Talk:Air France Flight 447/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Search and Rescue Operations

Spain has a CASA 235 maritime patrol craft operating over the area[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.126.10.233 (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Official statistics

The official statistics about nationalities has been announced by AirFrance. The statistics need to be updated: Air France

Something is wrong in the nationality list, either the subtotal of 9 or that 4 nationalities missing 3 citizens each. RGDS Alexmcfire

Bomb threat

Not sure about whether we should mention the bomb threat - linking it to this incident is kind of speculative at this point. Evercat (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Since I can't find any evidence that the two incidents are related, I think mention of the bomb threat should be removed. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 10:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

How about removing it at least until some other source suggests a possible connection? Evercat (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think that would be best. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 10:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea I think. Speculation doesn't help at the current moment. Shall it be removed?--78.16.224.140 (talk) 10:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• It has now been removed. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed, should be removed as no known connection, but someone keeps adding it back. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I've added an edit note to the article. Any further instances of addition can be reverted and a vandalism warning issued. Mjroots (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
      • When you say "keeps adding it back", do you mean the one ocassion that I reverted the removal by an IP who did not leave an edit summary? Is talking about vandalism warnings perhaps a little heavy handed? Plastic Cupcake (talk) 11:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Thank you. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 11:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
      • OK. It's not vandalism though, it's more like original research. But if other sources start making this point it can legitimately be put back. Evercat (talk) 11:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
      • The edit note specifically states not to add unsourced speculation. If something is verifiable, then of course it may be added. Mjroots (talk) 11:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What if the sources are themselves speculating? I could draw a similarity between this and the Qantas Learmonth incident in 2008, also involving an a330, thankfully the pilots regained control. But I can't suggest this connection because a news wire has not speculated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.50.180 (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• No, you can't add that, as it is original research, and against Wikipedia policies.79.97.122.147 (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not original research, it is speculation that the incident seems peculiarly similar and COULD potentially be related. Give it 5 minutes and the media will make the same speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.50.180 (talk) 08:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree it's ridiculous. Just create a blog, post it there, then you can post it here. It's obviously non-sense. I'd post it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.40.26.5 (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Image

Moved to Talk:Air France Flight 447/Image discussions#1 June 2009 13.31

Turbulence

According to AP the plane hit turbulence before crashing[2]. Since the details are still sketchy I'm reluctant to put it in the article but it seems like a reasonable explanation for the crash. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This is already noted in the article... but not as an explanation for a crash, as there's no mention of it having come down yet Jddriessen (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Loss of cabin pressure

CNN just brought a bulletin that the automated message not only reported an electrical failure but also loss of cabin pressure. (I didn't want to put this in the article because it isn't confirmed yet.) --Eddie2 (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirects

F-GZCP , AFR447 , AFR 447 , AIRFRANS447 , AIRFRANS 447 should redirect here. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there policy or precedent for this? -- samj _in^out 13:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No, they are not really needed. MilborneOne (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There is precedent for this. And what do you mean they're not needed? The ICAO airline code is not needed to reference the flight??? All the suggested redirects are fine under WP:REDIRECT. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The chances of anybody searching for AIRFRANS447 is probably zero. Why stop if you nothing else to do you could have AF447 AF 447 AF0447 AFR0447 Air France 447 and many more combinations that might one day be used by somebody as a search! MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Air France's flight status page, future flights for AF447 (i.e. departing after 1 June) between Rio and Paris appear to now be operating as AF443. Is this worth noting somewhere? GoodbyeDave (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nay. AF 443 is another flight, not a substitution. More likely, they are just cancelling AF 447 for some days. Or, can you give a pointer to this news? --Raistlin (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Map

The map of Brazil is truncated in the East - anyone feel like fixing this, as I'm signing off now?

Fernando de Noronha

Rio de Janeiro

class=notpageimage|

Brazil

Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a request to repair the map of Brazil, AFAIK... since it's too small to use in the wikicoding he's using for the island location. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Fernando de Noronha

If anyone wants it... File:Orthographic projection centred over Fernando de Noronha.png shows the island of Fernando de Noronha in relation to mainland Brazil... 70.29.208.129 (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Route map

Reqdiagram tag removed - requested images on main page now. Egmason (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Any images available of the route? 70.29.208.129 (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Found one on the French Wikipedia. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem: how do we know that's the actual route it would have flown? Evercat (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Air France publish route maps, that's how we know. --86.26.217.89 (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Link please. Evercat (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The route map and description are wrong. GIG-CGD doesn't go anywhere near the azores, it flies thru cape verde, madeira islands, galicia and gulf of biscay. Nelievsky (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks different from the one that HLN uses (HLN - CNN Headline News, US cable news network) 70.29.208.129 (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Guardian has also map that looks a bit different. A better map is needed. Maybe a bit zoomed in with place names. Anyone have draft ready? Kslotte (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

CNN says this.

Found this on Portuguese wikinews: File:Arte voo AF 447 .jpg. IT looks close to the one CNN is using... 70.29.208.129 (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That one appears to be a simple straight line plotted over a Mercator projection. I'd be suspicious... Evercat (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw the a route map on CNN this morning and I would say it definitely is not accurate. The BBC route map looks more believable [3]--661kts 14:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 661kts (talk • contribs)

Well... that's similar to the File:Arte voo AF 447 .jpg ... 70.29.208.129 (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Le Figaro is also using a route map very similar to File:Arte voo AF 447 .jpg here. The flight was meant to enter the Senegalese ATC zone, which fits the map, and the French press spoke of "nothing from the Spanish radars, nothing from the Morrocan radars" while not mentioning the Portuguese. Physchim62 (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Jolly Ω Janner

Actually we have two waypoints INTOL ( 1° 21' 39S 32° 49' 53W ) at 22:33 and TASIL waypoint (4° 0' 18N 29° 59' 24W) ETA 50min later, at 23:20 Brasilia time. --TAG (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The times in the image Air_France_Flight_447_path.png are wrong, they are not local times nor UTC times. They also contradict with the article's text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.50.211 (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed from page, new map needed. Kslotte (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see what I did here. I pressumed the BBC were using local British time (UTC+1), so I minused one hour thinking that would be UTC, however the BBC were using UTC/GMT time. My bad, I will now fix the map. Jolly Ω Janner 19:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you make the texts a bit larger then latest version. Since the text where to small to be read in the article. Kslotte (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done Jolly Ω Janner 20:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Transmission coordinates N3.5777 W30.3744 are now known per avherald. --TAG (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Relevant Aeronautical chart of South Atlantic available at [4] see waypoint on path UN866

Tracking Trivia

Normally AF 447 would have been tracked by portugal for around half an hour from around 0730 - it was tracked as AF 444 on the way over yesterday but never appeared this morning. This is unsurprising and probably not useful for the article, but interesting nonetheless. -- samj _in^out 13:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"9 crew and 3 technicians"

I think the Air France statement translates more correctly as "9 cabin crew and 3 cockpit crew", but I am not sure if "cockpit crew" is quite the right terminology, or if it is correct to refer to them all as "pilots". Barnabypage (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you are right in saying that there were a total of 12 crew, "3 cockpit and 9 cabin crew". I don't see anywhere written that there were 3 technicians aboard, though I did hear Dutch television mention the technicians. Perhaps they got it from this article? sebs89 (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The AF statement says "L’équipage est composé de 12 navigants : 3 navigants techniques et 9 navigants commerciaux." I suspect "technicians" is a mis-translation of "navigants techniques". Barnabypage (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The correct translation is "There were 12 flight crew members: 3 pilots and 9 flight attendants." as issued by Air France[5]AlexandrDmitri (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The correct is 3 cockpit crew that were 1 pilot and 2 co-pilots as reports in the Portuguese media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.43.173.24 (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Also this info is being issued by Air France <quote>The flight captain had a record of 11,000 flight hours and had already flown 1,700 hours on Airbus A330/A340s. Of the two first officers, one had flown 3,000 flight hours (800 of which on the Airbus A330/A340) and the other 6,600 (2,600 on the Airbus A330/A340</quote>

http://alphasite.airfrance.com/flight-air-france-447-rio-de-janeiro-paris-charles-de-gaulle/press-releases/?L=1#communique2492 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.43.173.24 (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but maybe someone could check the names of the co-pilots again. Especially Urs Zimmermann reminds me of the Captain of the Swissair Flight 111. I could be a coincidence that they have the same names. --Eddie2 (talk) 08:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Weather

According to an Air France statement, the aircraft crossed through a "thunderous zone with strong turbulence". May I point out that it is getting close to the hurricane season in the United States so is there any indication of what the weather was in the southern side of the Atlantic in the early hours? --Marianian (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Some tower cumulus nimbus over there zone this night --BDantas (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC) from Brazil

Number of passengers

Is there a confirmed report for the number of passengers? I am reading 215, 216, 26, 228 and 240 inclusive or exclusive of 12 crewmen... ? Sergei Perrin (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Official statement says 216 Passengers, 12 Crewmen (126 Men, 82 Women, 7 Children, 1 Infant, 9 Flight Attendants, 3 Pilots) Sergei Perrin (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Chinese state media said there are eight chinese? [6]Maybe some Chinese holding two passports? ---Williamsze (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

== Oficial ==
80 Brazilian
73 French
18 German
9 Italian
6 American
5 Chinese
4 Hungarús
2 Spanish
2 British
2 Moroccan
3 Irish
1 Angola
1 Argentina
1 Belgian
1 Icelandic
1 Norwegian
1 Polish
1 Romanian
1 Russian
1 Slovak
1 Swedish
1 Turkish
1 filipino
1 Swiss

Update on swedes: 2 swedish women and 1 child Source: http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article5278161.ab —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.218.51.41 (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yea, but there needs to be some clarification, the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs have confirmed 3 Swedish citizens were on the flight [7]. What's not clear though is how they're listed (here and by Air France), the article specifies that two live in Brazil one in Norway (probable dual citizenship on at least 2 or all 3). chandler 22:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Text of the Air France Statement

http://alphasite.airfrance.com/flight-air-france-447-rio-de-janeiro-paris-charles-de-gaulle/?L=1

This contains all the relevant details.

Harry the Dog WOOF 13:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys check this out, I am getting reports from some Brazilian Blogs, that Fishermen saw flashing lights in night sky over the said route of this particular Flight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.223.147.254 (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Air_France_Airgus_A330-200_F-GZCP.jpg

Move to Talk:Air_France_Flight_447/Image_discussions#1_June_14.02 MickMacNee (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

File:F-GZCP.jpg

Moved to Talk:Air_France_Flight_447/Image_discussions#1_June_14.03 MickMacNee (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Timezone confusion

The times given here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8076848.stm are labelled "GMT", but given that BBC is written for a British audience, might this be a mistake/confusion for BST? Are the times in this article labelled "GMT" supposed to be for GMT or BST? jftsang 14:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think everything's been correct. BBC is well aware of the difference. Evercat (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the BBC is correct. Who is the dumb ass that is removing the time of the events? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.43.173.24 (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A flight (e.g. AF447), and the aircraft operating it on a particular occasion (e.g. F-GZCP) are not the same thing

That is all. Grassynoel (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What's your point? The only notable instance of this flight is this instance. The only notability for this plane is this instance of this flight. The only notable instance of this tailnumber is this plane. So F-GZCP should redirect here... but the common name is AF447 (or some variation on that). 70.29.208.129 (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It's true that the registration should redirect here. But the point is that it's sloppy journalism to equate the flight number with the aircraft that happened to be operating the flight on a particular occasion. The media get it wrong all the time; why should we? Grassynoel (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

For better or worse, we're bound by tradition —Cliffb (talk) 01:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Image for infobox

Moved to Talk:Air_France_Flight_447/Image_discussions#1_June_15.26 MickMacNee (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction regarding passenger nationality

The current article says "Although the nationalities of the passengers have not yet been released, most of them are assumed to be French, German and Brazilian" right below an unsourced table indicating the nationality of all the passengers. Either we don't know the nationalities and the table should go, or we do and the paragraph below should be revised. Oren0 (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Or we know some of their nationalities, and they haven't been released officially. As it's an Air France jet going from Brazil to France... it should be easy to source the assumption that most people would be French or Brazilian. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

One French government official said that there were more than 20 German passengers on the plane. —85.178.123.254 (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian victims

Hungarian media told there were no Hungarian passengers on the plane despite the fact web sources claim there were names on the list that seemed to be Hungarian but their owners may not have Hungarian citizenship. Somebody, any comments, facts? Ferike333 (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's wait for official publication passenger lists; and beware of speculation. Arnoutf (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That is official now, 4 Hungarian. List

There were four Hungarians onboard. They were two children and two adults. In memoriam (don't know how to say in English). Ferike333 (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"First flew"

According to the article:

"The Airbus A330-200, registration F-GZCP, first flew on 25 February 2005" with a reference to here. BBC News here says its been operation since April 2005. Not sure which is more reliable to use. D.M.N. (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

They are both correct. If you look more closely at the first reference on airfleets.net it shows you both dates. Aircraft first flew on 25/02/2005 - but an aircraft's first flight is part of the manufacturing process. The source also notes that the aircraft was delivered to Air France on 18/04/2005. -- Rob.au (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"Crashed?"

Do we know that the plane has crashed? Shouldn't this be set to unknown as well? Of course it is very probable that it has though. sebs89 (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.108.42 (talk)

It is surely not in the air by now as it must have run out of fuel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.6.172.205 (talk) 06:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Air France as a Primary Source

Why refering to the media if you have Air France as a primary source?

• Paris, 01 juin 2009 - 19h41 heure locale
• Communiqué N° 5

Air France est en mesure de confirmer les nationalités des passagers qui se trouvaient à bord du vol AF 447 du 31 mai 2009, disparu entre Rio de Janeiro et Paris-Charles de Gaulle. Cette liste a été constituée sur la base des informations fournies par les autorités brésiliennes.

• 1 Africain du Sud
• 26 Allemands
• 2 Américains
• 1 Argentin
• 1 Autrichien
• 1 Belge
• 58 Brésiliens
• 5 Britanniques
• 1 Canadien
• 9 Chinois
• 1 Croate
• 1 Danois
• 2 Espagnols
• 1 Estonien
• 61 Français
• 1 Gambien
• 4 Hongrois
• 3 Irlandais
• 1 Islandais
• 9 Italiens
• 5 Libanais
• 2 Marocains
• 1 Néerlandais
• 3 Norvégiens
• 1 Philippin
• 2 Polonais
• 1 Roumain
• 1 Russe
• 3 Slovaques
• 1 Suédois
• 6 Suisses
• 1 Turc

Air France adresse ses sincères condoléances aux familles et aux proches des passagers et membres d’équipage.

Air France met tout en œuvre pour soutenir les familles et les proches : une assistance médicale et psychologique a été mise en place aux aéroports de Paris-Charles de Gaulle 2 et de Rio de Janeiro.

La compagnie a également mis en place un numéro d’appel spécial à l’attention des familles des passagers. Elle les informe, à leur demande, de l’éventuelle présence à bord d’un proche.

Numéros de téléphone réservés aux familles et aux proches 0800 800 812 depuis la France, 0800 881 20 20 depuis le Brésil, et + 33 1 57 02 10 55 depuis les autres pays.

Air France communiquera d’autres informations dès que celles-ci seront disponibles.

NB : Nous demandons aux journalistes de ne pas appeler ces numéros réservés aux familles et aux proches

http://alphasite.airfrance.com/s01/

--80.242.196.243 (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As we do have official report, someone should change the list of passengers, which is not correct. (official report should be "higher level" than BBC) --Sjena444 (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's been done, and then I bunched the countries with 1 passenger only together as one table line to make the table shorter - though it messes up the sorting mechanisms a bit. Then, someone bunched the 2's, the 3's, the 9's... I think this overdoing it. What's the best compromise?--Noe (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Which source tells us (as someone wrote in the article) that one crew member is Brazilian (the other 11 being French)? (I haven't checked al sources; it may well be there!!!)--Noe (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the passengers hold more than one citizenship what might lead to some confusion.--92.226.139.207 (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Of 11 Italians, 10 are from Italy and 1 is Italian-Brasilian see http://www.corriere.it/esteri/09_giugno_02/scheda_italiani_a_bordo_fee84946-4f5e-11de-9f09-00144f02aabc.shtml --PaoVac (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

UK and Ireland

The BBC has stated 5 British citizens were on board and another source has stated 3 Irish passengers (one of whom was from Belfast). As Belfast is in Northern Ireland (part of the UK) shouldn't this passenger be listed as British, or does the figure of 5 already include here. Could anyone clear this up? Stevvvv4444 (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

BBC are probably right. What other source is stating 3 Irish? It's a bit clumsey to include the North and South when it comes to nationalities. Jolly Ω Janner 20:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Air France said they had 3 Irish on the flight. Any citizen of Northern Ireland can have an Irish or British passport, Air France gets the nationality of each passenger by their passport. So I think the Northern Irish passenger used an Irish passport. Dar88 (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am presuming that the term 'Irish' being used refers to anyone from the island of Ireland and 'British' as anyone from 'Great Britain', if so UK should be changed to Great Britain in this article shouldn't it as both sources [8] and [9] state 5 'British' and 3 'Irish' people. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Dar88's point was more along the lines that the person from Northern Ireland could concievably count as both, given that anyone born in Northen Ireland is (subject to certain conditions) entitled to citizenship and therefore a passport from both the UK and the Republic. In this case the woman appears to have travelled on her Irish passport (and she doesn't necessarily have to have a British one). Changing the UK to Great Britain would be OR, as we don't know that those listed as British did come from the mainland. The converse of the previous example could have occured, with someone from Northern Ireland travelling on a British passport. Until we know more, we have to assume that an reference to a UK national includes the possibility that they're from Northern Ireland. - Chrism would like to hear from you 22:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is the Welsh passenger listed separately from the United Kingdom passengers? Did Wales get granted independence from the UK and I didn't notice?71.203.115.184 (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Afraid so. What rock has you been living under my friend? --86.40.193.195 (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Debris found (uncertain, and entirely unconfirmed)

According to this post on a forum, French media is reporting that debris has been found. I have no idea if this is correct or not, but I'll look for his source(s) now. ResPublicae (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Also this [[10]] from the bbc Jddriessen (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian media claim debris have been found in the Atlantic Ocean a few hours ago. Ferike333 (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft's data reporting mechanism?

Does anyone have information on the system that was used to report data back to Air France regarding the condition of the aircraft? I've never heard of a plane doing this before—only after-the-fact black box data—so I figure it merits a mention. —Mulad (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably ACARS. MilborneOne (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The ACARS system sends radio transmisions with data about the flight such as: altitude, engine speed, fuel flow, current speed, and several (real time) parameters related to the particular flight... In this case the ACARS is probably transmitting the data via a HF radio since the flight involves extended overwater operations, my best guess! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.81.218 (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No, probably satellite--661kts 05:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Satellite image

Not really satisfied with the satellite image. What does it want to say? Is the image understandable for every reader? As far as I can see it also doesn't cover the most important region completely. Mawijk (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

File:NESDIS Atlantic Ocean 1 June 0000Z.jpg shows the weather along the projected track of flt 447 and is a free image. You'll note that the wikinews article has a link to a UK satellite view, which apparently is non-free, for "The location of intense storms off the coast of Brazil at the time of the incident".  JGHowes  ^talk 22:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Near crash last week

Should the article mention the near crash of another A330 (this time flying for TAM airlines) last week due to turbulence while flying over Brazil? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.122.121.200 (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't think so. That would be suggestive. It suggests that the A330 is bad in dealing with turbulence, though it underlines that strong turbulence can cause loss of control of the plane with injuries to passengers involved.Mawijk (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

yes we should link to this if there is a WP for it... doesn't have to mention turbulence but yes when there are 2 seperate a330 incidents in brazil within a week, that's notable. 67.204.145.88 (talk) 07:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The TAM turbulence was in the region of Pirassununga (location on Google Maps), much closer to the Tropic than to the Equator. There is no possible correlation, besides the time coincidence. Pmbarros (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this information is relevant. Yes, that's two incident in Brazil, but Brazil is the size of Europe, it is an enormous country. Air France 447 disappeared in the middle of the Atlantic, while the other incident happenned in a flight coming from Miami - which, I guess, didn't lead it to cross the Atlantic. The turbulences experienced by this other flight must have occured above the Brazilian ground, which is a completely different climate than the middle of the ocean. Henceforth, it seems highly irrelevant. Furthermore, no sources claims a link between the twwo incidents yet. Find me a newspaper that talks about a serious hypothesis linking the two events and I would find it a bit more relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.108.191.32 (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, Brazil is a Europe-sized country, but even so if indeed two such incidents occurred in Europe, with two A330 aircraft, one of wich leading to catastrofic consequences and the other to a near-crash, that would be highly relevant and notable nevertheless, even if they took place hundreds of kms apart from each other. Same planes, same circumstances (severe weather/turbulence), few thousand kms one from the other. That should be worth mentioning, I assume. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.107.51.241 (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Map removed

Sorry, I had to remove this an old version of this.

Sorry, I had to remove this map from the infobox due to inaccuracy. It's based on this BBC-created map; but the BBC map makes it clear that the last contact with the plane was at an unknown location, whereas this map clearly puts a red dot on the location, which is incorrect. Also labeling it "Unknown location" is confusing — a red dot is indicating an unknown location? The BBC map meant to say that the last transmission was received from an unknown location. Tempshill (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Map clarifies a lot. To solve the problem I would suggest to replace the label 'Unknown location' by 'Assumed location last transmission'. Mawijk (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I have fixed your concerns and will now add the map back. Jolly Ω Janner 23:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks great and thank you! Tempshill (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've uploaded another map - please revert if you feel the previous one was better. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be nice if there was a PNG version available (preferably at four times the size of the SVG). Makes it easier for people who don't have Inkscape to view the map in full. Jolly Ω Janner 16:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Both the BBC map and the Wikipedia map based upon it are inaccurate, given the position given in the system message. Please change or remove. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

In popular culture

Whoever removed that, THANK YOU. It was insensitive and frankly, stupid to put it there. To the person who wrote that, could you please consider what you type? Hundreds of people are mourning right now and desperate for information, please do not add irrelevant information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.247.43 (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Flags

They look great, not at all messy. - Dudesleeper / Talk 01:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. But I see "United Kingdom", "Wales", and "Northern Ireland" all listed. When I last checked, Wales and Northern Ireland were parts of the United Kingdom. If for some reason Wales and NI deserve listing separately, then so do England and Scotland. Maproom (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"orange points"

Please could someone clarify exactly what "orange points" are and why its relevant that a pilot spotted them, [11]?--Jac16888^Talk 01:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• The orange points obviously were fire. (66.188.136.73 (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC))
• Source claiming orange spots = fire [12] -Marcusmax(speak) 02:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Now I have provided a source (NYT) in English explaining.--Mariordo (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Good job, thanks--Jac16888^Talk 11:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Air France HQ: Photo request

Would someone in the Paris area mind taking a photo of the Air France headquarters by CDG airport? Because the operations center received the signals from the aircraft, a photo of the headquarters may be relevant here. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

How would that be relevant?--661kts 03:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• The Air France control center received the reports from the AF 447 aircraft systems (the automatic signals to the operations center sent by the A330's on-board computer) - Since the HQ is at CDG airport, I'm assuming that the operations center is in the HQ.WhisperToMe (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this would add much to the article. Tempshill (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but how would that be significant enough that there should be a photo? Should there be a photo of the White House at the Iraq & Afghanistan war articles because that is where the orders came from? I don't think that the destination of the ACARS report is really that significant to warrant a photo. But that is just my opinion...--661kts 04:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it may not belong in this particular article. Still, it would be great for the main Air France article since it is customary to include a photo of the corporate headquarters in company articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but are you sure that you are just not picture happy? Why does the ExpressJet article need the Continental building?--661kts 05:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

weather

File:NESDIS Atlantic Ocean 1 June 0000Z.jpg is available as a illustration of the weather close to the time of the loss of signals. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The map is too far north. If I read correctly, the plane never contacted Senegal. The boundary between Brazil and Senegal FIRs is probably somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic. HkCaGu (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If the string of disturbances at the bottom of this map is connected to the likely area of disappearance, we can use this with a description. Is there any similar image on the other side of Atlantic Ocean?--Revth (talk) 07:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

References? Looks like original research... Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

IT's a US government image with a timestamp, and silhouetted countries on it, what's so original research-y about it? The article already talks about weather in the Atlantic over the equator. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. Including the image is potentially okay provided there are no copyright issues and it actually show something useful, but using the image as reference to describe the weather conditions or discussing the conditions shown in the image is not. Nil Einne (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A generic illustration of the inter-tropical convergence zone is available... file:ITCZ january-july.png

70.29.208.129 (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is some good weather analysis by Tim Vasquez --TAG (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Here are good radar photos of the location and I think released by NASA. Jolly Ω Janner 19:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Text messages over the Atlantic?

Do you really believe that they sent text messages from the middle of nowhere when the cell tower range is at maximum 70 Km (45 miles)? and even if that was true, "I love you" and "I'm afraid" seem pretty vague and common kind of messages that don't need an emergency to be motivated. dose not seem to be right dose it. I think it should be removed. one mention in a news paper is not a lot to base it on200.6.172.205 (talk)

Can you provide links to where they say the passengers sent text messages?--661kts 06:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The article on SMS will inform you that satellite phone services usually have text message capabilities. Will remove WP:OR speculation on text messages from article. (oh, someone beat me to it.) 62.78.198.48 (talk) 07:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Three considerations:

a) It would be technically impossible to send a text message from a regular GSM phone in an airplane 30,000 feet in the air above international waters. Perhaps satellite phones could work but just how widespread are those?

b) These messages seem very vague and could have been sent without any specific emergency, one would expect more specific messages if something was going wrong.

c) If the passengers knew something was wrong and had the ability to contact the outside world about it, then what explains the silence of the pilots who had access to far more advanced communication equipment? --194.105.255.161 (talk) 09:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking purely from a Wikipedia point of view I don't think it is appropriate to have the mention of the text message simply from the reports of one newspaper. The overwhelming majority of the world's media says nothing about this text message at this point and Wikipedia should reflect this balance of weight; especially as this is a currently unfolding event we have to be careful what we put on the article.Phonemonkey (talk) 09:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And then there is that... those reports come only from a few minor media outlets (and seem to originate with just one) while the vast majority of the world's media treat these claims with healthy scepticism. --194.105.255.161 (talk) 09:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget AF's OnAir service, see here. It's not certain though that the system was in operation on the aircraft. 192.69.108.97 (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I just read that link. It's an experimental service operating on a single A318 in service over Europe. It has no relationship with the facts under discussion. Much more likely, on an intercontinental A330 the personal entertainment system could offer a SMS/email capability, but AFAIK Air France does not have that feature on board. --Raistlin (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Also don't forget the SMS hoaxes after the Helios flight accident. Various media outlets had reported this story as genuine before the truth became known. I vote we keep it out of the article for now. --Ferengi (talk) 09:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely agree. A cellphone could not transmit from there, and in a turbulence and an emergency the passenger entertainment systems would be the first ones to go, along with any SMS or email sending capabilities. If it's not an hoax, it will be heavily reported soon. --Raistlin (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just removed this reference again, for the same reasons as outlined by everyone else here. -- Rob.au (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Lots of speculation here and concretized thinking, and while wiki is not the place to speculate, it is possible that the pilots could have been incapacitated, for example, flying into a hailstorm with baseball sized hail could have taken out the pilots or the pilots communication equipment and left other communication equipment active. In addition, there could have been specific communication equipment failures within the cockpit as a result of turbulence and wires inadvertently being torn in which the pilots tried to communicate but were unable. The basic assumption here is that a supercell within the tropical convergence was responsible for the automated repair request message being sent, which included a report on an electical failure and cabin depressurization. Those two simultaneous occurrences are unlikely over a region of highly disturbed air by random chance. Since the message is therefore the most likely consequence of spurious system damage, (i.e. the automated repair request system is still active) then one cannot speculate as to which systems were made disfunctional and which system were not. The issue becomes a matter of which communications systems can be confirmed to have sent the messages, simple as that. 209.30.247.12 (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

All of the passage above still does not explain how a cellphone could possibly transmit from the middle of the Atlantic. We are not speculating about the automatic transmissions, which were confirmed instead. BTW: I moved and indented the message so to clarify sequence of posts, undo if you don't like it. --Raistlin (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If you had an Irridium, or an Immarsat phone, would it work on a plane? as they are satphones... 70.29.208.129 (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Negative, they need line-of-sight to the sky, and are impossible to operate in an airtight, metallic airframe. The only phone which works on board an A330 in the middle of the ocean is the on board phone service. --Raistlin (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As the article currently reflects, automated ACARS messages were sent by the plane. These are text messages which usually merely tell the maintenance staff that something needs to be looked at, such as the circuit breaker for the coffemaker opening, or the entertainment system rebooting itself. Early newspaper reports mentioned "text messages", and many people assumed this meant text messages from cell phones. More detailed phrasing indicates these were messages which the plane automatically sent; the crew can probably type messages through the system (they often use it to send messages to the airline) but there is no mention that they used this method. -- SEWilco (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

An update on this issue. The original article quoted a Ronaldo Jenkins as their source. The organisation he works for later put out a statement denying it, stating that the newspaper had come to them with the theory and they had dismissed it. -- Rob.au (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarify, he deny's the ACARS was sent or that text messages to family members was sent.PB666 ^yap 15:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The article and statement I have just referred to are both about text messages to family members and are not related to the ACARS messages. (I'm not aware of any dispute about those... sorry, I suspect this section of the talk page may have become unclear now the disputed portion of the article appears to have stayed removed) -- Rob.au (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The PaginaInicial article and its correction is written in portuguese, is there a verifyable English references, or can it be translated to English?209.30.247.12 (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian victims

There are them. 84.1.165.221 (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It is sad, but victims are from something like 32 countries.--661kts 06:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There were four Hungarians onboard. They were two children and two adults. In memoriam (don't know how to say in English). You're right, there were victims from 32 countries. Ferike333 (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Passsenger details' cleanup

I suggest we perform a cleanup of the passenger details. Unless a passenger was clearly notable by wikipedia standards, there is no reason to have personal info like names, age, occupation etc. The fact that a newspaper provided this info does not automatically make it encyclopedic material. This way we could end up having data on all 228 passengers, which is obviously not what the purpose of this article is. --Ferengi (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I already stated that in an edit couple of hours earlier where I removed one of the passenger details (which was placed back soon again by others). Otherwise where to stop? I understand that for relatives every person is important but this is an encyclopedia. Mawijk (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Another issue lies with the table - the totals are wrong. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's easy, if the passenger is notable enough to have an article, they can be mentioned by name. If not, no mention necessary. Mjroots (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes Ferengi But if the Ministry for Foreign Affairs has confirmed 3 citizens on the plane from Sweden they must be right, I know the maths dont add up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigge365 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not doubting the Ministry, these are probably cases of dual nationality. We still have to stick to the official Air France list. I'm trying to figure out a better solution, but we definitely cannot have more people on the list than there were actually on the plane. --Ferengi (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sweden's Embassy in Paris has confirmed that there were 3 swedish citizens aboard. One of them was a resident of Norway, the other two residents of Brazil: thelocal.se --Berny68 (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

We have already two confirmed cases of dual passport holders, one the brazilian heir and the other a woman. The solution by Sigge365 to add these discrepancies as numbers in parentheses looks ok to me, I have also added a footnote explaining this. I suggest we keep it this way, unless of course someone has a better suggestion. --Ferengi (talk) 12:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Details about the different passengers should appear by nationality in the default order as in the table (sorted first by number of victims, then alphebetically by nationality) --Berny68 (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The details should be deleted, they are not encyclopedic. Just report that x number of nationality y were on the plane. The details on the crew on the otherhand... 70.29.208.129 (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I took down the items that didnt mention noteworthy individuals from this section. From your comments, it seemed pretty black and white, so I hope it's ok Jddriessen (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Further to that... are the execs and conductor mentioned noteworthy either? They don't have their own wikis, so presumably they should come down too? -or is this just because wiki coverage of those areas isn't as complete as it might be for a famous composer in the EU or US? Jddriessen (talk) 12:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I left them cause I assume we could find reliable sources documenting their notability, even if they have no article at the moment. However this is just an assumption and things being so hectic at the moment, I don't have time for further research, it's quite possible that they are not notable. --Ferengi (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I took out the names, but left the descriptions. In case they are sufficiently encyclopedic and have a WP lemma, we can still add them. --Berny68 (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"En route to the crash site (???)"

This is in the "Reaction and search" section. Maybe it should say "en route to the suspected crash site" or something like that, but I'm not sure what's the best way to go. I don't think it is known where (if) the plane hit the water, and if so whether it did so in one piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.218.225.49 (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, until it has been at least days or we find wreckage for sure this should be treated as a disapearance and not a crash, we certainly don't know the location of the site it may have crashed at in any precision at all. Prokhorovka (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

Please do not change the article to past tense (the plane was, the crew was, etc...) until we have verifiable sources. It does not matter what we believe or even what the president of France believes. Remember that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. There has been no wreckage found, and it is not appropriate to be speculating. Phrases that begin with "if" are a good indication that we shouldn't be including the information.  Frank  |  talk  12:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I must disagree slightly. The events should be refered to in the past tense if they occured in the past. The pilots had certain flight experience at the time of the flight, and that can be said difinitivly. They may still have it, but that is unknown and speculative. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to talk about the plane or its passengers in the present tense. Jean-Louis Borloo pointed it out quite succinctly: it only carried a given amount of fuel which would have run out more than 24 hours ago. WP:CRYSTAL is not a substitute for common sense. Physchim62 (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it is almost unrespectful, even. There will be a celebration "in memory" soon, as shown on AF official site. --Raistlin (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews is that way. We are an encyclopedia and WP:V is one of our primary policies.  Frank  |  talk  14:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Non-stupidity is also a primary policy: you are not required to check your brain in at the door when you login to Wikipedia. Physchim62 (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Tone it down, please. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no feasible scenario where the plane hasn't crashed. Evercat (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. More to the point, we do not know the present state of the passengers or crew, and Wikipedia deals with facts that have already happened. Present tense is frowned on, as it becomes non-present event very quickly. Past tense is pragmatic, and reflects what we do know. The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What we do know right now is very simply this: the plane is missing. Nothing more, nothing less. Even with speculative, unconfirmed reports of debris having been found, and even if we assume that said debris is from this plane, we most certainly do not know the fate of the crew and passengers. It doesn't matter that it seems like beating a dead horse, but Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. It is quite incorrect to state that "Wikipedia deals with facts that have already happened" - Wikipedia is not about facts but rather verifiable information from reliable sources. These are not the same thing.  Frank  |  talk  14:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. we know a lot more than that. We know that it only had fuel (plus a normal safety allowance) to get from Rio to Paris. We know that that fuel must have run out more than 24 hours ago. We know that it was not detected on any radars on the African side of the Atlantic. We know that the normal communication on entering Dakar-controlled airspace was not picked up (and so presumably not sent, for whatever reason). We know that the plane was far out over the Atlantic Ocean when the last communication was received. We know that there has been no signal from, or sighting of, liferafts, despite the surveillance operation.

I'm sorry if people think I am insolent towards Frank, but I think this user is also being insolent in believing that Wikipedia policies are superior to what goes on in the outside world. Physchim62 (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Most (if not all) of those points are already in the article. But even when taken all together, we still do not know the fate of the crew and passengers. To state otherwise is not consistent with what Wikipedia is all about.  Frank  |  talk  15:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Any reasonable person would understand the use of the past tense to refer to the crew and passengers: that you object suggests that you are either unreasonable, stupid, or so omphaloskeptic that you regard Wikipedia as a separate universe from the real world. Physchim62 (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There is another possible explanation: that I'm familiar with the five pillars and committed to furthering the goals of the project by following them to the greatest degree possible.  Frank  |  talk  15:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. By using present tense, the article indicates that the plane is still flying (which is impossible). Since the plane went missing yesterday, and the most recent information we have about the flight was from the past (i.e. yesterday), past tense is more correct. Remember, the only thing we can verify is that it was a flight. We cannot verify that it still is. Mathias-S (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It was a flight. The plane isn't flying anymore, because that would be impossible. So the only thing that is verifiable is that it was a flight until it disappeared. Since we don't know anything about its fate after it disappeared, is is inappropriate. Using the word is indicates that it's still in operation. Official statements say that the plan has most likely crashed, and that's the most accurate information we have to date. Mathias-S (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not the only thing which is verifiable from multiple reliable sources! Physchim62 (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Cough, AF 446 is still a scheduled flight between those two points. The specific AF 447 flight which departed 36 hours ago is not flying anymore. --Raistlin (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No. As the article says, By late morning, AF447 had been removed from the list of flights on the Aéroports de Paris website. Saying that there is still an AF 447 flight is therefore just speculation, and that's why it should be changed to was. Mathias-S (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You seemingly don't get the point. Every day there is an AF 447 flight. On that specific night (May 31st to June 1st), the aircraft (F-GZCP) flew into some problems, and on June 1st, the record was removed. We are discussing on the destiny of F-GZCP and its crew and passengers. Tonight, ANOTHER AIRCRAFT will fly the same route. There is still an AF 447 flight, you can check on the Air France website as I just did. So the correct phrase is that AF 447 is a scheduled flight. It is scheduled today, and it will be scheduled tomorrow. On June 1st, one specific instance of the AF 447 flight, operated by F-GZCP, encountered the problems we are discussing. Is it clearer? I don't know how to say this in yet another way, I'm sorry. --Raistlin (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And this goes directly to my point. Some number of editors here are assuming that 447 does not exist as a route any more. Why that assumption is being made I do not know, but perhaps it is because it isn't listed on the US version of the site. However, the Brazilian site would allow me to buy a ticket on Flight 447 next week if I knew more Portuguese. This is the problem with original research. We may be very confident that Air France will eventually retire this flight number, but until it's reported in reliable sources, we really can't make that judgment on our own.  Frank  |  talk  18:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, AF 447 flies only on Sundays and Tuesdays, so be careful when you check for its existence or not. --Raistlin (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

An additional very good point! Also, right now, if you go to the US version of the site, you cannot even enter Brazil as a country to search. But if you check for flight status, there is a flight 447 scheduled for tonight at 7 pm local time.  Frank  |  talk  18:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should give to much speculation to the fate of the crew until a more certain conclusion is reached. There is bound to be an official announcment by government or airline officials at some point in the near future as to the officially accepted conclusion of the situation. My primary point was that since the primary events of this article are now days old, much of the article should be converted from present tense to past tense - not in the sense that we implying they people are dead, but in the sense we are implying the events are not happening at this moment. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean something like this:

In respect for the mourning of the relatives and friends of the victims, we inform the press that they will not be able to attend the inter-religious ceremony to be held inside Notre Dame cathedral tomorrow at 4pm. [13]

or is that still not enough for the people who think that Wikipedia policies are more powerful than the laws of nature? Physchim62 (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I am actually talking specifically about sections that are no longer even part of the article. As in this diff. Which is what started this thread... This thread seems entirely pointelss now as it is all but confirmed now that the debris is confirmed to be from an air france plane. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wreakage Found

Bloomberg is reporting that Brazil found some of the wreakage: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aGqVhPoRLAtM&refer=europe 79.97.122.147 (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Not quite, they've found wreckage in roughly the right place but don't want to say yet that it's from the plane (instead of having been tossed off a passing cargo ship, etc.). So "wreckage", yes; for "the wreckage" it's probably best to wait for a moment (as the major news outlets are doing). Physchim62 (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

From the BBC: "'The search is continuing because it's very little material in relation to the size [of the Airbus A330],' Col Amaral added." Physchim62 (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian media told the wrecks have been found in the Atlantic a few hours ago. Also a Brazilian man is said to have seen fire on the horizon or on the sky (I do not exactly remember). Ferike333 (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Already covered in the article ("orange dots" on the water last night). We don't have anything verifiable to that that it is the wreckage, just that there was some wreckage spotted. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Argentinian Crew

According Clarin [14] crew Clara Mar Amado is Argentine with dual Citizenship --Jor70 (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC) "26Noticias" says the same... A woman from the crew was argentinian with spanish AND argentinian citicenzhip.--190.247.38.104 (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Is also confirmed here primeraplanmundial.com and here urgente24.com and here infobae.com. She was born in Spain, had Argentinian parents and therefore had double citizenship, Spanish and Argentinian. She was living in France though. This contradicts the official list from Air France, where crew-members only are French and Brazilian. My guess would be that there she was counted as French. Should we correct the nationality list accordingly? --Berny68 (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Air France site down

Hello, is it just me or is the whole Air France website currently down? --Berny68 (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It responds for me. It seems due to heavy web traffic to the site, they have put up a simple home page to direct viewers to English and French information about this flight. If you want the "regular" site, look on the lower left section of the box. (Assuming, of course, that you get anything at all at that link; I do but that doesn't mean you are able to get there.)  Frank  |  talk  16:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There's Portuguese information on the English page (so the page is English and Portuguese) WhisperToMe (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Broken ref in "Passenger and crew details" section

A ref is broken in the third last paragraph of the "Passenger and crew details" section.Kxx (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image discussion centralised

Seeing as this is still being swapped around, I've centralised the many simultaneous previous discussions about it on this sub-page. MickMacNee (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

'Deadliest'

"It is the deadliest accident (in terms of lives lost) in the history of Air France"

Surely, since nobody has yet been officially pronounced dead, it can't be the deadliest. --Scottcampb (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course it can. People don't have to be pronounced dead to be dead. Claesh1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC).

Being the object of a memorial service in Notre Dame de Paris attended by the President of France is a fair "official" pronouncement of death, and a far higher standard of proof than is usually required for WP articles. Physchim62 (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

sightings location

it would be interesting if someone can place the approximate location of possible sightings on the map —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.14.226.9 (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone given the precise location of the sighting, even in textual form?

• "80 km east of the plane's expected flight path"
• "650 km northeast of Fernando de Noronha Island" (this article)

Some reports have said that the following ships are heading towards the debris field, so their positions could indicate where the debris field is at:

• Lexa Maersk
• Jo Cedar
• Ual Texas
• Stolt Inspiration [15]

Note that "sighting location" and "downed location" are different places. It was 28 hours between when the aircraft went down and the debris was sighted, during which time the debris could have moved "several hundred miles". (drat, well, the article used to say that, it's since been edited out)

Underpants 21:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

CNN has a map indicating the approximate location of the debris: [16]--GregRM (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The worst airline disaster yet known in France

French Wikipedia on this same page says: S'il s'avérait que ce vol se soit écrasé il s'agirait de la plus grande catastrophe aérienne connue par une compagnie aérienne française. (If it should turn out that this flight should have failed, it would be the largest catastrophe ever known by a French airline.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.20.145.186 (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Our article already says "Given the official presumtion of no survivors, the accident is the worst in the history of Air France, and would be tied as the 21st worst accident in aviation history.[6][7][8]". Nil Einne (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"Worst" is an opinion, but "deadliest" is a fact, so I replaced "worst" with "deadliest" WhisperToMe (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5