Talk:Jeju Air Flight 2216

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2024 (4)

TravelWithMatt (talk) 07:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The aircraft was produced in 2009. Serial Number (MSN): 37541 Line Number:3012

This looks like WP:OR. Do you have a WP:RS saying this? guninvalid (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@TravelWithMatt. Airfleets.net is an unreliable source as its reliability was discussed multiple times at WP:RSN. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 09:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.

Is planespotters.net a better source?

It indicates the same data.

https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/boeing-737-800-hl8088-jeju-air/e54n1v TravelWithMatt (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Planespotters.net isn't any better as its reliability was also discussed multiple times at WP:RSN. See this. Do you have any other sources? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 23:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

It's in Korean, but KOCA's ATIS (Aviation Technical Information System) has an aircraft registration status page which does confirm that the aircraft with registration (등록기호, column 4) HL8088 has msn. (제작번호, "production number", column 6) 37541. Filtering can be done through the search (검색) box for convenience. Not sure how much WP:PRIMARY applies here, but that's about as official as it gets — Lokarutlot (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Slight adjustment to the impact/crash coordinates.

Please adjust to 34°58'35.4"N 126°22'58.4"E Jovanin99 (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Where did you get this information? Please provide a reliable, secondary source to cite. guninvalid (talk) 08:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2024 (2)

International Reactions

[FLAG OF THE KINGDOM OF THAILAND] The Foreign Affairs Minister, Tanee Sangrat said "I wish to extend my heartfelt sympathies to the families and loved ones of those who lost their lives or were injured in this unfortunate incident”,

[FLAG OF UNITED STATES] President Joe Biden published a statement reading, "Our thoughts and prayers are with those impacted by this tragedy," Biden said, according to a statement released by the White House. Additionally Biden said that he and his wife, Jill, were "deeply saddened" by the crash. He said that the US was ready "to provide any necessary assistance."

[FLAG OF UKRAINE] President Volodymyr Zelenskyy expressed on twitter "Tragic news of a devastating Jeju Air accident at Muan International Airport in Muan County, Republic of Korea, claiming so many lives. Each life lost is an immeasurable tragedy.

On behalf of the Ukrainian people and myself, I extend heartfelt condolences to the bereaved families, the people of Korea and Acting President Choi Sang-mok.

We share your sorrow and stand with the Korean people in this time of grief."

[FLAG OF JAPAN] Prime Minister Shigeru Ishibia sent a message of condolences to the acting South Korean President claiming "I feel deep sorrow over the loss of so many precious lives in Korea in the unfortunate passenger plane accident.”

[FLAG OF CHINA] President Xi Jinping professed condolences which read "On behalf of the Chinese government and people, I express my deep condolences to the victims and my sincerest consolations to the victims' families, and wish for the swift recovery of the injured," SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I could not do it in the add topic but fix citations and add the flags. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

No need to add flags or expand the reactions at this point, condolences are fairly par for the course and can be summarised quickly in much the same way that it is in the article currently. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 23:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@CommissarDoggo Please do it, eventually. could be in a day, week, month just organize the reactions, they are bloated and this cleaner more standardized form helps with readability. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

At the moment, both the domestic and international reactions are very concise, not adding undue weight to the, again, run-of-the-mill condolences. Adding entire paragraphs for each condolence message from a world leader like you're suggesting here would very quickly result in bloat and is, quite frankly, wholly unnecessary.

Lumping them all together is the right thing to do and quite common, which I believe you were recently made aware of on Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 23:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@CommissarDoggo Well I was, but I like that format more so thats why I suggested it. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Well I was informed/made aware of* SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

You should know that Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia that operates on a consensus of editors. Not a candy store where you can pick what you want alone. Borgenland (talk) 08:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done - Current format is perfectly fine, converting to the proposed format would be far too bloated for what boils down to normal condolences. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 23:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@CommissarDoggo could a seperate page be created? SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@SimpleSubCubicGraph I doubt it, as it would almost certainly not pass notability standards or WP:NOTNEWS. Everything is already well summarised here on this article, thus it would likely be deleted in short order.

Despite being deleted for general sanctions reasons, the last similar article you made was likely going to be deleted/redirected per WP:SNOWBALL citing much the same reasons I am now and more. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 00:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with CommissarDoggo, not separately notable enough. Please don't attempt to create articles like that again in future, especially if your last article was speedy deleted. seefooddiet (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@CommissarDoggo@Seefooddiet Can one of you guys at least clean up reactions more and to add reactions of every single country? SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The reactions of every single country are hardly relevant. Why would we care what the leader of Mali or Uruguay has to say about this? seefooddiet (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Surprised they still haven’t figured out WP:NOTNEWS and WP:IDNHT as to why they haven’t found consensus to bloat the article. Borgenland (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a Manual of Style entry governing flags. See MOS:FLAG, specifically subsection MOS:FLAGCRUFT for this specific request. – robertsky (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Robertsky @Borgenland @CommissarDoggo Death and state funeral of Manmohan Singh very recent page, could the same thing happen here? SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Could I use Death and state funeral of Manmohan Singh as justification for it passing notability standards/news-worthy? SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@SimpleSubCubicGraph Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The page you linked isn't even just reactions to, which is what you're proposing here, it's seemingly independently notable and about his death, the state funeral and reactions to them. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 22:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@CommissarDoggo How does wikipedia have a page for literally everything and how do i find these pages? Would be useful in a debate/argument. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@SimpleSubCubicGraph If you're looking for pages solely on reactions to something, you'd have to look for seriously notable articles like the September 11 attacks, which is shown here.

English Wikipedia has some of the strictest notability requirements across the entirety of Wikimedia, and for good reason; we're coming up on 7 million articles now, and maybe 100,000 or so at a time probably don't meet those guidelines. We get to be a bit picky about things.

If you're looking for policies, you'll find them thrown around during discussions pretty regularly so you'll memorise the most common ones eventually. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 22:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@CommissarDoggo So I know there is a notability guideline but I did not know there was a tier above that, so notable that entire pages needed to be dedicated to one section. How would I know such event is in this unofficial tier? SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Sufficient major coverage in reliable sources seefooddiet (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@SimpleSubCubicGraph Well, that and if/when pages get so large they need to be split. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 22:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

And in case you won’t be able to understand, no one will be going to war over an accidental plane crash, so your chances that a reactions page to this current crash will not get AFD’d is extremely low. Borgenland (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Borgenland what does AFD mean? I know it generally stands for Alternative fur Detuschland but I do not know what it means here on wikipedia. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@SimpleSubCubicGraph Articles for Deletion. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 19:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Basically the thing that shot down the last article you created. Borgenland (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2024

Change

"the aircraft involved was making four flights a week between the airport and Bangkok" to "the aircraft type involved was making four flights a week between the airport and Bangkok".

[Rationale: Clearly flights on that route were not operated only by the specific aircraft involved in the accident, that's not how airlines work. Jeju operates around 3 dozen B738s]. DaveReidUK (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done - Source specifically states "Flight 7C 2216, the airliner that crashed, traveled between Bangkok and Muan four times a week." Unless you have a source that supports your request, I'm afraid it can't be made @DaveReidUK CommissarDoggo^Talk? 10:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The source IS correct; but it does not support the statement that cites it, although you don't appear to understand the difference. A better form of words (which the citation does support) would be "The airliner that crashed was operating Flight 7C 2216, that traveled between Bangkok and Muan four times a week". I hope that helps you to understand the issue. DaveReidUK (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@CommissarDoggo I believe DaveReidUK is correct here – just because the same flight number was used for all flights on this route doesn't necessarily mean the same aircraft was used for all such flights. Toadspike [Talk] 21:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Toadspike @DaveReidUK I'm totally fine to be proved wrong here, and I don't doubt that that's the case, but the source itself does not make that distinction. The exact text of the source more makes it sound as if that plane specifically is flight xyz, not that it was one of multiple on one route, which is an absolute pain in the ass. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 22:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems both are right, strangely enough. The source does say "flight 2216 traveled four times a week", which technically doesn't imply only this aircraft, but flight tracking websites do show aircraft HL8088, specifically, flying from Bangkok (VTBS) to Muan (RKJB) five(!) times between 22/Dec and 29/Dec: once on the 22nd, once on the 23rd, once on the 26th, once on the 27th, and the accident flight on the 29th — all numbered as flight 2216. Further data also confirm this was the only aircraft carrying out this flight number since the 22nd, with various others doing that job before then. At this point this might qualify as original research, maybe, but the claim is technically correct, if poorly phrased. —Lokarutlot (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for confirming. This is exactly the kind of technicality a journalist might miss, but if more technical sources confirm it, then I drop my objections. Toadspike [Talk] 22:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Yep, I suppose whoever wrote it in the source didn't know better to distinguish a plane's tail number from a flight number but still came to the correct conclusion by chance due to this specific situation — which, on second read, is what I think DaveReidUK meant on their second message. Could still mean we might need an extra source verifying it was indeed the same aircraft and not just flight number (archives of flight trackers?), but I'll defer that to someone who actually knows policy better than me. Lokarutlot (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I may be missing something, but the solution seems pretty clear to me. Leaving aside the fact that the source conflates "aircraft" with "flight", there appears to be a consensus here (supported by the source) that the flight number in question operates 4x per week from Bangkok to Muan. Why not simply leave the Wiki entry at that? Yes, it happens that the last few instances of that flight number were operated by the accident aircraft, but so what? - that has no more relevance to the accident than the (equally verifiable) fact that the aircraft flew on plenty of other servicew, on other routes, in between times. Nobody, as far as I can see, is suggesting that events would have been any different had the flight been operated by a different tail number, so the past history of that specific tail number is totally irrelevant and any reference to its history is needlessly confusing and unnecessary. DaveReidUK (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I was mostly going off of What's Already There, but I tend to generally agree with this sentiment, to be fair. Until some unknowns are answered, weekly time or distance flown have no bearing on the outcome of this flight (despite what some media outlets have been suggesting). A rewrite along the lines of what you propose here (e.g. "and the Bangkok-Muan flight operated four times a week, a service[...]") seems appropriate. Lokarutlot (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Wall, Barrier or Embankment

There are many reliable sources referring to the object the plane collided to as Wall, Barrier or Embankment. However these images show the object is an embankment.

• Arial view
• Street view

Sources referring to "embankment" are as follows:

• Reuter: Flight 7C2216 crashes into embankment after over-shooting the runway.
• CNN: Footage of Sunday’s crash-landing showed the Jeju Air flight sliding on its belly at high speed, hitting an earthen embankment...
• The Guardian: Flight 7C2216 crashes into embankment after over-shooting the runway
• CNN: the concrete embankment
• The Guardian: colliding with a concrete embankment

The above street view image shows the material of the embankment seems dirt, but we should wait further reports whether the material is concrete or earthen (dirt). ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Phoenix7777, civil engineer here; my interpretation of post-crash photographs it that the ILS localizer was mounted to a substantial reinforced concrete footer within an earthen embankment. Hopefully a WP:RELIABLE source will emerge with a more concise description. Current sources describing it as a "concrete embankment" are likely an example of journalistic imprecision mixed with mistranslation. (For what it's worth, the footer appears to be about 138'x6'x9" with 3' deep grade beams on either side, which means it would weigh about 170,000 lbs excluding the equipment mounted on it, and the impact flipped it over and broken it into many pieces. Yowza.) Carguychris (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I have also noticed the media mis-reporting this as you describe. Since we only consider reliable sources, I guess we will have to wait for the media (and/or perhaps the investigation) to catch up with what trained observers can already see. I have seen some media speculation that the footer went all the way down to the surface level (inside the berm), but your visual analysis indicates the footer was only 9" deep. Again, we'll have to wait for the media to catch up. https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1400x1050/471406606_1146574753799830_7527130700059869082_n_e75f5c72a077afcb34aee17b90d734efb868fe53.jpg Westwind273 (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Map Image

The map image has a typo in it where it says crahsed instead of crashed. I don't know how to fix this, nor who added it so I can't do anything about it. I just wanted to let the people know here. Reader of Information (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I have notified the original creator of the image and they have already changed it. CaptainGalaxy 18:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it.

Cheers, Reader of Information (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Landing gear

The summary states 'after landing gear failure'.

There is for the time being no evidence, that the landing gear malfuntioned. The fact is, that the landing gear was not down. Torbenarent (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed 100%, did not notice this. I think "belly landing" should suffice until more solid information emerges. Carguychris (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Fine! Torbenarent (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Unneeded airports built in dangerous locations

For decades now, South Korea has been building unneeded airports on its southwest coast. These airports, like Muan, have all been losing money. They were simply political boondoggle projects. Muan Airport in particular was built dangerously close to a bird sanctuary, and it has far more bird warnings than any other airport in Korea. The Korea Times has been covering this:

https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2019/01/113_263016.html https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2024/12/113_389412.html

Westwind273 (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

You can't just make posts with opinions. You need to make clear what kind of change you want to be made to the article. WP:NOTFORUM seefooddiet (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Don't accuse people of just making posts with opinions when they are not. That is slander, and it is not appropriate to this talk page. As for my comment: (1) It is not my opinion. It is based on reporting by the Korea Times, which is a reliable source. (2) The kind of change is obvious. I think the article would be enhanced by including information on the Muan airport along the lines described in the Korea Times articles. You need to re-read the guidelines for participating in this talk page. Unfounded slander is not permitted. Westwind273 (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of slander when you didn't word your post properly. You're on a talk page where numerous posts that just generally discussed the topic and not the article have been deleted. Your clarification is sufficient now, let's stop discussing conduct, takes up space. seefooddiet (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree. You should have never brought up the issue of conduct in the first place, so please stop. The wording in my original post did not deserve your inappropriate response. You started this, not me. Westwind273 (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

It did, because you had no explicit suggestion on how to improve the article, and the use of "slander" makes others uncomfortable per WP:No legal threats. To call it a "political boondoggle" is a stretch per WP:UNDUE; one or even two reliable sources calling it that are not enough when others don't. It's not clear whether this is an opinion piece or not, but it doesn't name who they're quoting in the aviation industry. In any case, such content would properly belong on the articles on the airports themselves, not this disaster, unless specifically and directly connected to what happened in it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Wrong. Seefooddiet's comment lead off with "You can't just make posts with opinions." I had clearly provided two links to articles in the Korea Times, thus seefooddiet was completely off base in saying that my post was just my opinion. In fact, to avoid posts being just opinions, scolders often harp on reliable sources, which is exactly why I included the links to the two Korea Times articles. I specifically included those links so I would not be scolded for posting my personal opinion, and yet seefooddiet accused me of it anyway. Regarding your other points, you are really splitting hairs, and in any case it is not deserving of being accused of posting my personal opinions. The gist of the Korea Times article is that the airport was built for political reasons. Calling it a boondoggle may be overstating it, but that does not deserve being accused of posting my opinions. Also, it is debatable whether the information on the airport should be limited to the article on the airport or included here, but in any case that is not deserving of being accused of posting my opinions. Westwind273 (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Let's take this to your user talk page from now on, not productive here. seefooddiet (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that we take this to your user talk page. This whole thread was unproductive from the start. It is unfortunate that you started it. Westwind273 (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, how does this relate to JJA2216? Would you like to change anything about the Wikipedia article, and what? guninvalid (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Please read the comments above before commenting. Above I stated "I think the article would be enhanced by including information on the Muan airport along the lines described in the Korea Times articles." Westwind273 (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

How would the article be improved? This certainly is interesting for sure, and it seems like a good thing to include on the articles for the airports themselves. But how is it related to JJA2216 specifically? guninvalid (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Did you read the Korea Times articles that I linked to? The construction of the berm was certainly unusual compared to other airports, and as the Korea Times articles point out, there are other unusual and shady aspects to how Muan Airport got built. I have to say I feel like you are being unusually accusatory to me, rather than accepting my comment with an open mind. It is as if you are on a mission to prove that I should not have posted what I did. Isn't that overdoing it a bit? It is like I am being interrogated. Rather than just nitpicking what I posted, shouldn't your comments also have a constructive aspect to them? Westwind273 (talk) 02:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Your first source doesn't mention Jeju Air at all, so again, this would only be suitable for an article about those Korean airports or for those particular airports. Your second source does allude to the incident flight, but it doesn't name it and doesn't claim that it was actually caused by a birdstrike. As I see it, the first one is not related to this case at all, and the second one is borderline. To reiterate once more, these are fine for inclusion in articles about the airports themselves, but I don't believe an administrator would be okay with adding these to an article specifically about JJA2216. guninvalid (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Note that the editor in question has been placed in ANI due to what appears to be systematic WP:FORUM behavior and WP:GAME. See [1]. Borgenland (talk) 07:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Whether the airports are wanted or not is not pertinent to the accident. The information about bird strikes and the development of the land around the airport is already in the article in the investigation section. – robertsky (talk) 08:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The deadliest involving, the deadliest in 2020s and etc

I need to readdress this; all of those "the deadliest since" "the deadliest mass casualty" in the headline are verging on redundancy. I remember that these things are not allowed in the air disaster articles as it is "not a competition". Should we delete them, keep all of them or just keep some of them that are not related to aviation? PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Prose needs to be fixed. Deletion I'm unsure about; idk what the previous discussions/guidelines were, but I find these anecdotes useful. As long as the anecdotes are "most" and broad, and not like "third most" or "most in this hyper-specific county". seefooddiet (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I think the aviation-related stuffs would stay, but the non-aviation one should be deleted PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 04:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Terminology for the stuff the airplane hit

Edits seem to be going back and forth and I'm hoping we can put this to rest without a pointless edit war. Differing sources describe the flight hitting a "concrete wall", "concrete structure", or "concrete barrier" on a "berm", "embankment", or "mound", supporting a "localizer", "array", or "antenna". I think the article needs to use uniform terminology. Here's my vote:

• Concrete structure (it appears to incorporate a wall aka grade beam on the side facing the runway, but part of the structure is horizontal)
• Berm
• Localizer
• Localizer assembly or simply the assembly to describe the whole kit and caboodle

Good news is that more concise sources have emerged and we can confidently move beyond the overly simplistic and technically inaccurate "concrete embankment". Pinging users @Captain Galaxy and @Phoenix7777. Carguychris (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Seems good. As mentioned in my talk page, as I am not aviation expert, I await what other users have to see about the terminology, but with that aside, concrete structure feels like the best neutral term alongside the use of berm. CaptainGalaxy 03:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The thing with concrete structure is that some readers might be confused with a different concrete structure which is the airport fence. If the concrete structure we're talking about is the one that's supporting the localizer. Then either of these: berm, embankment or mound is acceptable. Anything that has "concrete" or terms used such as wall or barrier, in my opinion, isn't acceptable. Localizer, array, or antenna is also acceptable for me. I'm not sure where assembly comes from.

Why I think that "concrete" is unacceptable is that the object that supports the localizer doesn't even look like concrete at all when looking at first glance. I know that there might still be concrete that's supporting the localizer underneath the mound. The only one that looks "concrete" at first glance is the airport perimeter fence.

I'm also not an aviation expert so I'll still defer this to others that are more knowledgeable. RPC7778 (talk) 09:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree - there is absolutely no doubt that the public and the media are totally confused about what the aircraft actually hit. I'd prefer to see the object described simply as an "earth embankment/mound" supporting the ILS localizer array. Yes, there's concrete inside it (now exposed), but I don't think the presence of the concrete made an appreciable difference to the outcome. Incidentally the reason why the array is raised is simply that it needed to be for the ILS, to compensate for the fact that the runway is 18 feet lower at the southern end compared to the northern end. DaveReidUK (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

It looks to me like a concrete structure on top of an earthen embankment, or a concrete structure/wall with earth down its sides - [2][3]. Either way the concrete bit is exposed at the top before the collision, and the concrete part might be the bit that caused the damage rather than the earthen embankment. Hzh (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@RPC7778: ...some readers might be confused with a different concrete structure which is the airport fence. If the concrete structure we're talking about is the one that's supporting the localizer. My thoughts exactly. I think the media has contributed to the confusion; the New York Times used the term "concrete wall" when it's clear that they're talking about the localizer's concrete support structure and not the airport perimeter wall. I think we need to use terminology that clearly differentiates the two features. I'm not sure where assembly comes from. I made that up in an attempt to summarize the "stuff" in one word.

@Hzh It looks to me like a concrete structure on top of an earthen embankment, or a concrete structure/wall with earth down its sides- I think it's clear that's what it is, both from photos and the more concise descriptions that emerged yesterday.

@DaveReidUK: I'd prefer to see the object described simply as an "earth embankment/mound" supporting the ILS localizer array. I was thinking "berm" because, at least in U.S. usage, the term clearly implies a linear feature. I think "embankment" would also suffice but I don't really like "mound" because, to me, this implies a round shape. I'm curious what people from other English-speaking regions think, and I'm also concerned about my own possible bias because I deal with earthwork for a living. I don't think the presence of the concrete made an appreciable difference to the outcome. Experts are saying it did, and I personally think it did. Photos appear to show a grade beam (a buried wall-like element) on at least one side, meaning the structure's cross section was like an inverted "L", or like a "U" with the corners squared off. This is the "wall" described in sources. Grade beams are common in structural engineering to ensure that a structure doesn't gradually slide downhill, but they would also prevent this structure from moving when the aircraft hit it, and a quick cocktail-napkin calculation I posted in an earlier response suggests that the structure likely weighed about as much as the aircraft did. Carguychris (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I wonder why my comment was removed. Borgenland (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Also adding mound to the discussion. Borgenland (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Do we have rights to use the images of the crash?

I've posted a discussion on the filetalk for the image. I have no experience with the Filespace so I hope some experienced editors can assist. guninvalid (talk) 08:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

This is used under non-Free criteria WP:NFCI. If you don't feel that its use is justified, you can nominate it for deletion - WP:FFD so that other people can discuss whether to keep or delete it. Hzh (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Guninvalid, @Hzh: FYI, The two accident related images have been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 December 31 separately. – robertsky (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Please fix "reverse thrusters"

The term "reverse thrusters" is used twice. The correct term is "thrust reversers." Wipe Scheizug (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Done. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Cleanup of accident section wording

Unfortunately can't edit b/c < 300. But very, very qualified to talk on aviation and related accidents. Accident Section 3rd Paragraph - We can probably do a much more accurate time that the plane crashed into the localizer berm. - I would phrase it as so:

   The crash occurred at (exact time). The aircraft attempted a belly landing, but overshot the touchdown zone of the runway, touching down some 1200m down the runway.

Otherwise first half looks great imo Stall84 (talk) 07:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 January 2025

Add [[Category:Airliner accidents and incidents involving bird strikes]] to the bottom of this page as a bird strike has been involved in this accident, even if it was not the cause of the landing gear and flaps failure. Prothe1st (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done: I've added the category. Thanks for helping out. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 14:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 January 2025 (2)

Change "A total of 179 people were confirmed dead; all 175 passengers, and 4 crew members." To "A total of 179 people were confirmed dead, including all 175 passengers and 4 crew members." Minor grammatical error, clause after semicolon is not independent. 2601:540:C783:CB60:4B10:1408:7ACD:38A0 (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done – robertsky (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

On the conditions of the go-around (protected edit request 2 January 2025)

Quoting from the #Accident section:

A minute later, it issued a mayday alert. At 9:00 a.m., the plane attempted an emergency landing, being forced to go around after the landing gear was not deployed. A minute later, it received authorization to attempt a landing from the opposite direction.

This reads as if the crew attempted to continue the approach after the bird strike, experienced a landing gear deployment failure, then performed the go-around and the belly landing, which is not supported by the given sources. Only The Independent has a timeline that kind of alludes to that, but that itself looks like a slight misread of other sources.

According to Reuters, BBC, and the AvHerald (all of which are already reference in the article), the crew declared "mayday, bird strike, going around" and immediately discontinued the approach. This was followed by a request to land on the opposite direction, which they were cleared for^­†, a 180° turn, and a touchdown without the landing gear (unknown if it failed, as somewhat alluded to by the current text), all within less than three minutes. The sources given also agree the crash against the ILS structure happened at 09:03 LT, not "between 9:03 and 9:07" as stated in the beginning of the following paragraph, with the touchdown having been some time after 09:02.

Proposed rewrite:

Two minutes later, the crew declared mayday, citing a bird strike had happened, and advised ATC they were going around. At 9:00 a.m., they requested clearance to attempt a landing from the opposite direction, which they were then given at 9:01.

Though also requesting help from more experienced editors on phrasing here.

^†Speaking of clearances, this passage also uses the terms "authorization" and "authorized" (for landing/to land), which I imagine might be direct translations by existing sources from Korean material (perhaps "허가" also meaning "permission"? See also Wiktionary and Collins dictionary entries) — the proper phraseology in English for landing (and other) permissions is "clearance" and "cleared" (as I've used them in the proposed rewrite), but I'm unsure if that specific rewrite qualifies as OR. For what it's worth, the AvHerald does phrase it as "[ATC] clears the aircraft to land".

References

— Lokarutlot (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 January 2025

In section "Investigation", in the 6th paragraph starting "The barrier in question", change "about 250 meters (820 ft)" to "202 meters (663 ft)".

The distance is provided by reference 81 ""Exclusive: Muan Airport fails to meet safety regulations on localizer setup". The Chosun Daily. 31 December 2024. Archived from the original on 31 December 2024. Retrieved 31 December 2024." linked to in the previous sentence. Jcaron (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Edit request

In the Investigation section:

"The Korea Times, citing an investigation headquarters official, the reported that the investigation will also examine the impact of the shortened declared distance."

"the reported" seems like a grammatical error; just suggesting "the" be removed. Thanks! Therguy10 (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Done. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 January 2025 (2)

Please change "Within the last year" under "Aircraft" to a more specific date. Please add a date to the first sentence under the "accident" heading.

Optional: Please change "a service that Jeju Air had begun on 8 December." to "a service that Jeju Air began on 8 December." JarJarInks (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Please change "Within the last year" under "Aircraft" to a more specific date. –  Not done: The cited reference does not specify any dates, although if you have sources that include dates, feel free to cite then.
• Please add a date to the first sentence under the "accident" heading. –  Done.
• Optional: Please change "a service that Jeju Air had begun on 8 December." to "a service that Jeju Air began on 8 December." –  Done. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)