Talk:Itavia Flight 870: Difference between revisions

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Aviation: Accidents Start‑class 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the Aviation accident project. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cold War Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War 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.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Disaster management 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 has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. International relations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Italy C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy 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.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Aviation / Maritime / European / French / Italian C‑class 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Maritime warfare task force European military history task force French military history task force Italian military history task force (c. 500–present)

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Is this conspiracy for real? Sheesh. -Joseph (Talk) 05:24, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

Hard to accept, but so it is... --Raistlin 18:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I once read in a magazine that many of the Italian Air Force officers who handled this case have been killed in automobile accidents or suddenly died while being in perfect health; which argues for conspiracy theories. Then, the same article said that the search for debris on the ocean ground has been carried out by US intelligence officials using a French vessel; Italian officials and those of other NATO countries could not review the debris found. Even an air-air-missile has been recovered from the ocean base - but one that was introduced into military use after the accident happened. I'm sorry that I can't remember which magazine it was, but I really don't read those about UFOs and aliens! :-) --Keimzelle 08:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IAF officers sudden deaths: true (and sad). Search of the debris by a french vessel later suspected of being a US/NATO coverup: true. Time-travelling missile: first time I hear of it, but I'm less inclined to believe it :p. --Raistlin 10:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It probably was a coverup by the Italian Air Force --Smoth_007

Is there a good reason for links to some of those other flights? How do they relate? We've got a suicide, a couple actual shoot downs, an exploding gas tank, and a CFIT. -HiFiGuy 22:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that there is a good Italian Movie about this subject. It is called Il Muro di Gomma. It is the history of 10 years after the disaster and it is inspired by the memories of the journalist that was writing about it in Il Corriere della Sera

Fabio

It's bizarre to title the article Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870 when the incident is known in Italy as "Ustica" or "The Ustica Disaster" or the "Ustica Affair" or "Ustica Tragedy" etc. No one calls it "Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870". See the corresponding it.wiki article for example which is titled "Strage di Ustica".

In English it is common to refer to such incidents by the flight code. For example, Flight 800, Flight 77, etc. In the UK, the Guardian Newspaper recently ran a story called "The mystery of flight 870" [1], although its possible that the choice of title was influenced by this wikipedia article. Self-Described Seabhcán 11:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the original creator of this article, I would like to apoligise for the lack of sources and the confusion - I created this under a different account when I was still a new wikipedian. I removed some unecessary unformation and added some. Its not really much but it is much clearer now that before. --James Bond 06:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Connecting the dots" is not permitted under Wikipedia rules; it constitutes original research. As such, the conspiracy theory section violates Wikipedia policy. See [2] Morton devonshire 01:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This information is not Original Research. It is taken directly form the sources and references listed. This includes the synthesis. Please see the sources and references before jumping to conclusions. Self-Described Seabhcán 09:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The synthesis you point to is contained in a self-published website, which is not a reputable source under Wikipedia rules. See WP:RS. Morton devonshire 18:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same information is contained in "Natos Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe, by Daniele Ganser" Self-Described Seabhcán 18:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the publication for that? Needs to be an objective media source with editorial oversight to qualify under Wikipedia sourcing rules. Morton devonshire 19:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Nato's Secret Armies" is an acedemic work published by Routledge (formally "Franc Cass Publishers"). The author is Dr Daniele Ganser of the ETH Zurich. Self-Described Seabhcán 19:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not qualified to judge the reliability of that source. I'm not familiar with the publication or the publisher. Morton devonshire 20:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as the wikipedia article on Routledge starts: "[It] is one of the most important European imprints for social sciences." I think it passes WP:RS. Dr. Ganser hasn't published anything else in English, however, his institution is extremely prestigious, having produced 20 Nobel Prize winners, including Einstein. Self-Described Seabhcán 23:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the book's foreward again: the contents are actually an edited version of Dr. Ganser's PhD thesis. ETH Zurich awarded him a doctorate for this work, thus lending their considerable reputation to his conclusions. Self-Described Seabhcán 14:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This part of the flight transcript is a reference to the fact that the navigational beacons in Italy were turned off that evening. I recall hearing at the time that turning off the beacons was standard procedure when military jets were dogfighting over Italy. The idea was to remove from the Libyan jets the opportunity to navigate by civilian beacons. Does anyone remember where this news report could be found online these days?

"F/O Yes...neither Ponza is working ? We've found a graveyard this evening; coming from Firenze we didn't find one beacon working properly.

Rome ACC In fact, everything is a bit out, Ponza too. What's your heading now?"

The site that "confutes" (I think "refutes" would do just as nicely) the bomb theory/evidence is a self-published page on Geocities. My Italian is practically non-existant, but from what little I know it doesn't seem in that academic a tone - with plenty of rethorical questions, it reads like the average JFK conspiracy website. Perhaps a native Italian speaker, unbiased in the incident, can comment? Even so, if the page is self-published, according to the discussion above it shouldn't be included. --70.108.140.252 08:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the film "Il Muro di Gomma", at around 60:30 into the movie, there is a 2 minutes scene, where the reporter (at the BBC in London) is sitting through a dubbed version of a televised report from the NTSB regarding the matter of the DC-9's flight path, and the existence of another aircraft (a fighter jet) within the airspace. I'm just wondering if there is anyone who might be able to find any possible source of the original televised report. (*)

(*) I myself am actually skeptical as to whether this is a genuine occurrence, as certain events in the film seem to be fabricated (i.e. the journalist is actually only a character to the whole movie; he doesn't exist in real life). So I'm not sure if this video was just prepared for use in this movie.

Furthermore, it seems that in a speech read by Jim Hall, he had made reference (only one line) to the NTSB receiving the CVR from the stricken DC-9 by Italian investigators (http://www.ntsb.gov/Speeches/former/hall/jh960424.htm). However, I have not read/seen/heard anywhere of any involvement of the NTSB into the Ustica disaster, including the acquisition of the CVR. Would it be possible to get some sort of source to corroborate this?(Eug.galeotti (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The footage is from BBC special report "Murder in the sky" (1982) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.21.194.198 (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=132253

According to Italian media reports, confidential documents found in the archives of the Libyan secret service after the fall of Tripoli, which are now in the hands of Human Rights Watch, prove what led to the downing of an Itavia Dc-9 over the Mediterranean island of Ustica on 27 June 1980.

Eighty-one people on board the flight, which had been en route from Bologna to Palermo, died.

As has long been suspected, the cache of papers confirms that a missile had hit the plane after it was mistaken for a plane carrying then Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

According to the papers, two French jets first attacked the airplane and then engaged in a duel with a solitary Mig fighter aircraft, carrying the Jamahiriya insignia and thought to be accompanying Col Gaddafi, until they forced it to crash into the mountainous region of La Sila in southern Italy.

Colonel Gaddafi, informed in time of the attack, escaped to Malta where he landed in his Tupolev, according to the documents. It would seem, from the secret service papers found, that Gaddafi was informed by the Italian secret service (SISMI) that he was about to be attacked, and had sought refuge in Malta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.25.37 (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found the same source and have added the information into the article. I believe we should look for fresh Italian sources and prepare to rewrite the article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tonight's episode of "As it Happened" was about this event. On it he made the following point, which I relay without comment. One of the pieces of evidence supporting the alleged shootdown is that traces (minute traces, he said) of a military explosive was found on one of the seats. He then went to an interview with an Italian official (I can no longer remember who), who said that the retrieval of the wreckage was done by the navy (didn't say whose navy); and for one reason or another much of the wreckage was stored in the "room that houses shells and torpedoes" (which I'm guesssing would be a "magazine"). So a "normal" amount of "leakage" of explosives from these shells/torpedoes would be enough to explain the traces found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old wombat (talk • contribs) 11:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't forget to sign your posts. Yes, I watched that episode as well. In particular, the official (was it Rosario Priore himself?) said that the explosive was T4, more commonly known as RDX, which is an extremely stable solid explosive(it doesn't blow up when on fire or if shot at), so I find it hard to imagine it leaking from torpedoes. On the other hand,IT IS generally used in castable mixtures, which are probably more "leakable". It should also be noted that this explosive has been used in Moscow Metro bombings, 1993 Bombay and 2006 Mumbai bombings, so it is not unlikely to be an ingredient in the unproven bomb, which lends more credence to the bomb theory.

P.S. Rosario Priore also said that one of the radar operators found hanged should not have died from it, because of the insufficient height (his feet and part of the leg were touching the ground.) Another thing I noted was the so-called radio exercise at the time of shootdown, during which time nothing was recorded. NATO spokesman present has declined to answer a simple question of how often this exercise is done. Then, phone conversations mention the aircraft carrier, which was proven by the method of elimination to be French. Lastly, the program even mentioned a fringe theory which believes that the plane was brought down by the MiG "quasi- collision". In the light of Tripoli documents, this is likely to be false, but nonetheless, it is worthy of inclusion.

My 2 cents for this article. Boron eye (talk) 07:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The end of the statement "Speculation at the time and in the years since has been fueled in part by media reports, military officials statements, and ATC recordings, including radar images and trails of debris; particularly, trails of objects moving at high speeds." suggests a possible ufo connection imv. Also this statement doesn't ring true imv "The media also reported that radar monitoring records released in 1997 by NATO showed that at least seven fighter aircraft were in the vicinity when the jet plunged into the sea off the island of Ustica. According to these sources, the radar shows that one or two Libyan MiG-23 had tried to evade detection by flying close to the airliner. Three Italian Air Force F-104S, one U.S. Navy A-7 Corsair II and a French fighter pursued the Libyan MiG-23 and a battle ensued." It sounds just as likely that at least 7 ufos were in the vacinity rather than it being comfirmed or assumed 100% that they were fighter aircraft. The dialogue from air-traffic control also supports this idea imv. 176.24.226.120 (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Alan Lowey[reply]

If anyone happened to watch the Mayday/Air Crash Investigation episode about the disaster it is fairly clear that the last team of crash investigators assembled to examine the accident, who demanded the salvage of much more of the aircraft from the sea floor and were the only team able to report in detail on all of the available structure, were quite adamant in ruling out a missile strike. This is perhaps more of a question than anything but whose word do we take when defining the accident as an 'airliner shootdown'? The court which ruled last year apparently found the Defence and Transport ministry liable for the accident and suggested a missile as the most probable cause, but the last actual accident 'report' released did not, and indeed suggested that this was not the likely cause. Indeed, in his own analysis (available at http://www.airmanshiponline.com/spring2000/spring2000/05-isasdc9.htm) Frank Taylor states that his own contributions, ruling out a missile, were 'toned down' in the final document released, which in any case was not published conforming to the ICAO format for an official accident report. Even so, should we not pay some heed to the opinion of the last experts to actually examine the wreckage as an investigation team and, in the continued absence of a subsequent (or indeed any) accident investigation report stating a missile as a definitive cause and offering evidence for it, list the cause as 'disputed'? BroSwerve (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, if it was something other than a shootdown, then why frame the Italian military for something they didn't do?76.6.152.188 (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not debating personally what the cause was or whether there was or wasn't any cover up. My question is that basically with any accident we would normally trust the conclusions of investigators in the published accident report (or in this case the most recent accident report). However, as in this case no report has ever been released stating a definitive cause, and we have the last set of investigators to examine the aircraft ruling out a missile and a court ruling on accident liability suggesting that it was a missile, should we not state a disputed outcome? Neither thing is a definitive answer to the question (the court is not an accident investigation) but they do suggest conflict. If a final accident report is published containing irrefutable evidence of one thing or the other then surely you can say what the actual cause was. BroSwerve (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed BroSwerve, the third technical report's conclusions were quite succinct. In regards to the continuing court actions in Italy, don't rule out a mob groupthink mentality. I have expanded the section regarding the documentary to clarify the conclusion was of the third technical investigation's, not the tv show's, but I don't know how to use a reference that has already been listed - ie the 'Accident to Itavia DC-9 near Ustica' - can someone help with that reference? Also - while the section text has a hyperlink to the wiki page on this episode of the show, should a formal reference also be included in the references section? 10KittyKat01 (talk) 09:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It occurs to me that considering the incident was of an Italian flight, and the court cases occurred in Italy, and the incident has international repercussions what with various countries being accused by the Italians of having filed the supposed missiles that the conclusions of the third technical commission would be of great interest and relevance to Italian readers. I also note that Wikipedia has an Italian language version, but I cannot see that either the (most importantly and of most relevance) conclusions of the third technical commission, or the criticism of the Italian judiciary for failing to accept their conclusions has been noted on that page. But then, I don't have any Italian linguistic skill. Are there any Italian speakers reading this who could check whether the Italian wiki's page has been updated appropriately with this most relevant information? 10KittyKat01 (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no direct reference to Taylor (or his report), however they talk about the bomb hypothesis (with a link to an article in an italian newspaper which interviewed Taylor) and mostly show skepticism based on the fact that according to (another group of) British specialists no explosive residuals were ever found on the toilet seat nor the sink. Nova77 (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added a new description that gives both the official and alternative theory (similar to Arrow Air 1285's description). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piotr Strzyz (talk • contribs) 20:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my humble opinion, the article there show bias towards Mr. Taylor opinion: there're enough evidences regarding major experts accident reports - I'm talking of the three commissions - that the plane didn't fall due to a structural failure, and that its integrity was therefore hampered by exogenous intervention. Beside this, I think there's no clear evidence to accepting the bomb hypotesis, nor the missile one. Actually, it should be noted that, in Italy, the investigations claimed, at first, that the plane was brought down by a "bomb in the rear toilet": it was shortly after considered to be a try to cover up a possible near-collision event or missile shot down. Fully reporting what resemble to be Taylor's personal opinions regarding italian authorities should be considered both unpolite and fruitless: he's not the only expert making similar statements, but others aren't given the same attention. I strongly suggest major editing on this topic, in order to delete it or merging in other experts' opinions. Lord Ics (talk) 08:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wont hack this article up, but it is one long conglomeration of bad sources and exemplifies tin foil conspiracy theories.

I don't know the name for the "everyone died suspiciously" fallacy but I am going to name it "Howard Carter Mummy's Curse fallacy." Adn it is present here.

Running google translate, some of the sources in this article postulate possible UFO involvement. That tells you about the credibility of the cites.108.18.75.161 (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remmed this because there has been NO evidence of anything other than a bomb:

The actuality of the bomb theory has never been truly determined, as the mysterious nature of the wreckage tells multiple tales. Parts of the discovered wreckage showed telltale signs of an outside explosion – some outer skin parts were shown to have blast residue on the outside with the metal curved inwards, uncharacteristic of a bomb (which would have curved the metal outwards as the force would have come from inside the plane outwards instead of out to in, like in the case of a missile). Other pieces – especially the area around the rear lavatory, showed many signs of a bomb that exploded inside, such as the deformities of the surrounding support beams situated around the lavatory in question.

None of the assertions in this paragraph are true and/or can be proven by the evidence recovered from the debris.--Petebutt (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor's bomb hypothesis was the only one formed after the recovery of considerably more of the aircraft structure than the earlier investigators had access to, and his conclusion was that a bomb exploded in the rear lavatory. As the aircraft was travelling at speed at the time then the resultant break up of the aircraft could have subjected parts of the structure to external wind forces sufficient to bend some thinner-gauge parts of them inwards in a manner reminiscent of an external explosion.

This article needs a total rewrite, needs more citations and a general cleanup. MattChatt18 (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree about the first point, IMHO it just needs a few adjustments and more citations. Still, you are welcome to rewriting the article from the scratch in your sandbox and offering it for evaluation. Regards, Cavarrone 10:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870. 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://www.webcitation.org/6SAEPRdmq?url=http%3A%2F%2Faviation-safety.net%2Fpubs%2Fother%2FTaylor_paper_Ustica_illustrated.pdf to http://aviation-safety.net/pubs/other/Taylor_paper_Ustica_illustrated.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205130800/http://www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/ustica/index.html to http://www.comune.bologna.it/iperbole/ustica/index.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6SAEPRdmq?url=http%3A%2F%2Faviation-safety.net%2Fpubs%2Fother%2FTaylor_paper_Ustica_illustrated.pdf to http://aviation-safety.net/pubs/other/Taylor_paper_Ustica_illustrated.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 00:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]