Talk:Air India Flight 171#rfc 1EAC8FC

I think the introduction should start by directly addressing the mishap, instead of the unneccessary regularly scheduled Ahmedabad-Gatwick service that the flight operates.

"Air India Flight 171 was a scheduled international passenger flight operated by Air India that crashed approximately thirty seconds after takeoff into the Hostel block of B. J. Medical College in Meghani Nagar neighbourhood of Ahmedabad on 12 June 2025. The flight was operated by the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner and was flying from Ahmedabad Airport in India to London Gatwick Airport in the United Kingdom.", or something comparable to this.

as opposed to,

"Air India Flight 171 was a scheduled international passenger flight operated by Air India from Ahmedabad Airport in India to London Gatwick Airport in the United Kingdom. On 12 June 2025, at 1:39 p.m. IST, the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner operating the flight crashed approximately thirty seconds after takeoff into the Hostel block of B. J. Medical College in Meghani Nagar neighbourhood of Ahmedabad."

See WP:AVINAME and MOS:LEADSENTENCE. GalacticOrbits (talk) 04:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:The lead sentence introduces the topic, which is currently "Air India Flight 171". I don't disagree that the article is actually about the crash, and could be renamed to reflect that. Celjski Grad (talk) 07:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::While the lead introduces "Air India Flight 171", it should also introduce what the scope of the article about "Air India Flight 171" is. The current lead sounds as though the article talks about an important route that just so happened to have a fatal occurrence on 12th June (this lead would only work on pages like Singapore Airlines Flights 21 and 22 where the route is the main focus of the article). See Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, which directly refers to the flight and not the route. WP:AVINAME also states that aviation accidents should have a lead that introduces the topic and not the route. Whenever I try to change this, however, it's often reverted back to the previous revision with no specified reason. MOS:LEADSENTENCE. GalacticOrbits (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::But seems that the present lead sentense is a very normal use on these pages. Yes, also the same as the format you suggested here. Like:

:::{{tq|Spanair Flight 5022 (JK5022/JKK5022) was a scheduled domestic passenger flight from Barcelona–El Prat Airport to Gran Canaria Airport, Spain, with a stopover in Madrid–Barajas Airport that…}}

:::I don't mean we can't change this, but I'm afraid we may launch some more discussion like RfC, and roll out a final consensus. Awdqmb (talk) 06:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::That present lead sentence is exactly what WP:AVINAME tells us to avoid. MOS:LEADSENTENCE states, "The first sentence should introduce the topic," and "Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject." While I don't necessarily oppose the usage of the route in the first sentence, the fact that it crashed should be the first sentence. Other concerns are expressed above. GalacticOrbits (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::"Air India Flight 171 crashed into the hostel block of B. J. Medical College in the Meghaninagar neighbourhood of Ahmedabad approximately 30 seconds after takeoff. It was operating..." Bremps... 19:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::How about this?

::::::"Air India Flight 171 was a scheduled international passenger flight from Ahmedabad, India, to London, United Kingdom, that crashed in Ahmedabad shortly after takeoff on 12 June 2025. The flight, operated by the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, crashed into the hostel block of B.J. Medical College in the Meghaninagar neighbourhood of Ahmedabad in Gujarat, India."

::::::I don't think the time it crashed and the airport it took off from are that relevant at the moment. GalacticOrbits (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It is relevant but nobody allowing it in the article anyways somebody already added the airborne point with the same reference points. Anyways somebody advised to rather add it here in the talk page. I think it is relevant because it points out the lack of time and most of the places I see as being mentioned time was in minutes and even a youtube video mentioning 8:38 UST takeoff 8:44 crash. It hurts cause the lack of time is more prone to cause errors. Anyways I am adding it here. As can be seen in the video from the CCTV the aircraft already completed its run and was in air after the beginning of the 14^th second and by the end of the 47^th second it had crashed. So the duration was less than 33 seconds after takeoff and not in minutes as has been written in many places.{{Cite web |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/ahmedabad-air-india-plane-crash-right-engine-aircraft-maintenance-dreamliner-reason-dgca-2742437-2025-06-18| last=Parashar |first=Shipra |title=Crashed Air India plane's engine was replaced 3 months ago, now central to probe |date=18 June 2025 |website=indiatoday |access-date=18 June 2025}} The timing has been referred correctly in most of the reports {{cite news |last1=Biswas |first1=Soutik |last2=Murphy |first2=Matt |last3=Cheetham |first3=Joshua |title=What could have caused Air India plane to crash in 30 seconds? |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c626y121rxxo |access-date=13 June 2025 |work=BBC News |date=12 June 2025}} but many report it as having occurred at 13:44 IST url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrJSzeYYDRg. This very less impact time also points to some technical failure that may have been deliberate but that must have been beyond any control of the crew. Minakshi boruah (talk) 06:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Also, shouldn't it be "This was the first fatal accident and hull loss of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner" and not "This was the first fatal aviation accident involving the Boeing 787 Dreamliner"?? Coming from the 2024 Haneda Airport runway collision. "Aviation accident" is of not much relevance for obvious reasons. GalacticOrbits (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I'd say there's marginally more of an argument here than for Haneda given that Haneda was a collision with both planes (mostly) on the ground, versus this is a crash actually involving flying/flight characteristics of the aircraft. That being said, I'm not particularly convinced that the wording matters at all. SI09 (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

{{Reflist-talk}}

With this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_India_Flight_171&oldid=prev&diff=1295367136 edit comment] I can clearly not agree. I had made clear with my comment before. At least one user agreed, that thanked me vor the edit.--Anidaat (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:[https://www.indiatoday.in/science/story/air-india-ahmedabad-flight-crash-a-commercial-pilot-gives-first-analysis-2739802-2025-06-12 He even says], started to, but "quickly extended it again". Which in the end is the same result: It was never in its retracted postition/the gear remained lowered.--Anidaat (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::This is just your speculation about the speculation of Nagarjun Dwarakanth, Editor, South Bureau, India Today TV, who is a licenced commercial pilot? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::no, he is the presenter who spoke to a pilot. Fact is the aircraft crashed with the undercarriage extended. Nobody claims the contrary. All the sources e.g. [https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/what-could-have-led-to-fatal-air-india-ahmedabad-crash-that-killed-at-least-260-peopl-possible-scenarios-as-per-experts-101749790332324.html discuss this fact] in several ways but none would insist the undercarriage was not down. There is, regardless of the unknown cause, absolutely no speculation in the description of an undercarriage being down. Anidaat (talk) 09:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Oh I see, thanks. But he's still just "a pilot", and not in any way connected with the official investigation? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::It is not about the source, it is about mentioning the most simple facts every expert mentioned no matter which source. Please remind this section is about the known facts. The Investigation is another section where we will hopefully learn, why the undercarriage never got into its bay. But this does not exclude facts from being mentioned before the "why" is investigated. That is why I only mention the undercarriage and not the flaps.--Anidaat (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'll have to disagree. In an article like this it is very much about the source. But yes, I agree we should concentrate on exactly "what" happened, but not the "why". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::There's no such thing as "quickly extending the gear again". The gear would be retracted at 50ft and it would take 7-10 seconds to fully retract. The typical recognition time is about 2 seconds, so the gear would be fully extended again after some 20 seconds or more but that's with a lot of ifs and maybes including some that would go against several very important aspects of pilot training. Strongthink (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::My word. No one of hundreds of experts saw it like this. So it's useless to discuss "fully retract." It was never even a low percentage retractetd. It was just extended all the time.--Anidaat (talk) 09:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• It would be so, so good if the armchair experts would go post on Reddit, and leave this article to draw on reliable sources, period. EEng 17:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

• Why calling others «armchair experts» and ignore all the sources and expert information all around the world? World class newspapers, reliable sources, like NZZ: [https://www.nzz.ch/mobilitaet/flug-air-india171-passagier-ueberlebt-absturz-aus-sitz-11a-wie-war-das-moeglich-ld.1888909 während das Fahrwerk draussen blieb] or BBC: [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y5nq170z4o the undercarriage is still down]. French [https://investir.lesechos.fr/actu-des-valeurs/la-vie-des-actions/la-serie-noire-se-poursuit-pour-boeing-un-787-dreamliner-secrase-en-inde-avec-242-personnes-a-bord-2170386 «une lente descente, son train d'atterrissage déployé»] German : [https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/indien-was-wir-ueber-den-absturz-der-air-india-maschine-wissen-und-was-nicht-a-02f3beaf-2696-441f-a6ff-027b955f7d29 Das Fahrwerk ist eindeutig ausgefahren] Italian: [https://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2025/06/12/diretta/incidente_aereo_air_india_volo_londra_news-424664008/ ha affermato che normalmente i piloti ritraggono il carrello d’atteraggio] Spanish: [https://www.infobae.com/america/mundo/2025/06/12/los-dos-primeros-interrogantes-en-torno-a-la-tragedia-del-vuelo-ai171-de-air-india/ La posición extendida del sistema de aterrizaje] and if you go around the world to Australia it’s the same: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Wj6l3ye4cA the gear is still down].

:This is just a fact and was mentioned by literally every expert around the world. Aviationwise use Aviation Week & Space Technology: [https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/safety-ops-regulation/air-india-boeing-787-accident-probe-reveals-few-clues "Its landing gear remained down throughout the entire flight sequence."]--Anidaat (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, this detail seems to be very well supported by many reliable sources, and on it's own is not really speculation. As it is an unexpected and unexplained detail of the flight, it might warrant mention somewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::There is in fact speculation regarding the landing gear, specifically the suggestion (based on the videos) that once airborne the MLG bogies had tilted, which normally happens as the initial part of the retraction sequence. Whether the crew had initiated the landing gear "Up" selection will of course be revealed by the flight recorder(s). DaveReidUK (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks for the detail. There aren't that many videos, are there? The CCTV footage. The 17-year-old Aryan Asari's phone footage. The audio-cleaned version of that phone footage. Any others? Yes, the recorders should clearly show that selection. Possibly also a ring-back from the actuators? There was hardly time for a repeated selection, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm afraid I've never come across the expression "ring-back" in the context of actuators. What does it mean? DaveReidUK (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Some signal/indication that actuators have started to move the undercarriage? I guess when the undercarriage has fully retracted/ doors have closed, there will be signals/indications, from microswitches, that it has been successful? These might be recorded, I assume. Perhaps you can confirm what is and what isn't recorded. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The recorders (if they were still functioning) will certainly tell the investigators whether the crew were seeing 3 greens, 3 reds or no lights at all. DaveReidUK (talk) 08:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Thanks for confirming. I have now added a quote about the landing gear not retracting, which is described in the source as "preliminary findings" from the investigators. I still think all those analysis details are misplaced in that section. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I would be careful about the distinction between "not retracted" (implying the crew didn't attempt to raise it) and "not retracting" (the gear was selected up but didn't move). I don't think it's yet known which it was, or if it's known, nothing has been published yet. DaveReidUK (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Yes, fair point. There is some ambiguity in those phrases. I guess we do have to follow sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::The commentary has now been removed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_India_Flight_171&diff=prev&oldid=1296213298 here] with the edit summary: "{{tq|This is speculation by "aviation investigators" not "accident investigators". No such "preliminary findings" have been released.}}" So I would advise caution when considering use of Tech Business News as a source. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Which image should be used as the infobox image for the crash wreckage? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

The Union Minister of Home Affairs & Cooperation, Shri Amit Shah visits the crash site of Air India Flight 171.jpg|image A

The wreckage of the crashed Air India Flight 171.jpg|image B

Prime Minister of Bharat, Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi looks on at the wreckage of the crashed Air India Flight 171.jpg|image C

𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:I support image C, as it not a tall image that would push text around and is a clearer image where the wreckage isn't covered by that tree 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:I support image B as the best image, but would accept image C if necessary. Even image A is acceptable. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:Image B is the best image, It is the only one that does not crop off part of the plane's tail, but clearly shows the damage to it. The vertical format is not an issue as we are not restricted for space. This RfC is overkill as there is already consensus for Image B above, and discussion could easily continue in that section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::2 editors (1 of whom doesn't really care much about what the result should be) and an IP aren't enough to determine a consensus, esp when that proposal is challenged 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::"2 editors and an IP" is three editors. All three prefer image B. Only you don't. I don't see Martinevans123 anywhere saying he "doesn't really care". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::what I meant to say was that Martin's initial comment didn't really chose an image, but my wording of it was bad, now that they changed their vote, I've struck it down. Plus it would be nice to have other opinions on the image stuff 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Martin's original comment in the discussion above was "I'd agree that [B] is a better image"; his original comment in this RfC (emboldening in original) was "I support image B as the best image". Perhaps you meant some other original comment? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I certainly do care, thanks. And in the light of Andy Mabbett's analysis I'm now minded to now strongly support image B, and say that image A is not wanted. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• Image A, photos with people are always more interesting. WWGB (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• :All three of those images have people. But I'd suggest that the wreckage is the most significant aspect. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• Image B or C; image A is shite, a load of characters standing around gawking is not encyclopaedic material. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:Definitely not A. The bystanders and their shiny scalps looking at the wreckage is taking away from the actual topic of interest framed off center. Image B seems a bit tall for an infobox picture whereas I think Image C is almost perfect expect for the bystanders with their hands raised (if cropped it would make it tall like B), but that's just me nitpicking and isn't really something too distracting. Kaeez06 (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::The funny thing is the "bystander" happens to be Narendra Modi. Not sure if the PM's visit is the best long-term image, but if it's all we got I would also vote C. Words in the Wind(talk) 14:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::People with shiny scalps are people too, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Tbh the camera's focus is set on those shiny scalps and the debris in that pic is a bit blurry 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::My thought process before making that statement was that their polished domes were taking away the spotlight a little too much from the main interest, that's all. I didn't mean no offense to any shiny scalps. Kaeez06 (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:Image B, the height of the image doesn't matter and this image doesn't confine the wreckage to one corner. A crop would be acceptable, but I prefer the original as it also shows the ground, for better context. Danski454 (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• Image B. Image A is blurry and its focus seems to be more on the building and people than it is the plane. Some1 (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:Image B. The other two images have the wreckage (the most important part of the photograph) in the upper right corner, whereas Image B shows it in the upper center with a nice rule of thirds framing. -insert valid name here- (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:Image B. This is the most powerful image as the plane is the main focus and it's very clear. ^🥑GUACPOCALYPSE^🥑 22:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:Image C. In Image A the camera is focused on the two men in white shirts and the aircraft is out of focus. Image B is nice but the wide angle of the lens makes the image seem distorted when used as a thumbnail (see how the building edge on the left of Image B appears to curve when it is plumb in Images A and C). Only Image C is in focus, uses a normal field of view, and shows the aircraft and its damage in context. Would support a cropped version of Image C as well. Striking comment after reconsidering and weakly support Image B. No longer support cropping Image C after Words in the Wind's above note that the bystander is India's prime minister. Leaving him in the image allows for a good caption like "Prime Minister Modi inspects wreckage" or similar. The lens angle in Image B isn't as pronounced in the infobox as it appears here in the RFC so I think it's fine. Image B also includes Modi so could mention him in the caption. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 14:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:Image B per others' arguments. A and C don't really focus on the plane. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (need something?) 22:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I make that eight for image B; one for B or C, and one each for A and C. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

"[https://prospect.org/economy/2025-06-12-dreamliner-gave-boeing-manager-nightmares-just-crashed-air-india/ One of the Dreamliners That Gave a Boeing Manager Nightmares Just Crashed] - The American Prospect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:Also: "[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/12/whistleblower-raised-safety-fears-boeing-dreamliner-factory/ Boeing 787 identical to crash jet made four emergency landings in a month]" - The Telegraph. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

"[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VswFVpyg5ew] - Air India 171: Did a Software Glitch Cause Dual Engine Failure?. Garybpilot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewfromx (talk • contribs) 23:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:Is that a reliable source? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::Gary Baumgardner (garyb) has been on The Weather Channel as expert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3GvZxpJ-NY Andrewfromx (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Are you serious ?? DaveReidUK (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::here is another source: https://leehamnews.com/2025/06/15/five-for-five-air-india-crash-points-to-systemic-problems-at-boeing-ceo-ortberg-must-fix/

::::This will be picked up by mainstream news soon, the cause of crash was software. Andrewfromx (talk) Andrewfromx (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::That source doesn't provide any evidence whatsoever for your assertion. You might want to read it again. DaveReidUK (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/02/2016-29064/airworthiness-directives-the-boeing-company-airplanes

::::::https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/03/23/2020-06092/airworthiness-directives-the-boeing-company-airplanes

::::::https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/05/01/2015-10066/airworthiness-directives-the-boeing-company-airplanes

::::::"a Model 787 airplane that has been powered continuously for 248 days can lose all alternating current (AC) electrical power due to the generator control units (GCUs) simultaneously going into failsafe mode. This condition is caused by a software counter internal to the GCUs that will overflow after 248 days of continuous power. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of all AC electrical power, which could result in loss of control of the airplane." Andrewfromx (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I recently changed the Investigation section to state that the FDR was found first, but after checking the sources I noticed that they are in dispute with the Guardian and BBC saying that India’s Civil Aviation Minister confirmed that the first blackbox found was the FDR[https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/jun/12/air-india-flight-ai171-plane-crash-ahmedabad-india-latest-updates?CMP=share_btn_url&page=with%3Ablock-684c2adb8f08e4c7b7094098#block-684c2adb8f08e4c7b7094098][https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c8d1r3m8z92t?post=asset%3A128894cb-409e-4c49-b98d-3e76b27c201e#post] whilst the independent claims the second found blackbox was the FDR [https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/india/air-india-plane-crash-london-ahmedabad-boeing-survivor-live-updates-b2769288.html]. How should the sources be weighted and how should the article reflect that? Squawk7700 (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:This is what I ask in recorder section on the upper thread. The sources conflicted? or is there possibility of both being FDR? Lowyat Slyder (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::Haha sorry didn't see that one, as I see it all is a big confusion which probably will be cleared up in a few days. That just poses one question to me; is the current version WP:DUE if there are sources telling an entirely different story and one is kind of favored as I read it. Squawk7700 (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::Although I was asking earlier if the Dreamliner had a combined FDR/CVR, I'm pretty sure it doesn't have two FDRs. I guess the design requirement will be given by Federal Aviation Regulations § Part 25. I'm guessing that the fundamental requirement is for the FDR and CVR to be different units, in separated locations, with independent power supplies, etc. An editor more familiar with that Federal regulation might be able to confirm. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::The paragraph is currently self-contradictory and does not make sense. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::All 787s carry a pair of identical EAFRs (Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorder), one in the tail and one in the nose. These are designed to combine the functions of a CVR and FDR and both should contain the same data. Given that these are relatively new devices, it's understandable that the media and the public still think that single CVRs and FDRs are carried. I'll find a suitable article to cite on the main page. DaveReidUK (talk) 07:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::This explains the confusion, both in the press and here. Is this detail made clear at the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner article? I see that EAFRs do not yet appear at Flight recorder, so maybe a footnote would be useful here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC) p.s. the BBC is still reporting that only one FDR has been recovered and that the search for the second is still ongoing.

:::::That wouldn't be the first time the BBC has got the wrong end of the stick in relation to this event. Yesterday they were reporting that "The flaps of the plane appear not to have been extended when they should have been" despite zero (so far) evidence for that assertion. DaveReidUK (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I think the flaps issue is being discussed in a different thread. The problem with the black boxes is that none of the sources mention any EAFR. The article now mentions a CVR again which, you've told us, doesn't exist on a Dreamliner. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Yes, I fear that misunderstanding is destined to persist, simply due to inertia by the media who can't get their heads around a combined recorder. A bit like continuing to refer to them as "black boxes" when they haven't been that colour in living memory. Anyway, I've found a suitable citation for the EAFR on the 787: https://skybrary.aero/sites/default/files/bookshelf/2955.pdf - I'll add that to both the accident and Flight Recorders pages later (unless somebody beats me to it!). DaveReidUK (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

Many thanks. I'd suggest that it also belongs at the Dreamliner article. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC) p.s. I see it also has a cockpit area microphone, which would record conversation between the pilots.

:Yes, a CAM has been mandatory for many years - there's a reference to it in the Flight Recorder article. DaveReidUK (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::Is that mandatory for all commercial aircraft, for all operators, at all locations? I see a reference to "large transport aircraft". Perhaps it deserves its own article. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::CAMs have been a requirement for several decades for all aircraft that need to have a CVR. The objective, of course, is to record interactions between the crew that don't involve the individual boom mikes. Some pilots don't like them, but that's neither here nor there. Getting back to the article, as the CAM is by no means unique to the 787, I don't see any need to mention it in the article - unless it emerges from the investigation that a discussion between the pilots captured by the CVR gives a clue as to the events. DaveReidUK (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes agree no need to mention it here. But there's no CVR. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Technically there IS a CVR - it would be illegal to operate without one, given that the regulations haven't changed. The difference is that the CVR is integrated with the FDR in a single EAFR unit. Or rather two EAFR units, in order to satisfy the legacy requirement that the CVR and FDR be separate units. Hopefully that concludes this debate! DaveReidUK (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Well, we really should have a source that substantiates that such recorders were actually installed on this specific aircraft. There have been plenty of cases where things that should have been installed weren’t actually installed. Also your source talks in the future tense about a planned event. We need a better source that proves these are approved and in usage. Boeing can’t decide by themselves to start using a different type of recorders. Such usage has to be approved by oversighting authorities in the industry. Tvx1 20:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::No, Boeing can decide whatever they like, as long as the system satisfies its customers and the certification requirements of the regulators. DaveReidUK (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::But we should have a source that substantiates that such recorders were actually installed on this specific aircraft? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

I assume you mean a source that states the EAFR is standard on the 787, rather than a record of the unit being installed on the specific accident aircraft? If so, there are tons of citations available, I'll choose a suitable one. DaveReidUK (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, that's what I meant. And I think that's what Tvx1 meant too. So that's all 787s, not just the 787-8? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::No that’s not what I meant. I did mean a source that substantiates that this aircraft was equiped with such recorders. Tvx1 08:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::If that was a type fit by the manufacturer and requirement for civil certification , how could this particular aircraft have escaped? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Maybe because of the problems identified with the newer recorders? FDR’s and CVR’s are also still very much certified for use. Tvx1 08:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Are we simply obliged to follow WP:RS, such as the BBC? Our discussions on EAFRs are beginning to look like WP:OR. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Agreed, originally I thought the RS will follow but it looks more and more like they are sticking to that version. I think we should change it to CVR and FDR according to basically all major newspaper. Additionally the documentation for EAFR in Boeing 787 is too scarse to look over this Squawk7700 (talk) 08:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

As you admit yourself, such devices HAVE to be approved by independent regulators. Boeing cannot unilaterally adopt an unapproved type of flightrecorder. So a source that details a future intent is useless. Tvx1 08:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

So you're now suggesting that the EAFR isn't even certificated on the 787? Go on then, find us a source that shows a traditional standalone CVR or FDR is certificated for the type. DaveReidUK (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

Now done. Comments on the wording welcomed. DaveReidUK (talk) 08:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:Do we know which EAFR has been retrieved? The forward one or the rearward one? I suppose it doesn't really matter. I guess, as they are 100% redundant, if the one already recovered is fully functional, there is little point in looking for the other one? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::Both should indeed have recorded exactly the same data. Of course the only way to verify that that was the case is to find both. DaveReidUK (talk) 08:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Many thanks for adding [https://www.militaryaerospace.com/power/article/16718134/ge-delivers-flight-recorders-for-boeing-787 that source] and the explanation. I guess, in the intervening 17 years, all 787s will have been fitted with the EAFRs? Or at least all those newly built since 2008, like this one. Looking forward to any addition to Flight recorder. I wonder what they look like. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::It applies to all 787s (the type didn't enter service until 2011). DaveReidUK (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thanks for clarifying. We can't say that here without a different source, but I guess it's not needed. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::The EAFR is not without [https://www.flightglobal.com/ntsb-details-issues-with-787-flight-and-data-recorder/115282.article its own issues]? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::BBC Radio 4 are now reporting that the "second black box" was found yesterday and are calling it the "Cockpit Voice Recorder". Martinevans123 (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::We can expect that confusion to continue. at least until the investigation reports are published and probably beyond! DaveReidUK (talk) 07:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Disappointing. Perhaps US sources are more accurate for this? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Our article claiming that an FDR and a CVR were recovered, while later claiming the aircraft didn’t carry those but rather EAFR’s doesn’t help the matter. It troubles me that we are claiming that the plane carried EAFR’s purely based on an assumption, while every information hailing from people physically involved with the investigation states that they recovered an FDR and a CVR. Tvx1 08:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I share your unease. Have any press sources shown a picture? Do we know what a EAFR looks like? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The entire EAFR being carried by the plane is based on one guy's original research and not any actual sourcing. 2A00:23C8:A829:3301:6C03:D789:E149:746D (talk) 09:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Just repeating my answer from above for visibility: originally I thought the RS will follow but it looks more and more like they are sticking to that version. I think we should change it to CVR and FDR according to basically all major newspaper. Additionally the documentation for EAFR in Boeing 787 is too scarse to look over this Squawk7700 (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

File:Two-In-One_Data_Recorder.JPG

It should look somewhat like this. Tvx1 14:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, the GE 3254 that's standard on the 787 looks very similar to that Honeywell CVFDR, although the GE unit is a tad bigger and heavier. DaveReidUK (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::I get the sense that you don't share my and @Martinevans123 interpretation of WP:RS, WP:V and WP:OR. Would you mind elaborating on your interpretation in this case? Kind Regards Squawk7700 (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::So the generic name is "CVDR" and "EADR" is a GE product name? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::The industry refers to them as "combined recorders". EAFR is GE's brand name for theirs. Honeywell (who don't offer one for the 787) just call their range "combined recorders". The model pictured is an LW-CVDFR. DaveReidUK (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Sorry, LW-CVFDR. DaveReidUK (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thanks for clarifying. It seems a bit odd that the investigating teams have not used any of these terms? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::This is what the GE3254 EAFR looks like:

::https://www.geaerospace.com/sites/default/files/2022-03/enhanced-aircraft-flight-recorder-3254D.pdf 2001:1970:55EA:7D00:0:0:0:5469 (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::An EAFR *is* an FDR. It *is* also a CVR. So referring to it as either is perfectly correct, just not the whole story. I really don't understand this nit-picking - it's a bit like saying OK, the plane was a 787 but we're not going to accept it was built by Boeing until we can find further corroboration to cite. I can post a link to a photo of an EAFR. FFS, I can even post a link to an accident investigation report on another Air India 787-8 that actually gives the individual serial numbers of the two EARFs. But I'm inclined not to bother if this nonsense is going to continue. DaveReidUK (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

Why does the BBC say the CVR has just been recovered? Why did it not say that when the first recorder was recovered? I'm not sure why that is seen as "nonsense". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC) p.s. here's the [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce818jlz5mlo BBC report]

:You would have to ask the BBC. You could ask them at the same time why they stated that the flaps weren't deployed, in the absence of any evidence. DaveReidUK (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::My point is that BBC is regarded as WP:RS. We are supposed to follow sources? I realise that you think the truth is somewhat different. I'm not sure this is same thing as denying the aircraft was built by Boeing. And these are found physical boxes, not claims about deployment of flaps? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gkd555jlko This latest BBC article] now says that EAFRs were found. XgXFd9ct (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::Why do the people physically involved in the investigation state that they specifically recovered an FDR and a CVR in a specific order? Tvx1 14:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::This is a real surprise, especially in the light of Dave's report about an earlier accident investigation. If they both look identical, how can they call them by different names? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::I think we really went down a WP:OR rabbit hole; I think we should stick to the reporting of multiple international newspapers as (as noted above) they also reported that the responsible minister confirmed that they found them in the specific order. Especially we should stand by WP:V; {{xt| Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it. }} and I think that the entire trail of comparing similar aircraft and concluding from this is simply too much to be considered "published in a reliable source". Squawk7700 (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I think you're inventing a problem that doesn't exist. I can't see any problem with Wikipedia citing the media saying a CVR or FDR has been found.

:::I haven't seen any citation saying "a standalone, single-function CVR has been found". DaveReidUK (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Why did the investigators name them like that? They look identical? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::It was a statement from the Indian Civil Aviation Minister, not the investigators. I doubt the former has ever heard of combined recorders or EAFRs. In fact when he announced that the "FDR" had been found, he told the world the CVR would be in the same location in the tail (it wasn't), which tells us all we need to know about the state of his knowledge.

:::::As I said, I don't see sources still talking about "FDR" and "CVR" a problem, but I seem to be alone in that respect. DaveReidUK (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thanks for clarifying that. Perhaps the claim ought to be attributed directly to the Minister? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Just to add my own 2 cents here, as already mentioned above, every source mentioning the recovery of the flight data recorder is citing the statement from the Indian Civil Aviation Minister. The press release for that statement is available [https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2136378 here]. This release makes no mention of the flight data recorder, just the recovery of a "black box". Entirely my own speculation but my theory is there's been a game of telephone in the newsrooms where the statement said "black box" which somewhere along the line became "flight recorder" which further along the line got misinterpreted as "flight data recorder". And as soon as one source published that, some other source picks it up and you get circular references for incorrect info. Then naturally once the second flight recorder is found, someone assumes that if the last one was the FDR, this must be the CVR and you get a whole bunch of articles published about that as well. Obviously, the above is all my own WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and not grounds to change the article, but I'd argue the above mentioned [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gkd555jlko BBC article] which explicitly references the flight recorders on AI171 being EAFRs, is sufficient grounds to warrant changing the article to mention EAFRs rather than FDRs/CVRs. SI09 (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Seems about right, I guess we will see about your hypotheses, could very well be but I definitely agree with including the EAFR based on the RS article. As I heard other voices agreeing with inclusion now I think I'll go ahead and change it to EAFR and we can discuss again if anyone objects. Squawk7700 (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

Thank goodness common sense (and the ability to read a citation) has prevailed! I must admit that the implication from one editor that we would need citations from all 90+ Boeing 787 operators before being able to say that the EAFR was standard for on all 787s had me rolling on the floor with laughter. Too stupid for words. DaveReidUK (talk) 07:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:But you still managed to find some. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}No objections, as the brief explanation from Soutik Biswas in the BBC article supports, although he is talking about this one single aircraft. But perhaps that source ought to now be repositioned into the main text, instead of being hidden away in a footnote? If FDRs and CVRs are no longer even mentioned, perhaps the footnote is unnecessary. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:Agreed, I merged the footnote into the text as is had some parts worth saving Squawk7700 (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::It's unfortunate that the statement "On 13 June, after 28 hours of searching..." is no longer sourced. Or perhaps I don't have the ability to read a citation. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::If we want a source for the first being found on 13 June, we can cite the Ministry Press Release I linked to earlier. Straight from the horse's mouth. The 28 hours will still be unsourced but, as much as the "truth" is irrelevant, I don't think that was ever actually true. 28 hours is the amount of time elapsed between the crash and when the box was found (5 pm as per the press release), not how long was actually spent "searching". SI09 (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::That's a very fair point. I think the date is probably all that needs to be sourced there. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I went to add the source and ended up re-reading the first sentence + doing some digging. I think it has significant problems. It sounds like the discovery was announced on 13th, which it wasn't. Found 13th, announced 14th. Also I can't find much to back up who it was found by. The only support for the NSG claim is in one of the now removed sources where it was a single sentence in a "live updates" [https://www.news18.com/india/ahmedabad-plane-crash-air-india-london-flight-carrying-133-passengers-airport-deaths-injuries-liveblog-ws-l-9381884.html note] which was published 2 hours before the box was actually "officially" found. Also as far as I can tell their sole evidence for that is this one random [https://x.com/SinghPramod2784/status/1933411687732031767 tweet]. Doesn't seem to be corroborated by other news sources either. Are we happy to cut the part about it being found by the NSG and AAIB, and maybe also the 28 hours thing? SI09 (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::No objections. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Sorry guys, that was my fault when I changed the article to feature the EAFR after the BBC article I removed the old accumulated references with the old FDR statement I was negligent to check if the other claims are still supported by the new source Squawk7700 (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::They won't necessarily record the same data. Only the forward has the RIPS (recorder independent power supply). If this involved a major lost of electrical power, that will be essential. 2001:1970:55EA:7D00:0:0:0:5469 (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@DaveReidUK, wrt you recent addition [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_India_Flight_171&diff=prev&oldid=1296192477 here], I'm wondering how [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/air-india-plane-crash-investigators-find-boeing-787-second-black-box/ that source] supports the claim that all 787s are fitted with EAFRs? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:Still struggling. {{small|"FFS"}} Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:This [https://www.flightglobal.com/boeing-787s-to-be-fitted-with-enhanced-data-recorders-/67970.article source] might be useful, although it too can't predict what may have happened in the ensuing 19 years. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Reports are now emerging that one of the recorders was "badly damaged": [https://in.mashable.com/tech/95939/air-india-crash-damaged-black-box-to-be-sent-to-usa-after-rs-9-crore-indian-lab-fails-to-retrieve-da]. It's unclear which one. And this is not best source. Martinevans123 (talk)

:It's pretty obviously going to be the forward EAFR, as that one got to the scene of the accident sooner. Badly damaged FDRs/CVRs (and now EAFRs) are reasonably common, and many AIBs don't have the equipment/skills to be able to handle them (that's not an aspersion on the Indian AAIB). The NTSB has both in abundance (as do the French BEA, UK AAIB and others). I confidently expect that we will be seeing FDR traces within the next couple of weeks. DaveReidUK (talk) 09:22, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not sure we would want to identify which recorder was damaged without a good source. Unfortunately that source doesn't even clarify that there are two. It might be useful to clarify, with a source, that the damaged box will be sent (or has already been sent) to NTSB, as it was too damaged to be analysed at the AAIB in New Delhi. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::I'm not sure that the Indian government has made a decision that they're going to send it out of the country or which foreign agency it will be sent to. I can't find a source for it at least. Probably best to let the situation develop before mentioning it. Also I feel this section heading (i.e. Black Boxes Sources Dispute) has resolved the issue it was created for and is now becoming progressively more of a mess. Maybe time to start a new section if there's more black box stuff to discuss? SI09 (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Definitely time for that, agreed. Do you want to mark the discussion as closed? Squawk7700 (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::You looked at the .mashable.com source I posted above, yes? A bit bloggy, but I think others are also now available. If it is so badly damaged that they can't analyse it in New Delhi, and they still want it analysed, I am not sure what else they could do. But there is the other EAFR, which should be viable. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I did look at it but on a google search I also noted more recent sources ([https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyn2227jlyo such as this BBC article]) which say that a decision hasn't been made yet, so for WP purposes I don't think we can verifiably say one way or another. I do agree with you that logically they almost certainly will have to send it somewhere at some point to get it analysed externally, but it'd be WP:OR or speculation to include that in the article till it's confirmed.

::::And yes, I do support marking the discussion as closed. SI09 (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::BBC finally [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyn2227jlyo get it right]. But apparently it was still being discussed [https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2137718 two days ago], with no official mention of any damage. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::There was a typically confused article from the BBC yesterday, quoting an ex-AAIB (India) investigator as saying that it's not clear whether his former organisation can yet handle EAFR downloads, but in the same breath suggesting that one of the recorders (the damaged one, obviously) could be sent to the NTSB "to compare [with] the data downloaded in India". It's pretty clear that the damaged recorder is almost certainly going to Washington, although a citation to that effect is still awaited. DaveReidUK (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1753452074}}

{{rfc|soc|rfcid=DC09F37}}

Should the name of the sole survivor be included in the article? WWGB (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

By my count, the current comments (hidden below) are 5:4 in favour of inclusion. I have converted this discussion into a WP:RfC to try and resolve the situation. WWGB (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

No. He is notable only for one event, and his name is neither important nor aids the reader in understanding the event. Celjski Grad (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|He is notable only for one event...}} Point taken, but I will point out that WP:1E applies to whether a person is adequately Wikinotable for their own stand-alone article, not whether he or she qualifies to be mentioned in the article about that event. Plenty of people notable for only one event are named in the article about that event. (If you are not making this argument, forgive me for interjecting; it seems to be a common misconception in talk page disputes.) Carguychris (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|He is notable only for one event, and his name is neither important nor aids the reader}} If that was the case then we should not be naming the captain and first officer. WWGB (talk) 02:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::Claiming that the two men in control of the aircraft when it crashed are non-notable is quite a bold argument. Celjski Grad (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::I sense a straw man argument at play here: You're making a generalization based on one small statement in the refute and applying it to other similar topic that has never been questioned. He has already stated that the notable people in one event are named already. VF15 | SeriouslyBored | VWT (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::It was the entirety of the refute, not one small statement. If you wish, then I will change my reason to "notable only for an inconsequential role in one event". Celjski Grad (talk) 08:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Since it is already mentioned in the sole survivors article, we should include it as there is no privacy concern, and it adds to the reliability of the article. VF15 | SeriouslyBored | VWT (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, per SeriouslyBored, and I also point out that WP:NPF does not apply because the survivor's name has been broadly published in major media outlets, apparently with his consent, so he is now a public figure. Carguychris (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, per SeriouslyBored and Carguychris. Vishwash Kumar Ramesh has appeared and has been named very many times by BBC News and have I have not seen reports of any desire he has to remain anonymous. As in many other cases, I don't see any conflict between a persons name and "understanding what happened". A person's name is an essential facet of someone's identity and of any historically accurate account of events. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes per above. The person's name is published very widely in the media worldwide, even in articles regarding his brother's funeral (where one would reasonably expect more privacy to be given) [https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/19/india/air-india-plane-crash-survivor-brother-funeral-intl-hnk], so I think there is enough to suggest he is alright with being publicly acknowledged. And WP:1E doesn't apply in this case per Carguychris above. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 10:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

{{Collapse top| title=Previous discussion}}

Should the name of the sole survivor be listed in the info box? I think it’s important people know, other Wikipedia articles with sole survivors list the sole survivor. Ex: The LANSA survivor is well know just like this guy, and I think she’s listed on the Wikipedia page. Grffffff (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:If it is verifiable, I think he is a notable part of the narrative of this crash. JamesChristianWilliams (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::I entered the name of the sole survivor with a reliable source, but it was reverted with the rationale "see previous discussions about adding names". I am not aware of any decision not to add the name of the survivor. Thoughts? WWGB (talk) 06:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I would support inclusion in this article. I don't see any evidence that Visheash specifically refused interviews. He is notable in the context of the event. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::Sole survivors are routinely named in the accident article. See, for example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Light_Air_Services_Beechcraft_1900_crash], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Saurya_Airlines_Bombardier_CRJ200_crash] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Saha_Airlines_Boeing_707_crash]. WWGB (talk) 06:56, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::He is also named at List of sole survivors of aviation accidents and incidents. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::That list is meaningless trivia and should be deleted. EEng 11:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Good luck. Just sayin' Martinevans123 (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::After reading Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, I think it's best omitted for now as he was a passive participant. Depending on his involvement in the investigation or in media after the fact, he may evolve into an active participant, at which point his name would become relevant information. JamesChristianWilliams (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Consensus is not to name survivors unless wikipedia notable. Per discussions here, here, here, and more. Members of the cockpit crew are named. Lost in Quebec (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

• WP:BLPNAME. Leave the man in peace. EEng 11:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
• BLP concerns was a reason raised in at least one discussion as to why survivors shouldn't be named.Lost in Quebec (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
• :To be fair, the last conversation you brought up was like 5 years old (WP:CCC). The sole survivor in this case appears to want his story told. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::His story can be told perfectly well without using his name. We don't normally name nonnotable people in articles unless there's some need to. EEng 17:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::Apparently (and this came as a surprise to me too) we do: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Survivors of aviation accidents. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::So I think perhaps I should [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_India_Flight_171&diff=prev&oldid=1295753541 self revert]. Or is this in some way a "special case" where we can't dare name him? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Again, I would include him as he has given multiple media sources details regarding his survival. Other people choose to be anonymous. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::I have now self reverted. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Now added again and reverted again. Why does this breach WP:BLP? What is the consensus on this? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'd suggest the "Presumption in favor of privacy" considerations apply here. DaveReidUK (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

{{Collapse bottom}}

(copied from my message at User talk:SerChevalerie)

WP:COMMONALITY does not state anywhere that values associated with currency are disallowed, and in fact says: "ten million is preferable to one crore".

WP:CURRENCY says nothing about which numbering system to use for a particular currency.

MOS:CRORE specifically says: "Sometimes, the variety of English used in an article may suggest the use of a numbering system other than the Western thousands-based system. For example, the Indian numbering system is conventionally used for certain things (especially monetary amounts) in South Asian English. This is discouraged in Wikipedia articles by WP:Manual of Style § Opportunities for commonality."

Accordingly, please stop changing the numbering system from millions to crore. Celjski Grad (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyn2227jlyo This BBC article from today] states the second EAFR was retrieved on 16 June. Currently, the article states it was retrieved on 15 June. The articles cited for the 15 June date describe [https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2136509 this press release], but none of them make it clear something was retrieved on 15 June. Is there anything else to back up the 15 June date? Returnofthesecretbar (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:If I remember correctly the statement was originally takling about something different when the sources were still talking about separate flight recorders, I changed it now Squawk7700 (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Viswashkumar Ramesh describes both the varying inertia of the brief flight and the cabin's green & white lights coming on, and also, albeit not chronologically, in some accounts mentions a loud noise/crash. I am not going to presume his native tongue; I do presume he has been interviewed by investigators. It was a thirty second flight, and those are the details we have from the sole survivor. Are they encyclopedic? kencf0618 (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Most sources report this aircraft (VT-ANB) to be 11 years old (made in Dec 2013). However, this airliners.net image captures VT-ANB (albeit engineless): [https://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-India/Boeing-787-8-Dreamliner/1940172] in June 2011, suggesting it was 14 years old. GalacticOrbits (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:Relevant dates in the life of this aircraft (I don't have a citation to hand, but easy enough to find):

:Rolled out: 17 AUG 2010

:First flight: 14 DEC 2013

:Delivery to AI: 31 JAN 2014

:So the issue is more about definitions of age than about the actual age of the aircraft. DaveReidUK (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Should knots have a standard conversion applied, just like kilometres and feet? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:Where are you seeing knots without Wikipedia's automatic conversion ? DaveReidUK (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::Where the text says "{{tq|... ranging from 3 to 6 knots..}}", in the first paragraph of the "Accident" section? Wikipedia doesn't do any kind of "automatic conversion" unless you manually add a {convert} template. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I suspect most readers will understand "surface winds were light", whatever their preferred units. DaveReidUK (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Quite probably. So perhaps no figures are needed at all. But I suspect some readers will be unfamiliar with knots as a unit of measurement. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I don't really know how fast a knot is, I've added a conversion. Celjski Grad (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::It's not very fast. Looks fine to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)