Comments:Bomb ruled out in Mexico plane crash that killed twelve

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading


THIS NOTE COULD BE ABSOLUTELY WRONG AND MISLEADING. (Regarding the HEADINGS of the plane mentioned).

The normal approach to Mexico's City International Airport Benito Juarez places the airplanes roughly circling counterclockwise entering the area from the north (when arriving from the flight's departure city of San Luis Potosi). Then they go into a left turn that places them in the NORTH-EAST direction of the runways 05L or 05R, which are exactly at 052 degrees east from north, and are used more than 80% of the time.

Saying that the plane was going north, then it would have being going entirely WRONG... AGAINST the normal air traffic! That air traffic is MOST of the time from North-to-South in that part of the city, and can be seen clearly going INSIDE the highway loop known as PERIFERICO from many of the buildings on the area, thas is, to the EAST of PERIFERICO about a mile or slightly less. Roughly when passing over REFORMA avenue going South, the planes start banking gradually to the left, starting the mentioned turn.

IF THE ARTICLE PRETENDS TO DESCRIBE THE FINAL HEADING OF THE PLANE WHEN STRIKING THE GROUND, THEN IT MUST CLARIFY THIS. AS IT IS, IT SAYS THE PLANE WAS GOING NORTH, WHICH WOULD BE COMPLETELY WRONG.

PLEASE CORRECT THE REPORT.

If you read it properly, it tells you that it should not have been going this way but was, and the investigation has not yet determined why. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section[edit]

Here a section was removed (complete with moronic SCREAMING) that was a copyright violation as it copied wholesale a competing news organisation's story. The story carries a claim from a Mexican official that an engine detatched from the aircraft during flight, directly contradicting the facts as sourced for this story. Would make an interesting follow-up, especially since the last update would have you believe the engines were operating upon impact. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 07:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This note has to be corrected.

It says the plane was going NORTH...

This is completely WRONG. The Learjet was correctly going mainly SOUTH (heading 162 degrees, which is SOUTH to SOUTHWEST) and ready to turn to the LEFT; to follow a DME turn that places arriving planes finally in a 052 degrees course perfectly aligned to Mexico's City International Airport runways 05L and 05R, which receive roughly 80% of the total of flights into the airport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.181.87 (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying the note in respect of the Northbound heading of the plane.[edit]

The article still gives the false impression that it was travelling towards the north when it suffered the accident.

As the radar images have clearly shown, the plane was correctly following the sequence of planes that were approaching the final turn into destination airport. That it possibly turned when losing control after it encountered the wake turbulence from a heavy B767-300 it was following, or any other cause that provoked the repentine and sharp descent is not the point.

The point is that it was flying normally and then went totally out of control, undergoing a steep descent that was very brief (a fraction of a minute, less than 30 seconds or so).

That the Flight Path in the final moments or the remains of the fuselage point in a given direction after the crash has no relevance. What is important is the fact that normal control was upset sharply, and completely lost, to the point of making recovery impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.181.87 (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"the Flight Path in the final moments or the remains of the fuselage point in a given direction after the crash has no relevance" - actually, no, that is the most relevent time possible; the moments of the accident itself. The investigation had to know what turned it (input, thrown by turbulence, another cause?) and it seems they found it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]