Jump to content

Talk:Air France Flight 358

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Snarled traffic?

[edit]

"The accident has snarled traffic throughout Toronto's highway system."

I haven't heard about any snarled traffic, and the news cameras show a not-so-snarled highway. Is this just me? can someone in Toronto tell us anything else? --Quadraxis 21:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's because they are trying to close the 401, and the bottlenecks are affecting other routes, such as the 427. CrazyC83 21:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are asking people to avoid the area if possible. J2rome 21:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Listen to the live feed for 680 news, they have a traffic update every ten minutes. and the traffic is backed up throughou the city on all the 400-series highways. --Madchester 22:28, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
The traffic is backed up everyday anyway. SYSS Mouse 23:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Traffic is congested around the 401 area as the 401 West has been closed. All the collectors to the 401 from connecting Hwy's have been closed. This has led to traffic on the 407ETR and 427 to be increased as well as a few surface roads; however other TO congestion is normal for the time of day. Just copied recent traffic report. --Tomplant 22:46, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Trust me, traffic was definitely snarled. The 401 past Pearson is my usual route home from work, and that night it took me an extra couple of hours to get home. --guru 03:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
don't think so, no UkPaolo 22:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't the captures I took fair use? J2rome 21:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
i would have said so UkPaolo 22:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken many captures. I can add more if needed. J2rome 22:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why were the images removed? Are they not allowed on current event pages after the initial period thereafter? J2rome 01:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Any more speculation anyone can think of?

[edit]

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)[reply]

I saw an article that suggested investigation had concluded the plane intially landed at the start of the lane, but for some reason became airborne again until midway down the lane. Not authoratative info, but worth mentioning

Why do we need sections on "Netherlands News Coverage" and "Belgian News Coverage"?

[edit]

This is the English-language version of Wikipedia. What purpose does it serve to have an extensive section of links to articles in Dutch (some from the Netherlands, some from Belgium)? These links are entirely appropriate for the Dutch Wikipedia, but what are they doing here? Should we hunt for five Slovenian or Slovakian articles about this event next? Moncrief 22:22, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I'm from the Netherlands and I totally agree with the previous poster.

Here's the Dutch version of the article - [1]. Put the links there - and add to the article; it's pretty short. Moncrief 22:26, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
I suspect it's because the flight originated from The Netherlands. --HappyCamper 22:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't originate from the Netherlands. It originated from Paris. Edit: I see that it originated in Amsterdam with a stop in Paris. My hunch is that most of the passengers on the plane from Holland got off in Paris; that's how those things usually work. Moncrief 00:44, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Edit again: Just for the record. The plane did not originate in Amsterdam. There were no Dutch citizens on the plane. That was incorrect information. It was a Paris-Toronto flight. Moncrief 17:08, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Regardless, there's way too many external news sources right now; some users are even adding blogs to the list. --Madchester 23:39, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

The external links was going nuts (do we really need links to the A340 homepage and every local Canadian news article?), so I culled it. Dan100 (Talk) 23:56, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
well that's rude to do, there should be a way to add international news coverage on a seperated page so it isn't all listed on the same page but still available. Michael2-
It isn't rude at all. It's smart page building. Adding all those links was excessive and made the page difficult to read. And the English-language Wikipedia doesn't have links to external articles in other langauges, generally; let alone 5-6. Again, the link to the Dutch Wikipedia article is above, and it needs external links. Moncrief 00:44, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Remarks on the METAR

[edit]

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)[reply]

I seem to think it was interesting but probably not significant there was hail at the time 12km directly west of the crash site of around 7-12mm on and off for 5 minutes that overlapped with the time the news stated the plane crashed. I wonder how severe the weather has to be exactly for them to stop landings? cripes! -trode | trode 01:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Diversions

[edit]

I work for an airline that's had to do some diversions due to this accident. I added the cities involved to the list. -- K

I heard on a CBC Radio news report that a couple of flights were also diverted to North Bay. This seemed strange to me at the time, as this airport does not normally service large commercial passenger aircraft. I've been unable to confirm this report. Anyone out there heard about this? - David in Toronto

Emergency exits

[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Flight number as article title

[edit]

The idea of using the flight number as the article title about an airplane accident is just stupid, it seems to me. Flight numbers are reused every day, yet the article is invariably about an incident on a particular day. This is far from being the only article thus titled, so I would prefer to make this comment in a talk page or other forum that isn't about one particular accident: can anyone suggest one?

--Anonymous, 01:46 UTC, August 3, 2005

Why would it be Miracle in Toronto? It took place in Mississauga, and second there's already the Mississauga Miracle, which refers to that 1978 chlorine leak and public evacuation. --Madchester 16:46, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Mississauga is a (massive) suburb of Toronto, and this is Toronto's international airport. I don't think the term Miracle in Toronto is worthy of an encyclopedia article, but I can say that I have heard that term, along with Miracle by the Highway used to describe the crash. Snickerdo 02:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, unless they re-drew the boundaries, Toronto is still larger than Mississauga in surface area, so that argument is not relevant. It also contradicts the introductory paragraph, which indicates that the airport is in Mississauga. --Madchester 16:44, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
I meant 'massive' in population, not size, as there are few (if any) other suburbs in the world that have 700,000 people. Regardless, the airport is Toronto Pearson International Airport, people who fly to this airport are flying into Toronto, not Mississauga, and that in itself is enough to call it the Miracle in Toronto. Sorry Mississauga, but you just aren't important enough, and as far as the world is concerned, you are just a western extension of the Big Smoke. Snickerdo 21:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a very poor choice of name. I only see one news report on Google News using that term, from Manitoba. I also haven't heard any news report use it, though I'm not watching the news all the time. I'm mainly hearing it be refered to as the Toronto Plane Crash or Air Disaster or such. I can't see any issue with the naming.
Some folks are calling it "Miracle at Pearson"; however, I am perfecylu happy with leaving it as is. There is no need to change it, though whichever media-given nickname sticks may do well as a redirect to this article. --Deathphoenix 18:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would say leave it as it is although Miracle in Toronto is kind of nice, and I have heard it mentioned a great deal in the media, for example on TV with CNN and CTV. J2rome 22:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This the original poster: I have taken the suggestion (thanks!) and posted in Village pump (policy). Please pursue the subject there if interested. I will respond here on only one point made above: I think the practice of retiring flight numbers is a red herring, because not all airlines would do it; and in any case it doesn't address the issue of all the previous instances of the flight number, which are not what the article is about. -- 02:10 UTC, August 3

Other A340 accidents

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. [2] Myron 08:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flight originated from The Netherlands?

[edit]

Just wondering if the flight really did originate from the Netherlands or not. Was this information removed because it was determined that it was not? [3] --HappyCamper 04:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, this flight was from Paris. KLM flight 691 was coming from Amsterdam, couldn't land in Toronto because of the Air France accident, then nearly ran out of fuel and landed in Syracuse. -newkai | talk | contribs 05:05, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Newkai is incorrect. Technically, Flight 358 originated in Amsterdam, and had a stopover in Paris, after which it went to Toronto. [4] --Bletch 11:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody actually check the Air France website first. 358 originates at Charles de Gaulle and ends at Pearson. Though it does take passengers from six different flights out of Schiphol. 358 itself originates at CDG. --Kitch 12:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked Air France's Website (Canadian version) and funny, they recorded it down as landed and not crashed... but whatever, the original departure is from Charles De Gaulle and not from Netherlands. Also, why do u think it is Netherlands? That's KLM 691's flight. Cncxbox 21:38 (EST/EDT)

Do we need a complete list of the airports diverted to in the introduction? DJ Clayworth 13:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American bias

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • When I heard about the crash, I dialed up the live feed for CFTR in Toronto. Guess what? They were simulcasting CNN! The American network was first on the scene with a passenger interview. So calm down. Mwalcoff 00:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

The answer to your question is obvious, and has nothing to do with American bias: of the screencaps available, that is clearly the most dramatic. It is a closeup, and shows fire. If that is not adequate justification, I don't know what is. --Klanda | Talk 16:44, August 3, 2005 (UTC) (writing from Toronto).

I agree. The local ones were mostly being filmed from the traffic camera at the scene, and the captures people were able to get reflected the live coverage. CNN probably had that more dramatic shot repeating over and over during their recaps, so it was easier to get a capture of it. I'm certainly not offended, and I'm a Torontonian -- Mel "MelSkunk" Smith 17:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where SD6-Agent is coming from and I hope they don't get me wrong, I am a proud Canadian too and I was actually the one who captured these photos from all of the different TV stations. As much as I would like to put one of the Canadian ones on top, the CNN one is the most dramatic as stated by Klanda and MelSkunk. CNN actually took the image from CBC, but I wasn't tuned to CBC at the time as I don't watch the channel much and forgot that it would have great coverage. I can look back at the caps saved on my computer and see if there's a better CBC one. J2rome 23:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all! I'm a Torontonian, and about this American-bias thing, I agree it IS bias, they took the images off our reporters work and overlap them w/ their title, that is unfair. Anyways, yesterday, I flipped on the TV, it was CBC and not some American channel (aka CNN). Cncxbox 21:33 (EDT)

The most amusing thing of all is that the CNN shot was actually from the CBC, and you can clearly see that CNN is 'overlaying' their own graphics on top of the CBC feed. I updated the article to reflect this, and it also shows that CNN was using Canadian news sources for their information, which is a big deal for those of us here north of the border. Snickerdo 02:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sheezes. I'm not American (or Canadian), but this is hardly blatant American bias. Desensitise, people. If it had said "Airbus crashes 'cuz its furrin made", I'd agree. At best, it is unfortunate. More likely, a coincidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.122.192 (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Well it was a North American event, so much of the coverage and people interested here will be from NA. If you're from the UK maybe you could help add more BBC info. J2rome 23:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move third introductory paragraph down?

[edit]

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)[reply]

Two images in the introductory paragraph

[edit]

Help! The two images side-by-side makes for a difficult read of the intro that I don't know how to fix. Thanks, hydnjo talk 02:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed by Curps. Thank you, hydnjo talk 03:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've reintroduced the problem by adding in a crash template. The template allows an image, possibly one of the two could be inserted there. Great top photograph, BTW!
I've also tidied up some of the dates. Wikidates don't need an embedded comma because it is added according to the user's preferences. --Jumbo 07:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why GEAE is participating in the investigation?

[edit]

I know that they make the engines for the A340 (CFM56 is a subsidary of GEAE and also Scenema, mind the spelling!) But why did they join the investigation? -- Irfanfaiz | Talk

Too many images

[edit]

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)[reply]

Injuries

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
[edit]

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)[reply]

Downburst

[edit]

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)[reply]

[edit]

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)[reply]

Speed

[edit]

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)[reply]

WikiProject Aviation

[edit]

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)[reply]

See Also: Swissair 111

[edit]

Unless someone can indicate the relevance of this inclusion, I am going to remove it. 66.207.216.102 (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No response - removed.
66.207.216.102 (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Air France Flight 358. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Air France Flight 358. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic chat

[edit]
Off-topic chat

Question

Any passengers from Japan? 73.87.74.115 (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a table in the article that lists where passengers are from. MilborneOne (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link? 73.87.74.115 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please see the IP's talk page. - SummerPhDv2.0 20:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources

[edit]

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: [5] [6]. However, neither of these gives any information about the final decision. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Passenger list

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Air_France_Flight_358&oldid=1204624892"