Talk:Pakistan International Airlines Flight 8303

Pakistan International Airlines Flight 8303 is currently a Transport good article nominee. Nominated by RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) at 05:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.)

Note: I might not be able to respond from June 23–26, and cannot respond from June 27–29

Short description: 2020 aviation accident in Pakistan

This article is written in Pakistani English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A news item involving Pakistan International Airlines Flight 8303 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 22 May 2020.

Wikipedia

Aviation: Accidents

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Death Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pakistan: Karachi / History Mid‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan 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.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Karachi, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Pakistani history.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Pakistan International Airlines Flight 3803 was copied or moved into Pakistan International Airlines Flight 8303 with this edit on 22 May 2020. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Landing gear retracted

quote: "the landing gear (...) was inexplicably retracted".

I don't see any explanation for this. --Io Herodotus (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The full passage is:

"The landing gear was extended at a height of 7,200 feet (2,200 m) when the aircraft was 10 nautical miles (12 mi; 19 km) from the runway but was inexplicably retracted by the time it came to 5 nautical miles (5.8 mi; 9.3 km). Landing was attempted without the landing gear extended."

What sort of explanation were you expecting? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The pilots retracted the landing gear voluntarily and forgot to put it back out again. Is this what we have to understand ? Io Herodotus (talk) 08:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be the most likely interpretation. It seems unlikely the gear would have retracted without pilot input. There seems to be no evidence that the pilot later tried to re-deploy it and some technical failure prevented this? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the infobox image

My edits in replacing the infobox image were reverted by User:Ivebeenhacked. The current image has too much unnecessary background detail while the image which I would like to add addresses this issue and places only the aircraft at the foreground. It's also newer (pictured in 2017 while the current infobox image was pictured in 2016).

Current image

The background detail provides some depth and perspective for the image; I prefer it, but that's just one person's opinion. A one year difference in when the images were taken is immaterial. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 06:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'd like to say that I've reverted User:GalacticOrbits edit like 4 months ago. I'm kind of surprised and confused why this topic is being brought up now.

Going back to the topic, it really doesn't make a difference if an image is 1 year older than the other. It just doesn't make sense why we should automatically use the newer image. I also don't really understand what "unnecessary background detail" means here. Sure, there's a Dash 8 there and a couple of buildings in the background but I really wouldn't categorise it as "unnecessary". There's nothing "unnecessary" about that. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 07:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By "unnecessary", those buildings and the Dash 8 have no relevance to the article and causes a substantial amount of clutter in perceiving the aircraft, especially when it's in 250px.

Something else I'd like to add, the suggested image has a clearer image of the undercarriage of the aircraft. I say this because the image captured by the Pakistani Civil Aviation Authority (which is on the first page of the report) captures the aircraft in a nearly identical perspective to that of the suggested image, of the aircraft after it executed its first missed approach. It reveals the damage which the aircraft sustained near its engines and its undercarriage, making for a clearer comparison between the aircraft when it was undamaged and when it suffered damage after its first go-around. GalacticOrbits (talk) 07:47, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's worth noting that I am currently working on an updated version of this article in my sandbox and I am using File:PK8303 in-flight.png as the infobox image. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 17:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the 'Something else to add' portion of your response. The article in its current state doesn't include the image from the final report, so a 'clearer comparison' non sequitur - there's no comparison at work at all in the article at this time.

While I haven't read the body, a quick review of user RandomInfinity17's working version does include the photo. Even if your preferred image were used there instead of the current image - well, there's no dramatic difference visible - the aircraft has its gear down in one, gear up in the other, and some faint discoloration at the bottom of the engines.

Visual variety is a good thing. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Technical weirdness of Template:convert result in text

Hello,

is there any explanation why However, their altitude at this point was around {{cvt|7,700|ft|m}}, not {{cvt|7,500|ft|m}} renders as "However, their altitude at this point was around 7,700 ft (2,300 m), not 7,500 ft (2,300 m)."? There's a difference of 200 ft, roughly 60 m, between these two values, but the converted data do not display it. I did not manage to find or debug the error. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there's default levels of rounding depending on significant digits specified. I modified it to give a close(r) approximation of the difference: However, their altitude at this point was around {{cvt|7,700|ft|m|sigfig=3}}, not {{cvt|7,500|ft|m|sigfig=3}}. I chose three digits as it renders more like one might expect an estimation to appear. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 01:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]