neither the aircraft nor the airport required ILS instrumentation for this. Forentitalk 07:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flags: yes or no

There has been a slow-burning edit war with national flags of those killed being added and removed. Can we have a discussion and straw poll here to resolve the issue? Thanks, WWGB (talk) 07:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ICON is to my mind clear that flags should not to be added. For them to stay they need to be more than just decoration.Maungapohatu (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Pilot Error Missing

Engines feathered, flaps down, banking turn to make a last-minute runway change, and no mention of any hardware defect, I would assume their must be some RS that speculates pilot error as the cause of the crash and yet 10 months later and that standard, typical and expected speculation is glaringly obviously missing. I read the entire Article and had to figure it out myself, when it should have been early and prominent in the Lede.

2600:1700:10DE:30C0:AED2:1FBF:B12D:BBF1 (talk) 06:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The accident investigation report here says this:
The contributing factors to the accident are:
  • 1 High workload due to operating into a new airport with surrounding terrain and the crew missing the associated flight deck and engine indications that both propellers had been feathered.
  • 2 Human factor issues such as high workload and stress that appears to have resulted in the misidentification and selection of the propellers to the feathered position.
  • 3 The proximity of terrain requiring a tight circuit to land on runway 12. This tight circuit was not the usual visual circuit pattern and contributed to the high workload. This tight pattern also meant that the approach did not meet the stabilised visual approach criteria.
  • 4 Use of visual approach circuit for RWY 12 without any evaluation, validation and resolution of its threats which were highlighted by the SRM team of CAAN and advices proposed in flight procedures design report conducted by the consultant and without the development and approval of the chart by the operator and regulator respectively.
  • 5 Lack of appropriate technical and skill based training (including simulator) to the crew and proper classroom briefings (for that flight) for the safe operation of flight at new airport for visual approach to runway 12.
  • 6 Non-compliance with SOPs, ineffective CRM and lack of sterile cockpit discipline.
But no mention of "pilot error"? Have you found "some RS that speculates pilot error" yet? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yati Airlines crase

why Nepal Plane All year crash 118.91.172.66 (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yeti_Airlines_Flight_691&oldid=1217537583"