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 not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar and style: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please
add the following code to the template call:
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
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 Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the
Philippines 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.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
There is a quarry at the end of the runway, but it is not in "Barangay Bangkal in the nearby town of Patikul" as currently stated in the article. By looking at videos posted on Youtube, (such as
this one) it looks like the plane crashed not too far past the end of the runway, a bit to the south of the line of the runway, and not as far as the hills in the background. This puts it in either Gandasuli Barangay, Patikul, or San Raymundo Barangay, Jolo. Does anybody have some new sources on the location? Abductive (
reasoning)21:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Are you basing the barangays (village) on Google Maps? I'm not confident that the area shape for barangays in Google Map is accurate for a remote and insurgency prone area such as Sulu. More precise
WP:RS all say the crash happened in Bangkal, Patikul. While some sources just simplify to Jolo, Sulu (presumably treating Patikul as a suburb of Jolo). So I say it would be apt to follow what the reliable sources would say.
Hariboneagle927 (
talk)
00:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)reply
It was the military which said it happened in Bangkal. And is reasonable to say that they have more accurate information on the actual boundaries of barangays in the area.
Hariboneagle927 (
talk)
01:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)reply
The images
here from
Reuters suggest the crash site was a wooded area and not a quarry? It says: "Pictures from the scene showed flames and smoke pouring from wreckage strewn among coconut palms as men in combat uniform milled around, while a column of thick black smoke rose into the sky." and "The plane had attempted to land at Jolo airport, but overshot the runway without touching down. It failed to regain enough power and height and crashed at nearby
Patikul." There is no mention of any quarry.
Martinevans123 (
talk)
15:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)reply
The given cites apparently removed mention of a quarry being the crash site. I removed any mention of the site being a quarry. This is a developing story and I expect there will be more conflicting info.
Hariboneagle927 (
talk)
16:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)reply
That's fine. There is a rock removal operation at the end of the runway to allow for the runway to be extended, this is probably what was referred to as a quarry. But I think the plane made it past that area. Abductive (
reasoning)19:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Summary of the accident
Greetings, I'd like to point out that what happened to the Philippine Air Force C-130 accident is not a
runway overshoot. Multiple sources have claimed that the aircraft tried to climb back in altitude, in which, the pilot failed to maintain the proper speed and altitude while executing the maneuver (see report
here), which is likely because of
loss of control. Based off from my knowledge in
aviation, this act by the pilot is a
go-around, where the pilot initiated an aborted landing, however, since the go-around attempt failed (resulting in crash), the proper description for the plane crash's summary would be: "Failed
go-around attempt, resulting in
loss of control; under investigation." Once the investigation have came to a conclusion, we can change the caption afterwards.
If I'm reading this correctly, the first line mentions about the deadliest aviation crashes in the Philippines overall, which includes fatal passenger/civilian and military aircraft accidents, while the second line mentions about being the deadliest aviation accident in Philippine Air Force alone, which only includes military aircraft accidents. I don't see any problem here, since both of these lines are correct, but I do think that these lines would confuse average readers. –
VertaxApolinariax (
talk)
10:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)reply
I'd agree it should not be given lead section prominence. It's kind of "See also" information. Perhaps it could all be consolidated/explained there somehow?
Martinevans123 (
talk)
10:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Re:
2021 Philippine Air Force C-130 crash, you stated a quote in your edit summary "Another soldier who was among those wounded from the C-130 crash in Sulu last Sunday has passed away, bringing the death toll among government troops to 50, Philippine military chief Gen. Cirilito Sobejana said Tuesday." If 9 people were killed (3 soldiers, 3 sailors, and 3 civilians), and another civilian died, saying "Another wounded civilian died..." wouldn't make them all civilians. The same would go for "Another wounded sailor died..." or "Another wounded soldier died...". Sticking with "military personnel" allows some flexibility without specifying every defining characteristic of the dead; that can be done elsewhere in the article.
Buffs (
talk)
20:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)reply
The article currently says: "50 of the personnel came from the Philippine Army's 4th Infantry Division training unit of Malaybalay, Bukidnon. Maybe the number 50, both for the 4th Infantry and the total number of fatalities, is the cause of some confusion. In your edit summary
here you say "the pilot was also killed"? The article also says there were three pilots?
Martinevans123 (
talk)
21:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)reply
The infobox has two separate sections - one for "Aircraft" which should show 50 fatalities and one for "Ground casualties" which should show 3 fatalities. The total is 53.
Martinevans123 (
talk)
20:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Hello. As of Wednesday, military officials made it clear that there was a "miscounting" and there are actually 49 servicemen deaths, not 50.
[1][2]Genilrio (
talk)
22:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Do you have a citation for the "miscount"? According to this article, there were 47 military deaths. I tried looking for a citation to support the number of military deaths at 49 but could not find any sources.
Jurisdicta (
talk)
07:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Not sure where the 47 military death is coming from but since the miscounting, another serviceman died rendering the prior "miscount" (1 death) irrelevant.
See this cite (already in the article):
"Another soldier in C-130 crash in Sulu has died, says AFP". GMA News. 16 July 2021. Retrieved 16 July 2021. The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) on Friday said another critically wounded soldier in the C-130 crash in Sulu has died, bringing the death toll to 53, including 50 soldiers and three civilians.