Talk:China Airlines Flight 140

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Japan Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 12:54, November 28, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Japan to do list:

Peer review: None
A-class review: None

Featured content candidates –

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One
Add requested images to articles that need them.
Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions.
Improve and expand Japan-related stubs.
Create some requested articles.
Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English.
Assess unassessed articles

Taiwan Low‑importance

	Taiwan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 26, 2013, April 26, 2014, April 26, 2018, April 26, 2021, April 26, 2023, and April 26, 2024.

More pages

Text pages of Bielefeld text version

Pages of Japanese documents

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on China Airlines Flight 140. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know the nations?

I know that there were several passengers from Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines, but does anyone know the entire passenger or nation list? 73.87.74.115 (talk) 13:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor is surprised?

I do not consider this statement as the opinion of a subject matter expert.

"A doctor expressed surprise in response to the survival of two of the children."

A doctor might be surprised a person survives potential fatal injuries, but doctors are not mechanical engineers or aviation safety experts. Most crashes do in fact have survivors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.217.214.194 (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@91.217.214.194:, not all crashes are the same, though, and some crashes do have more severe effects than others. I mean the doctor may not be an expert specifically on post-aviation crash injuries, and that point I could concede. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

22391-simcheck-b-1816zip-13-thumbnail.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate info

Investigation: "Nine months earlier, Airbus had advised its customers to modify the air flight system so it would fully disengage the autopilot "when certain manual controls input is applied on the control wheel in GO-AROUND mode",[12] which would have included the yoke-forward movement the pilots made on this accident flight. The accident aircraft was scheduled to only receive the update the next time it required a more substantial service break, because "China Airlines judged that the modifications were not urgent".[12]"

Software upgrade: "Airbus had the company that made the flight control computer produce a modification to the air flight system that would disengage the autopilot "when certain manual controls input is applied on the control wheel in GO-AROUND mode".[12] This modification was first available in September 1993, and the aircraft that had crashed had been scheduled to receive the upgrade.[12] The aircraft had not received the update at the time of the crash because "China Airlines judged that the modifications were not urgent".[12]"

This could be less repetitive maybe? 82.108.2.131 (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summaries

@Wienliebe: you say that a summary such as "Stalled and crashed on approach" is not descriptive of the accident, and you changed it to "Accidental engagement of Go-Around thrust and Pilot error leading to Stall". Well, what happened to the aircraft? What about all other other factors (12 in total) cited by the report, the Service Bulletins?
The point is that the summary is not meant to give a full picture of the article: it would never fit, and cherry-picking one or two causes, or lumping them all under popular phrases such as 'pilot error' or 'design flaw' constitutes synthesis and makes the result non-neutral. The summary should say:

What happened (i.e. that the aircraft crashed, which is not obvious from the article title).
The general circumstances if relevant (e.g. on landing, in a storm, at night).
and then leave all causes, contributing factors and technicalities to the article body, where they can be covered fully and neutrally.

Deeday-UK (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]