the word "moved" is incorrect; the word "transitioned" should be used.
In the preliminary investigation section, the word "moved" is used 3 times to describe the fuel cutoff switch however the AAIB Preliminary report uses the word "transitioned". This is important because "move" implies an actual physical action, whereas "transitioned" is referring to the entry in the EAFR log. The word "moved" should be changed to "transitioned"
Preliminary report On 12 July, the AAIB released a preliminary report outlining its initial findings. After a 62-second takeoff roll, the aircraft rotated at an airspeed of 155 knots (287 km/h; 178 mph), and lifted off 4 seconds later at 13:38:39 IST. As the aircraft reached its maximum recorded airspeed of 180 knots (330 km/h; 210 mph) 3 seconds after lifting off the runway, both fuel control switches sequentially moved from RUN to CUTOFF, 1 second apart. Both engines immediately shut down and stopped producing thrust. Airport CCTV showed no significant bird activity in the flight path, and the aircraft began losing altitude before crossing the airport perimeter. One pilot was heard on the cockpit voice recording asking the other why he had "cut off", with the other pilot answering that he "did not"; the report did not specify who said what. According to flight recorder data and airport CCTV footage, the ram air turbine (RAT) deployed automatically and began producing emergency hydraulic and electric power 5 seconds after the first switch moved. The first switch returned to RUN about 10 seconds after it had moved to CUTOFF, and the second switch returned to RUN about 4 seconds after that. Each engine's full authority digital engine control (FADEC) then automatically attempted to restart them. Amitrao17 (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree that the evidence from the EAFR log alone cannot necessarily show there was any physical movement of the cockpit controls. But we are left with the question: "
why was one pilot heard on the cockpit voice recording asking the other why he had "cut off", with the other pilot answering that he "did not"
"? If the first pilot did not see any physical movement of the controls by the second pilot, what prompted the question? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2026 (UTC)- the question could have been prompted by an audio alert, a message on the display, or from the sudden lurch forward from loss of thrust... Amitrao17 (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Are these given as possibilities in the PR? If not, it's just personal WP:OR. They might be given as examples of speculation, if they have widespread coverage in WP:RS sources, but it's probably safer to await a final official investigation report. But I agree that "moved" and "transitioned" are not necessarily synonyms in this context. All we really know is that signals for both fuel switches changed. And that the second pilot assumed (or possibly saw?) that the first pilot had moved them. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- you asked; I answered. I'm not suggesting these possibilities belong in the article. Amitrao17 (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying that. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- you asked; I answered. I'm not suggesting these possibilities belong in the article. Amitrao17 (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- Are these given as possibilities in the PR? If not, it's just personal WP:OR. They might be given as examples of speculation, if they have widespread coverage in WP:RS sources, but it's probably safer to await a final official investigation report. But I agree that "moved" and "transitioned" are not necessarily synonyms in this context. All we really know is that signals for both fuel switches changed. And that the second pilot assumed (or possibly saw?) that the first pilot had moved them. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- the question could have been prompted by an audio alert, a message on the display, or from the sudden lurch forward from loss of thrust... Amitrao17 (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- It is pretty clear that one of the pilots moved the switches to crash the plane. However, as the preliminary report states only "transitioned", we cannot use "were moved" unless we have a proper source to that (and apparently Indian AAIB is withholding the final report as they don't want to put into print the obvious). IlkkaP (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- I'm more open to an aircraft system issue being the trigger, and the selective crew dialogue of the PR being sincere words from both, as they dealt with a surprise in the cockpit, as Amitrao17 suggests above. I suspect the full CVR transcript will be far more enlightening, and we will wonder why that wasn't aired sooner. I note that the mayday call only mentioned the loss of thrust, and no mention of a bad actor. If I had heard my co-pilot operate the switches, and then deny it, I would try to convey that in that Mayday call. AvSysEngAJ (talk) 09:25, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Lede update regarding interim/final report
The comment in the lede section stated to check Talk:Air India Flight 171/Archive 5#Lede section (which is now archived) before editing, just wanted to make sure i'm fine to add information from this reuters article (https://www.reuters.com/world/india/air-india-crash-report-delayed-due-unfinished-engine-examination-bloomberg-news-2026-06-11/) regarding the delay & delay reason on the final report.
Amended text would be along the lines of "The crash remains under investigation and an interim is expected to be released by 12 June 2026.[1] The final report release is expected to be delayed due citing a need to complete analysis on the plane's engines.[reuters citation]"
As a note for context, a final or interim report has to be released within 12 months as per ICAO Annex 13, Chapter 6.6. Atmois (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- In view of that latest Reuters source, this report The Independent seems to be incorrect? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Martinevans123
- Which part in particular appears to be incorrect? If it is incorrect should we consolidate the two references to the newer Reuters article? Atmois (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- The version I can see now seems to have been updated in line with the Reuters report. So no problem. I think your proposed update is a very good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Here's a copy of the Interim statement. It essentially says nothing. It doesn't even give a possible date for a final report to be issued. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- I suspect some readers might be surprised at the relatively small proportion of major accident investigations that produce a Final Report within a year. DaveReidUK (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- What proportion is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Considerably fewer than half. DaveReidUK (talk)@ DaveReidUK (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, I thought there were international agreements about this. I’m very surprised. I’d be very interested to see your source. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- There are SARPS (Standards and Recommended Practices), in this case to be found in ICAO Annex 13. That's the nearest you'll get to rules or regulations. DaveReidUK (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. So what is your source? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- An ICAO analysis a few years ago. I don't have it to hand. DaveReidUK (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oh I see. I guess it wouldn’t help us predict when we might see a final report for this accident. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- No, it won't. Fortunately, Wikipedia editors aren't in the prediction business. DaveReidUK (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Perhaps you have a view on what should appear as an accident summary in the infobox, in the weeks or months to come without any final report? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- The other thing to bear in mind, that may add to burden of preparing the Final Report is that this was the first crash of a Carbon Fibre fuselage commercial aircraft, and I suspect there will be a section discussing how that may have been relevant to the survivability. The PR noted intense heat - 1500C - having contributed to the challenges of identification of the victims for the investigators, and I suspect the state of the aircraft remains was another fresh challenge.
- I read a bit more into the Interim Statement than some: If it was, as many felt the PR was "leading" them to believe, crew action, then it is interesting that they are still examining various system on the aircraft. That said, with engine analysis data from GE only reaching the AAIB 12 days after the AAIB published the Interim Statement, that may be why they made the statement.
- I feel there are a few shortcomings in how this Wikipedia page describes the engine behaviour in response to cutoff, with references to "immediate", when we have solenoids, and momentum making things anything but, particularly in the timescale of a 32 second flight, and the fact that the engines were staging a recovery, is part of that story.
- I note the PR makes no mention of when the RAT started producing electrical power, so it is odd that it is stated on Wikipedia as if it were.
- I note that the PR only revealed the content of the CVR for one key exchange between the crew, and I think the Wikipedia article should point that out. After all, it is that selective inclusion that has caused many spectators to read as much into it as they have. AvSysEngAJ (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- First carbon fiber fuselage crash was 2024 Haneda Airport runway collision IlkkaP (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- I stand corected. Sorry, I had forgotten that tragedy was a CFRP aircraft too. AvSysEngAJ (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- Correction, "was a" should read "involved a" AvSysEngAJ (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- Would it be correct to say that this was the first commercial CFRP aircraft accident that involved loss of life for those on the aircraft? AvSysEngAJ (talk) 10:41, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- Yes it would be correct but the material of the hull is not relevant here. Even if it were an aluminum hull there would have been loss of life. IlkkaP (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, the CFRP factoid strikes me as inside baseball—extraneous clutter in the lead of an article intended for a general audience. Carguychris (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- I wasn't suggesting the CFRP aspect as something for the lead of the article, more pointing out that there are new elements to consider. In the Haneda collision (January 2024), all of the people on board the A350 were evacuated, in some quite trying circumstances, if not all without injuries. Even so, the second Interim Report (December 2025) for that showed that they are still conducting several analyses, including how well the A350 (Aircraft B in the report) evacuation was executed. Interestingly, Wikipedia is seeking help to update the Wikipedia page to reflect the 2nd IR. The JTSB Final Report is still awaited. For AI171, for one passenger, he was spared the fate of the rest, so even this crash onto buildings with a fully fuelled aircraft was - to a tiny extent survivable, and that will be analysed. AvSysEngAJ (talk) 08:10, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- Would it be correct to say that this was the first commercial CFRP aircraft accident that involved loss of life for those on the aircraft? AvSysEngAJ (talk) 10:41, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- Correction, "was a" should read "involved a" AvSysEngAJ (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- I stand corected. Sorry, I had forgotten that tragedy was a CFRP aircraft too. AvSysEngAJ (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- First carbon fiber fuselage crash was 2024 Haneda Airport runway collision IlkkaP (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- Perhaps you have a view on what should appear as an accident summary in the infobox, in the weeks or months to come without any final report? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- No, it won't. Fortunately, Wikipedia editors aren't in the prediction business. DaveReidUK (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oh I see. I guess it wouldn’t help us predict when we might see a final report for this accident. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- An ICAO analysis a few years ago. I don't have it to hand. DaveReidUK (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. So what is your source? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- There are SARPS (Standards and Recommended Practices), in this case to be found in ICAO Annex 13. That's the nearest you'll get to rules or regulations. DaveReidUK (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, I thought there were international agreements about this. I’m very surprised. I’d be very interested to see your source. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Considerably fewer than half. DaveReidUK (talk)@ DaveReidUK (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- What proportion is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- I suspect some readers might be surprised at the relatively small proportion of major accident investigations that produce a Final Report within a year. DaveReidUK (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Here's a copy of the Interim statement. It essentially says nothing. It doesn't even give a possible date for a final report to be issued. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- The version I can see now seems to have been updated in line with the Reuters report. So no problem. I think your proposed update is a very good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
On whether the AAIB Preliminary Report attributes the cause of the crash to anything
The preliminary report does not attribute the cause of the crash to anything, and particularly not to the fuel cutoff switch transition. If anyone (e.g. @Aviationwikiflight) has a reason to believe it does, please provide the source. Amitrao17 (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- The preliminary report may not attribute a specific cause, but that doesn't mean that we aren't allowed to use sources to interpret it. Regarding the following passage,
it is cited to the following sources:Analysts noted that the stock rose 1.6% that day—the first trading day since the AAIB released its preliminary report on 12 July—attributing the rise to the AAIB and FAA indicating that it was unlikely an issue in the fuel switch design had caused the crash, with no airworthiness directives to manufacturers or operators of 787 aircraft being issued.
- From The Aviation Brief:
Two days later, on July 11, India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) released its preliminary report, indicating that the engine fuel control switches had been moved to the CUTOFF position shortly after takeoff, leading to a dual engine shutdown. [...] Importantly, no action or technical directive was recommended for Boeing or 787 operators.
This was followed by a Continued Airworthiness Notification issued privately by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to civil aviation authorities worldwide. The notification as reported by Reuters stated: “Although the fuel control switch design, including the locking feature, is similar on various Boeing airplane models, the FAA does not consider this issue to be an unsafe condition that would warrant an Airworthiness Directive on any Boeing airplane models, including the Model 787.”
The preliminary report, along with the subsequent FAA notification, helped ease market concerns about Boeing. [...] - From MarketWatch:
The report released by the Indian Ministry of Civil Aviation’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau over the weekend reported that immediately after takeoff the plane began to lose altitude, as crucial fuel to the engines “transitioned from run to the cutoff position.” [...] The report fueled some speculation that the fault of the crash could be due to pilot error, and not a Boeing malfunction. [...] Privately released notifications from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and Boeing said that the fuel switch locks were safe, according to report on Monday from Reuters, which cited the document and four sources. The preliminary investigation had been expected to focus on movement of those fuel control switches in the cockpit, Josh Sullivan, analyst at Benchmark Equity Research, said in a report last Thursday. [...] A report focusing on cockpit movement versus any design flaws would mean Boeing can move ahead with announcing “airframe production updates” that would have come at the June Paris Air Show that the company didn’t attend.
- From The Aviation Brief:
- Aviationwikiflight (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Summary of the article
The summary: "Crashed shortly after takeoff; fuel cutoff causing both engines to shut down; under investigation" is not an accurate summary of the article or primary sources (i.e. the AAIB Preliminary Report). It should read, for example: "Crashed shortly after takeoff; under investigation" (directed to @Aviationwikiflight) Amitrao17 (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- I would disagree. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC) p.s. if you want a “one-to-one” discussion with another editor, please go to their Talk page.
- From the preliminary report: “The aircraft achieved the maximum recorded airspeed of 180 Knots IAS at about 08:08:42 UTC and immediately thereafter, the Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position one after another with a time gap of 01 sec. The Engine N1 and N2 began to decrease from their take-off values as the fuel supply to the engines was cut off.”
- As you can see, preliminary report directly supports the article summary. IlkkaP (talk) 02:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- the article, and the summary, are about a aircraft crash which is under investigation which by definition has no known cause yet. this is reasonably captured in the article as a whole. the summary, however, increases prominence of a mischaracterization in the preliminary report (the fuel switch movement could have been a result of an engine that already had a loss of thrust, and the pilot was cycling the switch according to the checklist, or the switch transition could have been recorded as part of a reboot sequence).
- so if someone wanted a summary of the article, it would not be appropriate to refer to the fuel cutoff switches because there are many possible factors, and the investigation is, after all, ongoing. Amitrao17 (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- If there were "many possible factors", why didn't the preliminary report mention any of them? You're suggesting that both engines had already lost thrust before the switch transitions?? Perhaps the report writers forgot to put that bit in. I'm not sure why this article should be taken hostage by your own WP:OR pet theories. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why this article should be influenced by the absence of what you think would have been in the preliminary investigation. I'm not the one injecting pet theories!
- Amitrao17 (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- I have posted at your Talk page. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- If there were "many possible factors", why didn't the preliminary report mention any of them? You're suggesting that both engines had already lost thrust before the switch transitions?? Perhaps the report writers forgot to put that bit in. I'm not sure why this article should be taken hostage by your own WP:OR pet theories. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Amitrao17, you have yet to receive consensus for the changes you are proposing to be done to the lead and the infobox summary. In addition, responding to this, "
Who's responding you ask? Jennifer Homendy, NTSB chair, and "other officials". Also, "American government and industry officials" are raising the deliberate crash theory. The Bloomberg article does not report on the investigation, it reports on others' interpretation of it[ ]
", the WSJ does not specify who these officials are, so "Jennifer Homendy, NTSB chair, and 'other officials'
" is original research to assume this. None of them are directly responding to something as a consequence of the crash, they are giving updates regarding the investigation. // "The Bloomberg article does not report on the investigation, it reports on others' interpretation of it.
" It is directly reporting on the investigation per updates from sources close to it. None of these belong under the "Responses" section. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- Amitrao17 I have yet again felt the need to post a warning at your Talk page. Do you think it might be wise to stop reverting multiple editors here? There has been very little discussion about any possible compromise. For an editor with a total count of 153 edits, you seem to be a little too sure of your position. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- Pointing out my total edit count as if it means that I'm not qualified is a logical fallacy that you are suffering from. It's not "my position", it's truth based on primary sources. It's not that complicated, despite what you may be used to with your >>153 edits. Amitrao17 (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- Are you new to Wikipedia? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- What's the relevance? I see none. Amitrao17 (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- You don't seem to see that WP:3RR is an issue, nor that WP:CONSENSUS must be followed. You also seem to be have a largely Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- What's the relevance? I see none. Amitrao17 (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- Are you new to Wikipedia? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- Pointing out my total edit count as if it means that I'm not qualified is a logical fallacy that you are suffering from. It's not "my position", it's truth based on primary sources. It's not that complicated, despite what you may be used to with your >>153 edits. Amitrao17 (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- Amitrao17 I have yet again felt the need to post a warning at your Talk page. Do you think it might be wise to stop reverting multiple editors here? There has been very little discussion about any possible compromise. For an editor with a total count of 153 edits, you seem to be a little too sure of your position. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- Ok, so you obviously didnt read the articles. Amitrao17 (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- I have read the articles and I think Aviationwikiflight is right. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- How do you figure? Here's the relevant text directly from the WSJ article:
- But that plan for the recorders—commonly called the black boxes—worried Jennifer Homendy, a top U.S. transportation official. She and other American officials were concerned about the safety of U.S. personnel and equipment being taken to a remote location amid State Department security warnings about terrorism and military conflicts in the region. Amitrao17 (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- I have read the articles and I think Aviationwikiflight is right. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Engine analysis
"On 24 June 2026 GE Aerospace sent the engine analysis reports to the AAIB
"... how on earth could any final report have been completed without this? Is this delay what caused the missed publication date for the final report? Why have GE Aerospace taken so long? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Verifiability
Original heading: "Original Research needs to be removed from article summary and body" ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
@Martinevans123 the AI 171 crash investigation is underway, and no cause has been officially stated. As such, the summary should not distill the article down to list a cause. Also, the body should not attribute a cause to the crash. What do you think? Amitrao17 (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- I think you should stop breaking WP:3RR, as I have repeatedly and politely requested you to do, on your on Talk page. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- I think you should stop breaking NPOV and OR, as I have repeatedly and politely requested you to do. And I think you should discuss it here, on the article talk page. Amitrao17 (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- First could you please revert to the status quo, as discussed at your Talk page. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- Please stay on topic. Thanks. Amitrao17 (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- Perhaps what is put into the infobox should reflect the preliminary nature of the findings, e.g. "
Crashed shortly after takeoff, following loss of thrust, after fuel cutoff; still under investigation"
This does not mention any "cause". The word "cause" is not used. It is a summary of the facts in the preliminary report. It does not even mention the fuel switches: not "moving", or "being moved", or "transitioning". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2026 (UTC)- Now you're talking!
- It's good not to use the word "cause", or mention moving/transitioning. However, it does mention "fuel cutoff" which gets undue prominence and implicitly attributes causation when distilling the whole article and body of knowledge as it stands today.
- Thoughts? Amitrao17 (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- Can you support that Infobox summary or not? If you can, we'll then ask the other editors. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- No I can't. Why do you think fuel cutoff is a relevant topic when distilling the article into a 10-20 word summary? Amitrao17 (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- Because it's the only contributing factor mentioned in the preliminary report. We've been round the houses too many times already with this. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not even sure "loss of thrust" is needed. Basically there was no fuel, so the engines stopped. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- that's not the only factor mentioned; the RAT deployed on the initial climb, and there was an report of the status message “STAB POS XDCR” in the Tech Log.
- loss of thrust, i think, is useful because it characterizes the visible and documented systems. if for example, there had been fire coming out of the engines, that should be mentioned. and "loss of thrust" rules out other possibilities, like bird strike, or collision with another craft. we know the plane didn't blow up. we know a lot of things that "loss of thrust" captures. especially since that was a phrase used in the mayday call.
- we don't *know* the engines stopped. What does "stopped" even mean? They were spinning. Words matter. Amitrao17 (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous. The infobox reflects the best sources currently available to us. The prelim report explicitly states "Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position one after another with a time gap of 01 sec. The Engine N1 and N2 began to decrease from their take-off values as the fuel supply to the engines was cut off." Whatever thoughts you have about the incident are irrelevant without a reputable source to back it up. I recommend you stop reverting the consensus from this talk page.
- StalkerFishy (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- None of that is relevant to the infobox. Amitrao17 (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- It is per my comment below. The infobox does not need to be excessively detailed, only that it gives the most important points, which includes the fuel cutoff. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- None of that is relevant to the infobox. Amitrao17 (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- You're suggesting that the deployment of the RAT was a causal factor in the crash? Ok, so let's stick with "loss of thrust". I think we might have noticed if the report had mentioned collision with another aircraft. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- Because most sources discussing the possible cause of the accident mention the fuel cutoff, it is worthy of inclusion. It's not an "apparent loss of thrust" since "apparent" suggests that there's ambiguity even though there clearly isn't any. The engines were shut down as a result of fuel being cut off. || Per MOS:LEAD, "
The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.
" This should include a summary of the preliminary report which you removed. || Per MOS:INFOBOX, "An infobox is a panel that summarizes key facts about the page's subject.
" This includes the summary which you replaced with a phrase that adds more ambiguity than conveyed by the sources. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- No I can't. Why do you think fuel cutoff is a relevant topic when distilling the article into a 10-20 word summary? Amitrao17 (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- Can you support that Infobox summary or not? If you can, we'll then ask the other editors. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- Perhaps what is put into the infobox should reflect the preliminary nature of the findings, e.g. "
- Please stay on topic. Thanks. Amitrao17 (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- First could you please revert to the status quo, as discussed at your Talk page. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- I think you should stop breaking NPOV and OR, as I have repeatedly and politely requested you to do. And I think you should discuss it here, on the article talk page. Amitrao17 (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2026 (UTC)