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:
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
The actual crash site is clearly visible as a clearing in the forest. There is also a Panoramio photo at the location. The following coordinates represent the centre of the clearing.
48.427736, 7.402967
7°24'16.99"E
Neither the current article coordinates nor the requested coordinates are correct.
The clearing is very likely the investigation/debris field site and the Wikimapia/Panoramio coordinates are thus probably correct.
The official report's coordinates are off a bit.
I would ordinarily accept the Wikimapia coordinates as correct, but since they conflict with the official report I am reluctant to do so. I am, therefore, going to reset the coordinates to the approximate center of the debris field described in the official report, 48°25′38.5″N7°24′18.5″E / 48.427361°N 7.405139°E / 48.427361; 7.405139, as being the most objectively reliable without resorting directly (i.e. by satellite map analysis) or indirectly (i.e. by relying on the Wikimapia, Panoramio, or requesting editor's undocumented assertions) to original research even though I suspect that the Wikimapia/Panoramio ones are more likely correct. Perhaps some future editor can find reliable sources to resolve the differences. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19 December 2011 - This article incorrectly states that MAYDAY is known as AIR EMERGENCY in Australia. It is actually known as AIR CRASH INVESTIGATION in Australia (as it is in the UK). This episode aired today. Aust author (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the referenced to the Canadian cable channel as this show is seen on several different channels in Canada. I've replaced the channel name with the name of the production company. Dknrd (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also just saw this (in Finland) and it was entitled "Doomed to Fail". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.133.11.4 (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to one external link on Air Inter Flight 148. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
I have just modified one external link on Air Inter Flight 148. 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 trueorfailed 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.
Should this article be renamed to Air Inter Flight 5148? Per the final report, the flight number was 5148 and not 148. 223.236.245.35 (talk) 08:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. After two relists, it doesn't seem like the consensus is getting any clearer on whether or not to move this page. There are comments that support and oppose the move request without a strong clarification either way, meaning the current title may not necessarily be incorrect. With that being said, per the information in the discussion below, if anyone feels the need to create Air Inter Flight 5148 as a redirect towards this article, there's no prejudice against doing so. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Air Inter Flight 148 → Air Inter Flight 5148 – I think ASN made an error in the flight number by using the callsign "ITF 148 DA". Seeing sources (even one mention in the final report on page 500), they mention it as Flight 5148 not 148: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] etc. 223.229.158.165 (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC) — Relisting.Natg 19 (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC) — Relisting.🐶 EpicPupper(he/him | talk) 19:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Which of these flight numbers is used more in sourcing? The error can be mentioned in the article. Natg 19 (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Both the French and English versions of the accident report refer to this as Air Inter Flight 148 in section 1.1 (page 14 on the English PDF). RecycledPixels (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support A difficult one. The official version of the report uses 5148 once and notes the call sign was for flight 148, also only once. Contemporaneous newspaper articles all use 5148, but more recent sources including some documentaries use 148. My sense is they're both correct but that 5148 is slighly "more correct." SportingFlyerT·C 11:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose As mentioned, 5148 only appears in the final report once, and it comes handwritten on a meteorological document[6], so it could be argued it's the "official" flight number, probably why it only appears in these news reports just after the crash. But the report also shows the callsign of just 148 is used extensively, and way more modern sources use 148 rather than 5148, so WP:COMMONNAME could apply. ThatFlyingSquid (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RecycledPixels: The final report mentions "the aircraft used the callsign ITF 148 DA" not something like "the plane was operating as scheduled passenger service ITF 148". The callsign and flight number can differ at any time. Also for @ThatFlyingSquid:, the report also uses the callsign of just 148 is seemingly incorrect as it has only one instance of appearance which is page 14 and it was it's callsign and that too is ITF 148 DA and not just 148. A request from ASN was made and they too corrected it to 5148 from 148. Also, modern sources can use an incorrect flight number (e.g. Pan Am Flight 6 is erroneously referred sometimes as flight 943). Seeing the Pan Am crash, I think we should continue this theme of using a correct flight number than a commonly used flight number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.68.3.14 (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I meant in the CVR and ATC transcripts, which spells out "one four eight" or "one hundred forty eight" several times. ThatFlyingSquid (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ThatFlyingSquid: Obviously it will say "one four eight" or in this case "Delta Alpha One Forty Eight" since that's their callsign provided by Air Inter but that doesn't provide enough evidence that it is flight number as said earlier, flight numbers and callsigns can differ. E.g. Flying Tiger Line Flight 45 (which as of now does not have a wikipage) had flight number 45 but used the callsign "Flying Tiger 785". See this:[7] or an even better example would be Germanwings Flight 9525, which we clearly don't refer to as Germanwings Flight 18G, despite it's callsign being Germanwings One-Eight Golf.
One more thing to point out, we need to have some form of balance between the COMMONNAME policy and the PRECISION policy. COMMONNAME is definitely not something to ignore but is also not the highest priority. All policies are laden equally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.213.61.153 (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: No consensus. The opinions below should be viewed in the context of the previous move request in mid-2022 that ended with no consensus. It is even pointed out in the discussion below that 'Air Inter Flight 148' is the more *common* name. The raw Google hits, though they don't always play a decisive role, are strongly tilted in favor of '148'. The French and German Wikipedias still have this as Flight 148. EdJohnston (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Air Inter Flight 148 → Air Inter Flight 5148 – Noting the move above and the revert taken on my move, I apologize for the administrators if this may as well be getting rather repetitive but I would like to post a move request to Air Inter Flight 5148, as mentioned in the sourcing above, several sources (including French sources) mention this accident as flight 5148 and not 148, even today: [8], [9], [10]. I think that the callsign (AIR INTER 148 DELTA ALPHA) in the final report might have interfered in interpreting the flight number (IT5148) from the beginning, hereby the confusion. This may have caught on and not been fixed until found somewhat recently. Callsigns and flight numbers can very well be different. Thanks! Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting.ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I am in favour of having a precise article name, is it possible that someone weigh here which one of these policies has more weight in this scenario, WP:COMMONNAMEorWP:PRECISE as pointed out in the above discussion, reason being right now 148 is used more commonly, in the French Wikipedia article,[11] on Google search (where 148 turns up 70 million results and 5148 has less than 600K results)[12][13], and even in Mayday. I will stay neutral for now, but as for within the article itself I suggest that the intro be changed to something like "Air Inter Flight 5148 (IT5148), more commonly and erroneously referred to as Air Inter Flight 148, was (continued to rest of intro)" so as to satisfy the common name while keeping it relatively accurate that the flight is actually IT5148. SBS6577P (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Going a bit off-track but there needs to be a guideline for using the IATA flight number and not the callsign because I believe another example of this would include British Airtours Flight 28M where the actual flight number was KT328 while for some odd reason, the final report incorrectly lists it as KT28M: [14] on page 3. I do also think in this case that the flight number was in fact KT328: [15], (Simple Flying clearly makes mention of 28M being its *callsign* while 328 being it's actual flight number:)[16], [17], [18] and so on. Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Air Inter Flight 148 → Air Inter Flight 5148 – Although the above two moves disregard the proposed title, I still believe this title should replace the prior one. Reason being is that although WP:COMMONNAME could apply as seen above, the guideline makes an explicit mention that "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.". Also, the WP:AVINAME policy should hold superior as '148' (if Air Inter did serve a route) and '5148' are two completely different flight numbers serving two completely different routes. Also, for those who mention that the French Wikipedia instates it is Flight 148, Wikipedia is not a source and cannot be trusted upon blindly. Also, flight numbers are exempt of common names, for instance, a move was conducted from Air Inter Flight 696toAir Inter Flight 696Y: [19] despite the French Wikipedia mentioning the accident as flight 696: [20]. So this is not a question on which name is more common than the other. Flight 148 is grossly incorrect and should only be present as a footnote that the accident is incorrectly referred to as flight 148 and is not applicable for being a common title. Had a word with the Aviation Safety Network and they too changed the erroneous flight number to 5148 and they confirmed this through a 1992 timetable that flight IT5148 operated on the Lyon - Strasbourg route: [21]. Just because some rumor has it that it was flight 148 because of the deceptive callsign, doesn't mean we too fall into their shadows. And per the AVINAME convention we always use the IATA flight number, not some commonly used incorrect flight number.
Comment – I don't feel particularly strongly either way: Flight 5148 may be historically more accurate, but Flight 148 is in such widespread use (to the tune of 85,000,000 vs 450,000 hits on Google (see previous discussion) including, tellingly, on the French Wikipedia), that I don't see a problem with adopting it here, provided the ambiguity is clearly explained in the article (which now is, in the very first line). In a way, Flight 148 could be considered an abbreviated form of the full flight number: no big deal. --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: & @Deeday-UK:, Once again, I'll reiterate this, 148 and 5148 are two very different flight numbers which correlate to two very different flight paths. One may argue that WP:COMMONNAME can apply but it very explicitly mentions: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." therefore WP:COMMONNAME CANNOT apply. This argument cannot be considered. Suggest to go through the definition of a Flight number. Thanks! Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq, is there evidence that Air Inter operated a Flight 148 that was different from the accident Flight 5148? If not (the onus is on you to find out), then there isn't much ambiguity in this case: Flight 148 would appear to be used exclusively to refer to Flight 5148, as a sort of abbreviated form. It would be a bit like when airlines refer to their aircraft by the last two letters of their registration, e.g. 'WD' for G-EZWD, as in this example (see the nose landing gear door). -- Deeday-UK (talk) 07:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up English-language written accounts of the accident and they all used Flight 148. The US FAA uses Flight 148. The call sign in the CVR was 148. Adding the additional 5 seems simply pedantic to me, sorry. SportingFlyerT·C 21:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Air Inter callsign was 148 DELTA ALPHA and NOT 148. This argument can be traced to the earlier discussion. Another example can be [26] where the callsign was Brit Air 937 QUEBEC LIMA but that doesn't mean that the flight number was 937. The flight number is what the IATA code was (e.g. AA965, DL1288 etc.) & in this case, it IS IT5148. The FAA lessonslearned webpage has its own set of errors such as naming the Helios Airways Flight 522 accident as 'Helios Airways Flight 52': [27]. For the abbreviation part, airline registrations have had abbreviations in the past, mainly seen on the nose gear but what does that have to do with flight numbers and could you give me some other evidences of airlines abbreviating flight numbers?
Particularly in Europe is common for the callsign to be different to the flight number, this is done as a safety measure as all numeric callsigns can and have caused confusion in the past. On example not far from me at the moment is EZY61JR which is actually flight U2 2806. It would probably be quoted by the general public as Flight 2806. Although we quote these variations between ICAO and IATA in the end we should stick to the common name for article title. MilborneOne (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned earlier, WP:COMMONNAME can't apply here. Unfortunately, there have been many aviation accident pages on Wikipedia which have had an incorrect flight number in the past which have only recently been corrected across the platform: [28], [29], [30] to name a few, despite it "going against" the tradition of WP:COMMONNAME for encyclopedic accuracy and this wiki is only one of them. It should be time that such unnecessary extensions of the guideline be abolished.
Also, a good example of where a common name would fit can be for instance, the Gimli Glider incident in place of "Air Canada Flight 143" due to it being widely known by that leading name, which also does not go against the inaccuracy factor quoted above. Another example can be Air Europa, in place of『Air Europa Líneas Aéreas』due to it being branded and known all across Europe as simply "Air Europa". Such titles have no discrepancies regarding their identity, and therefore, the guideline applies. But a sketchy flight number misconception which can potentially relate to two different routes? Well, it's best to then stick with what official sources call it and confirmation through official sources, with it even being mentioned in the final report, suggest that this was flight IT5148 and thereby per WP:AVINAME and obeying the laws of WP:COMMONNAME, this title should be considered with a footnote stating the discrepancy.
AVINAME is an essay whereas COMMONNAME is policy. It seems you're concerned about routes and not about what this accident is commonly known as. SportingFlyerT·C 21:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also note I was also a weak support in an earlier move. I now think the COMMONNAME is more important. SportingFlyerT·C 21:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning oppose per User:SportingFlyer. There does not appear to be any conflict or confusion arising from use of the common name. BD2412T 18:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure AVINAME may be an essay but once again, the COMMONNAME policy suggests that inaccurate names should be disregarded. In that case, attention should shift to the guideline which asserts to call it with the IATA flight number. An alternative can be Air Inter Flight 148DA since ITF148DA was the ICAO flight number. However, 148 should clearly be replaced. Thanks! Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
![[6]](https://rvs-bi.de/publications/Incidents/GRAFIK/ComAndRep/Strasbourg/Strasbourgrep/strasgrafik/a13-3.jpg){kind=link}
