Talk:JAT Flight 367

Other changes

Most of the content in the article was moved from the JAT article. WhisperToMe 23:41, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

changed accident to explosion, a bomb on an airliner is not an accident

Hermsdorf

I removed the link to Hermsdorf in Thuringia for now, as it is unsourced and this particular Hermsdorf is more than 200 km to the west of the crash site. It therefore seems rather unlikely that an explosion there should have caused a free fall from 10.000m at Srbska Kamenice. There are multiple Hermsdorfs in Germany (see de:Hermsdorf), the nearest to the crash site seems to be a part of Rosenthal-Bielatal, less than 20 km west of the crash site. There are also a Hinterhermsdorf and a Krumhermsdorf equally close and to the north of the site. Yaan (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Article move

This article should really be at JAT Flight 367 as is standard for aircraft accident/incident articles. I will move it in a few days unless somebody can explain why it should be non standard. Thanks you MilborneOne (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No comments article has been moved. MilborneOne (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Bomb or shot down

I just added the information about the possible shot down. At the moment the article on "tagesschau.de" it is the only source of information about it. In case it is true, it should be a much bigger story than just an invented record, so proof of this information is needed.

The article suggests that the explosion took place above Hinterhermsdorf, then in the GDR. Maybe it was just calculated to have happend there, from the supposed flight level at the moment of the explosion and the crash site.

There are further points that bother me about the "Shot-down-theory": - The crash site is very close to former GDR territory, and the bearing was more or less 180°, it must have left the GDR territory just moments before the crash. - If the article is right, the plane must have suffered severe problems just before the crash, resulting in a steep loss of altitude. The crew should have been intenting an emergency landing.

So why the Czech air force was able to shoot it down right after it entered Czech air airspace? Was there any involvement of GDR authorities or air force? Or was it just shot down by "accident"? Was maybe the Soviet air force involved? (There was a Soviet air base not far to the south east, near the town of Mimon (Ralsko military site) [1]. (K. Schmidt 00:56 CET, 8 Jan 2009)

I think there is yet another problem - why would the Yugoslavs play along? Yaan (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• This shot down theory is hardly beliveble. Look at the picture with communication - i was routine controled flight. Many other planes was listen to the communications at those requencies. Black boxes information was read in Amsterdam in presence with Netherland authorities. And so on. Authors of conspiration theory have no reliable proofs or testimonies, I think it is only mix of making shocking affair with a little blind anticomunism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.240.28.98 (talk) 11:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be no evidence at all that the plane was shot down, just speculation. There is however no evidence at all given to suggest that the plane was destroyed by a bomb, much less by a specific group. What evidence is available?101.98.209.132 (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Flight 364?

Why do JAT Yugoslav Flight 364 and JAT Flight 364 redirect here? --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 01:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Because some sources call it Flight 364 (JU364) and some Flight 367 (JU367), not sure which is actually correct really need a reliable contempary reference to find out? MilborneOne (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Look at a final record, that I add to references - it was flight JU 367. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.240.28.98 (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Cause of destruction

There is no evidence that suggests Croatian or Yugoslav nationalists as no arrests have ever been made. The cause of destruction can not be cited to any individual or group. Please refer to http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0283.shtml

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on JAT Flight 367. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add Template:Tlx after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add Template:Tlx to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100202224726/http://www.tagesschau.de:80/ausland/hornung100.html to http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/hornung100.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100202224726/http://www.tagesschau.de:80/ausland/hornung100.html to http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/hornung100.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/news/index_view.php?id=353657

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

10 050 or 10 160 meters?

The official (?) report in the external links section gives the figure 10 050 m (≈ 33 000 ft), but many sources (including this article) give 10 160 m (≈ 33 333 ft). Where did this figure come from? Maybe from the approximation 100 000/3 ft? -- IvanP (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Black Boxes?

The article states that the black boxes where studied in Amsterdam... but other sources say they where never found.

The link to that source (18) does not show any information about those black boxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.53.233.214 (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

If you will bother to read the Final Report on the accident, the whole section 1.11 (pp. 18-21 of the report) is dealing with black boxes and their analysis. --Honzula (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Accessing the Czech Republic National Archives

In updating/correcting this article, I have been frustrated by a number of aspects. One that keeps haunting me is the number of reports held at the National Archives. They are cited at least twice, in one case incorrectly, but they also support much more of the detail throughout the article than they are currently listed against. And they are also listed (twice) in the External Links section, with archive versions at the Wayback Machine in both English and Czech, whilst the original web-links seem to come up short.

After some hunting around (my Czech is a little rusty <coughs>) I have found a new working link into the Czech National Archive, and some useful detail to add to the article, but do we need yet another link? The answer is no, but I'm not sure how to consolidate the original (broken/deadlinks), adding the new link I have dug up, whilst maintaining the Wayback links, and covering the fact we may need to present this information in two different languages. I am only a simple soul, and this is making my head hurt!

Czech Republic - National Archives

• Homepage = https://www.nacr.cz/ , usefully offering EN as a language option = https://www.nacr.cz/en/
• Five menu choices;

1. About us
2. For public
3. Official notice board
4. Research, publications, events
5. Labyrint (yes, it should be Labyrinth, but that's just how it is)

Labyrint by name, and labyrinthine by nature as it turns out, because the first four menu options provide nice functional drop-down sub-menus offering a host of possibilities. Unfortunately, the one we need here is 'Labyrint', and all it offers is a blank page (in the EN - english version). So... at this point you need to revert to CS (Czech), and select the browser translate option instead. Now the drop-down menu works, and it is just a simple matter of working out that if Prague Spring was a reference to 1966, we must need With the Soviet Union forever for something that happened a few years later in say, 1972. Selecting this option gives you four new possibilities, and it wasn't immediately obvious which one I needed, until I realised 1972, January 26 is the date of this air crash. Having got the answer, it's obvious, innit?

So, this is the current way in;

And that just leaves fitting this new link into the article, without losing whatever value the previous (half-broken) links brought. Wish me luck! WendlingCrusader (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The Ustaše reference makes no sense

This group refers to WWII and the link points there, but this was in 1972. There must have been another group tied to this. Even if they called themselves Ustaše, it would have been a separate group. There is a whole other part of the story which is left out. 188.129.81.218 (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)