Talk:Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	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.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Aviation accident task force

I changed the last paragraph to reflect a neutral POV-Julian Diamond 07:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Intro 2 Cairo East/Cairo West contradiction 3 rming statement that needs to be sourced 4 radio contact 5 Israel perspective? 6 Terrorist delivery

[edit] Intro

The intro needs to be fleshed out. It's basically not even an intro. I'm feeling lazy though :) --Jaysweet 22:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A large part of this article appears to be closely paraphrased and, in parts, directly plagarized from Gary Klein's book "Sources of Power." 10 April 2007

NPOV the article, to reflect the fact that Israelis were occupying Egyptian land, and deliberately attacked a civilian airplane without good reason.

Disagree. Firstly the Sinai had been used to launch attacks against Israel and Egypt refused to discuss peace terms. Israel keeping the territory is at least understandable. Secondly at the time the Arabs were staging frequent raids into Israeli territory, so Israeli pilots would beleive they were acting in self defence against an act of terrorism. The plane got lost, flew into a high tension airspace, did not comunicate to any airtraffic controller and ignored clear signals. Finally if the Israeli planes were close enough for hand signals the aircrew should have realised that they were F-4 Phantoms ( which look very different to MIGS ) and seen the Star of David on the aircrft. And please sign your posts. David.j.james 16:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There might have been a 'ceasefire' in 1973 but neither side acted much like it. The Continuation war was underway. Egypt and Israel were both engaged in aggressive actions.

The fact that Israel initially lied should be noted. This was an embarrassing incident especially after the the stink Israel made after one of the O-49 Connies my friend Irvn Schindler had procured for Israel before it's independence was shot down over Bulgaria less than 20 years before.

Everyone screwed this one up.Mark Lincoln 16:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cairo East/Cairo West contradiction

The article says under the "Airliner perspective" section that Cairo East (CE) is the airport and Cairo West (CW) the airbase. It also says the pilots thought they had overflown CE and the Egyptian Migs (IAF F-4s) were escorting them back to CW. Finally it says that when the pilots noticed it was an airbase they thought there was a mistake so they flew west...presumably AWAY from CE. This makes no sense. Anynobody 09:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that the crew were not up to snuff that day. They made numerous mistakes. They were clearly not up to being involved in any 'conspiracy.'

A bad case of head up and locked.

Followed by head up the asshole.

This got them killed.Mark Lincoln 16:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] rming statement that needs to be sourced

84.36.2.70 added the following paragraph that seems to be at least in need of sourcing:

Celebrations erupted in the city of Haifa by several Israelis who shouted "Death to the Arabs" while spontaneously dancing.

--SLi 22:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Anynobody 08:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like propaganda typical of both sides in the region. Mark Lincoln 16:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] radio contact

Theres no mention about the Israeli pilots trying to commincate with the aircraft using radio. Did they not try, or not have the right radios or did the aircrew not check the right frequenices? Or what? David.j.james 16:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't know for sure but I think you're right, I'd assumed it was attempted but the fact that neither side knew what freq to transmit/receive on probably kept them from being able to establish contact. It's the same basic issue with Korean Airlines Flight 902 and Korean Airlines Flight 007, radio contact wasn't established. Anynobody 05:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Usually military aircraft would only - at best - be able to communicate on an emergency channel. I don't know what equipment the IAF had.

Mark Lincoln 16:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Israel perspective?

Is there really a need for an obvious attempt to rationalize shooting down a civilian airliner? Lacking any citations, coupled with an absolute ridiculous explanation, it reeks of propaganda. You'd seriously have to be an idiot to buy that for a second.

This whole article is undercited as a whole. WP:NPOV demands that all sides of an issue be covered and simple wisdom should tell you that "You'd seriously have to be an idiot to buy that" on an article about Israel or any other hotly disputed topic isn't the most helpful way to discuss things.--Prosfilaes 12:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed the wording slightly to reflect that the justifications are Israels opinion. Previously it sounded like the article itself was making excuses. --220.253.90.196 06:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not simply Israel's opinion that commercial planes could be used for military purposes. The same assumption drove the Soviet Union to shoot down KAL 902 a few years later. Anynobody 01:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorist delivery

Is there any indication from the references given in Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114, that Israel had a suspicion that this aircraft had terrorists with parachutes? patsw 16:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it should be in the article that way, (which is why it was in my edit summary instead) the point is that Israel was facing the possibility of a converted 727 being used for military purposes. Assuming it would have to land in order to deliver terrorists is presumptuous considering the lack of sources on what Israel was thinking. Saying it could be delivering terrorists conveys the same intent without saying just what Israel thought was going to happen. At the end of paragraph 2 in the link, only specifies recon or hostile activity, which kinda leaves what that activity could have been pretty vague.

(P.S. I've moved this from my talk page.) Anynobody 01:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)