Talk:Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114

PoV

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

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)

occupying Sinaiwhen Moshe Sharrett and Nasse

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)

WP:FORUM - removed

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)

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)

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)

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)

I am amazed anyone tries to defend this but some people will defend absolutely anything Israel does, cradle to grave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.35.95.86 (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Bias

This article is very biased in favor of the Israeli point of view nad gives too much credence to the Israeli explanation without offering the perspective of other parties. It needs to be rewritten to either include alternate viewpoints or none at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.113.215 (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Where's the bias? A Libyan airliner was shot down over the Israeli occupied Sinai after going off course. Libya says the IAF jets gave no warning and simply shot down the 727. Israel says their aircraft fired after the airliner's pilot refused to follow instructions. The surviving Libyan co-pilot said that they refused to follow the IAF F-4s (he was there, so he's a pretty reliable source). The ICAO voted to censure Israel.

Nowhere does the article justify what Israel said or did; It doesn't say there were terrorists on the plane and Israel did the right thing shooting flight 114 down; It says Israel said there might have been and the aviation world didn't buy it. Are you saying the article is biased because it doesn't condemn Israel? If the article did condemn Israel it would be just as biased as if it were condoned. Anynobody(?) 03:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This article sounds like it came from the MFA press office, it needs to either be edited to reflect a neutral point of view or express multiple points of views. It is factually accurate, but because of the admission of other points of view it is not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.113.215 (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This article needs to be revamped. Donethatmovedon (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I added another neutrality tag. Donethatmovedon (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I am taking it down. If you want to suggest good sources here that we could use to report other points of view, I would be open to that. --John (talk) 06:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Question about compensation

Hello, i read in one german newspaper that Israel accepted to pay compensation! Is anyone able to confirm that? --85.180.172.203 (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Referenced and added to the article. --John (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

My own recollection of newspaper reports at the time, taken from the recordings of radio conversations between the aircraft and air traffic control in Cairo, is that the crew saw the Israeli fighters but assumed that they were Egyptian. PatGallacher (talk) 09:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Which was contradicted by the co-pilot, as stated in the article and referenced. This is why there is a no Original Research policy at Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.190.104 (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Comparison in tone....

After just reading the terrible events that befell Korean Air Lines Flight 007 I came across this event. I must say the two articles could be more diametrically different. This article almost, and without any sense of shame, blames the pilots of the civilian airliner for being shot down. An unarmed plane is shot out of the sky by Israeli jets and it almost passes for acceptable based on the circumstances. Now compare that to the tone of the article concerning the shooting down of the non-military Korean Airliner by the Soviets (boo hiss) and it's quite obvious that this article is written by Jewish apologists. Quite frankly why this article has not been queried more is just another example how wrong Wikipedia as a reliable source truly is. The only people I can see who actually bother to do all this free work here must surely be those with the most pressing agendas!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.108.0 (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Ranting has no place on the TP's - suggest Reliable Sources to improve an article.50.111.9.62 (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Ethiopian shootdown?

This article references "a similar incident a month earlier, in which an Ethiopian plane was shot down", and then procedes to provide no citation for it. This list of airline shootdown incidents makes a similar uncited reference. This page of accidents and incidents of Ethiopian Airlines has no reference to any incident whatsoever in 1973 (January, or otherwise). In fact the only shootdown is from 10 Apr, 1969. That's far more than a month earlier. Is there some other mystery incident not referenced in these pages or is the original quote off by multiple years? --CumbiaDude (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the reference to this alleged shootdown. I have also removed it in the List of airliner shootdown incidents entry for that incident. No source has ever been provided and I cannot find any reference online to the alleged incident that does not apparently stem from the (incorrect) wikipedia entry. - Redshield3 (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Contradictions

Is it true that the co-pilot's own account is contradictory to the Libyan government stating that the attack occurred without warning? The attack was without warning, that is not to say that the crew were unaware of the Israeli jets. Also, how was ignoring the jets, and turning west, "erratic behavior" making it prudent to shoot down a civilian aircraft?Royalcourtier (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The Talk Pages are not about discussing the subject, but discussing Reliable Source material for the improvement of the articles. Since this is what the RS stated in the cite, that's how it is stated in the article. 98.67.190.104 (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

If I had the time....

"At 13:54, Flight 114 entered airspace over the Sinai desert, cruising at 20,000 feet (6,100 m)."

Flight 114 was at FL290 (29,000ft) after its intermediate stop at Benghazi, and we don't know how high it was when entering Sinai airspace.

"Two minutes later, two Israeli Air Force F-4 fighters were scrambled to investigate and they intercepted the airliner at 13:59."

Smart work -- three minutes after getting the scramble call the Phantoms had located and reached Flight 114.

"The Israeli fighter pilots attempted to make visual contact with the passenger airliner's crew, and tried to communicate to them by signaling with their hands, dipping their wings and firing warning shots, that they should follow the F-4s back to Rephidim Air Base."

They didn't attempt to signal, they actually did effectively signal.

"The 727 crew's response was interpreted as a denial of that request. The 727 turned back to the west, and the Israeli pilots interpreted this as an attempt to flee."

Hooey. The FL 114 pilot acknowledged the signals from the Phantom/s, lowered his undercariage and gave the impression he would land at Rephidim. He subsequently changed direction, accelerated towards Cairo, was shot at and unsuccessfully attempted a landing. And what about the following?

"As the airliner cruised over northern Egypt, a large sandstorm below forced the crew to rely completely on instrument navigation."

What? Commercial aircraft used IFR for years before then, by choice and as a matter of course. There were many reasons for FL 114 straying 100 miles off course and miles past the intended destination, but a sandstorm below an aircraft at FL290 would be the least of them. So many beacons/nav aids on the ground were faulty/unserviceable that this.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110514142456/http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/b727.htm to http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/b727.htm

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) 17:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 June 2023

Hello! Could you please add that the Incident is 2nd deadliest aviation accident in Egyptian History? Thanks Derna in East Libya (talk) 08:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Actualcpscm (talk) 08:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2024

In the third paragraph of the Timeline section, MIGs should be MiGs. For the benefit of readers who aren't familiar with the term, I suggest changing it to MiG warplanes or wikilinking MiGs to List of Mikoyan and MiG aircraft. —71.105.243.101 (talk) 04:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Or link MiGs to Wiktionary: {{Wikt-lang|en|MiG|MiGs|italic=no}} —71.105.243.101 (talk) 05:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done: Source #6 says ″MIG″, not ″MiG″ but the wikilink was added.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2024

In the first paragraph, "then under Israeli-occupation" should be "then under Israeli occupation". The current sentence is grammatically incorrect. AvrahamHerschel (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Jamedeus (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe America abstained in the UN resolution

I find it very unlikely that US would condemn israel at the UN, I'll revisit later if I verify this. Mohammed Al-Keesh (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Civilian - is this excessive use of a loaded word?

It seems as if every opportunity has been seized to identify the aircraft as a civilian plane, and the passengers as civilians. I accept that some of these instances are perfectly justified. However, I am wondering if there is a little overkill.

The downing of the civilian plane earned unanimous international criticism:

No problem here; in fact this statement would not work too well if we omitted 'civilian'.

But the words civil and civilian occur a total of ten times within the article. I would suggest only half are strictly necessary.

Please consider the following four proposed edits;

Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114 (LN 114) was a regularly scheduled civilian flight from Tripoli to Cairo,(1) 

...resulting in the death of 108 civilians passengers and crew.(2)

Of the 113 people on board, there were five survivors, including the co-pilot, as 108 civilians were killed in the incident. (3)

The fighters fighter-pilots claim to have replied by dipping their wings, what but this was once again ignored by the civilian airliner crew. Then, the Israeli fighters Phantoms attacked the civilian plane opened fire on the airliner.(4)

A comparison with Korean Air Lines Flight 007 shows that whilst the word civil/civilian is used a total of 30 times, the article never describes the occupants of the aircraft as 'civilians'. WP:NPOV

⁽¹⁾Surely 99.99% of scheduled airline flights are civilian? Maybe 100%?

⁽²⁾Firstly they are passengers. Secondly, some of them could be servicemen or women, on leave perhaps. But they are still primarily passengers.

⁽³⁾Death apparently transforms 'people' into 'civilians'.

⁽⁴⁾So much wrong with these sentences!

WendlingCrusader (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)