Talk:EgyptAir Flight 990

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION 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.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

NOTE: The text on this page was taken from the Egyptair article. WhisperToMe 22:27, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Anyone noticed that the numerology and conspiracy sections are significant longer than the facts presented? --Andylkl 09:39, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is that Numerologic portion NPOV? It certainly doesn't seem so to me -- but that's probably because I see it as irrelevant.

Contents

[edit] Numerology

The numerology section has no citations (particularly for the Atta quote) and appears to be original research. Is there any reason to keep this section? ElBenevolente 05:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have removed most of the uncited numerology section. If anyone wishes to add, please provide source material. ElBenevolente 16:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re-adding the material. It is linked to from http://www.glgorman.com, which is a website run by one of the candidates for Governor in the California recall election of 2003. The candidate, Mr. Gorman, was also a candidate for Mayor of San Bruno, Ca in 1991 when Mr. Jack Coles of San Jose claimed that Northern California would have a major quake on or about September 11, 1991. Attempts to obtain official documentation that the information regarding Al-Qaeda numerology was in the possession of the government is likely impossible, because of Sandy Bergers either accidental or deliberate removal and destruction of documents related to threat assessments and strategies for interdiction and public policy on dislosure with respect to the millenium problem.

Lazarus666 18:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yedah, but so what? It has no clear connection to the flight. You could arguably start a page about these theories and how some people believe they apply to certain events such as this, but it doesn't belong here; what we need are more facts. --ProhibitOnions 22:03, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

I removed the whole numerology section. Some searching on Google ([1] for example) shows that almost all the pages discussing this are either copies of the Wikipedia EgyptAir_Flight_990 page (this page..) or cite Wikipedia as their source. As already said by the Prohibitited Onions in the previous comment, what we need are more facts :-) -- Pepijn Koster 21:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy Theories

Why is this particular conspiracy theory given space in the article? It is probably one of many associated with this crash. Stating things like "it is not known if the NTSB investigate this possibility" is equivalent to "it is not known if the NTSB checked whether there were any Martians on board" it doesn't add to the information in the article. I'm in favour of removing the section on conspiracy theories or replacing it with a more general description of the fact that there are many conspiracy theories and disputes over the cause of the accident (why give space to the conspiracy theories but not the theories of the Egyptian authorities?). --Lawrennd 10:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, fancy performing the changes? Pepijn Koster 23:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Speaking of which.. why not say that there were 33 military officers and a JPL guy on the flight? Why say "more than 30"? Wiki[edia is such a lot of crank.121.44.249.76 22:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] stats?

The alternative theories proposed by Egyptian authorities were tested by the NTSB, and none were found to match the facts.

Would be nice for the article to list the most prominent ones, or at least give a number. This was a very controversial topic in Egypt, and probably remains so. Tempshill 22:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hamdi Hanafi Taha

No mention of the Egyptian pilot who approached the UK for asylum, saying that Batouti had crashed deliberately to have his revenge, in a "if this is my last flight, it is his/theirs too" way, and no mention either of him later also saying that all EgyptAir air pilots were brought together and given the investigation results without further comment - implying that the crash had been caused by Batouti - and then being told to not talk about that, not even among each other. All that was mentioned in the Air Crash Investigation episode on this flight. --Luckz 02:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Done, as far as including Taha. I could find no reference, though, that included all the detailed information you are asserting. If you have a ref, please post it so we can use it. Akradecki 22:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite stuff

A few editors have gotten together to try to bring this article up to GA status. Since some of the conversation relating to this effort took place on individual user talk pages, it's being copied here for the record.

In case you're interested, I'm going to start trying to get EgyptAir Flight 990 up to GA standards. I've enjoyed working with you on other articles, and would like to see the teamwork continue. Akradecki 00:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Per your comments on my talk page, I would be delighted to see Flight 990 at GA and would love to help out with that project; the controversy sorounding the disaster has allways interested me. As for air crash notability guidlines, we badly need them, and they shouldn't be too hard to draw up, either. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Just checked in briefly, been busy the last couple of days retiling the kitchen. Your progress so far looks great! I don't think I mentioned it before, but there's a companion article, Gameel Al-Batouti that I've been expanding at the same time...two for the price of one! Anyway, when I dive back in tomorrow, I plan on continuing to cull through the couple hundred pages of NTSB reports, so if you keep going in your direction, and I keep going that way, we should get a lot done without stepping on each others' toes. Other than the 2 Cairo Times articles, I haven't come across too much on the Egyptian gov't official reactions, so you might want to keep an eye out for sources on that. BTW-I'm fine with challenging the "Accident overview" header concept. Thanks!! Akradecki 23:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's sorted, then - I'll just keep going on the new "Search and Rescue" section, and will likely expand on the reactions and media speculation bits, too (which will include what can be tracked down on the Egyptian gov.s reaction). Some time, I might see what I can do with Gameel Al-Batouti, too. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 06:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flight 990 times

What are your feelings about using about using Zulu/UTC time rather than local/EST times in the article? All of the aviation and accident investigation references are in Zulu. I'm not sure if or what the "standard" is for accident articles...as you've been around the project longer than me, what are your thoughts? Akradecki 00:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... A tough question. I guess we should use local times, since that's more meaningful to the context of the article - If you say 1:00 AM local time, people immediatly know it was pitch black when (fill the blank) happened. We should probably convert to UTC in brackets, though i.e. X local time (Y UTC). That way we have what I feel is more descriptive first, with the other supplied to keep people happy. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 06:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good! Akradecki 13:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flight 990 NTSB animations

Hi, I thought I'd direct this at you seeing as you've been reading the NTSB stuff and are therefore more familiar with it than me (I've never looked at their material on this crash): Do the NTSB documents include, by any chance, an animation of the plane's rapid descent? Or at least a standalone CGI image? Reason I'm asking is, in this case there isn't much wreckage to photograph, and we need something good for the infobox. If not that, then any alternate ideas? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a ton of report attachments, I haven't come across an animation yet, but I'll go look specificially. I have found some images of recovered wreckage, including one of the images. Akradecki 19:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, couldn't find any animations. I did find one diagram which I've uploaded that shows the flight profile, though. I also just found the Egyptian final report...another 223 pages to read! Akradecki 04:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah well... A good image with an overview of the majority of the recovered stuff should suffice, though. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 06:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Searching for stuff at the NTSB website is a real pain. Apparently there was an animation produced (see page 6 here [2]), but I don't think it is available online. Lipsticked Pig 02:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox

For what it's worth, anyone interested in this rewrite project can view my sandbox where I'm constructing the text as I slowly read through the several hundred pages of reports. Feel free to work there as well. Akradecki 00:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I'm serving notice that for the EL section, I'm invoking a minor use of ignore all rules. It's generally held that you should not include an EL if that same reference is listed in the References section. However, given the rather long (and growing) references section, and the fact that it is listed in order of appearance in the article, this makes it a bit difficult for our readers to find some key links. So, with that in mind, I've set up the ELs such that some of the key NTSB and ECAA documents are listed there as well, in the interest of making the list more concise and valuable to the reader. Feel free to send flaming darts my way if you disagree. Akradecki 00:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Type" (cause) of crash in infobox

Hi everyone, I changed the infobox from "Deliberate crash" (which is NOT what the NTSB Final Report Probable Cause reads) and added "disputed". While we shouldn't state "disputed" for every crash where there are conspiracy theories or unsubtantiated rumors, in cases where (example Arrow Air Flight 1285) several members of the safety board issue a dissenting cause adding "disputed" would be appropriate, as well as cases (such as this or Tenerife) where more than one nation involved in the investigation issues conflicting conclusions it seems appropriate. Lipsticked Pig 22:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and with regard to the crash infoboxes I think there should be a few changes which I'll propose later; "Type" should be "Cause" (its very hard to just come up with a few categories for "Type" that cover everything ...is this crash CFIT or UFIT?) and definitely a line for "Phase" (takeoff, climb, cruise, etc.) would be good. Lipsticked Pig 22:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting idea for dealing with such infoboxes. Several of us are in the process of getting a Task Force together under the Aviation Wikiproject to deal specifically with air crash formatting issues. The initial draft material is on my Sandbox (eventually, it will be moved to become a subpage of the Aviation project). I'd like to invite you to join us, and I'll also copy your comments over to there. As to the proposal itself, since there are already categories for the different types of crashes, maybe the Type (or Cause, as it may become) should be a link to the cat so, for instance, to use the one from KAL 007 which was the fastest for me to pull up, the link would look like this: Shootdown Just a thought. Akradecki 00:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

FfJ, I had discussed here why I changed the cause; it would be prudent of you to discuss it here further. As for your defining the crash as "deliberate", nowhere in the NTSB final report does it state that. That is your conclusion, not the NTSB's. WP:UNDUE is not relevant here; as the flag of the carrier Egypt had, by international treaty, had the right to conduct the investigation; their report is discussed at length in the article, with their differing conclusion. You are mistaking English Wikipedia for Ethnocentric Wikipedia. Lipsticked Pig 23:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's my idea: create a sort of general-purpose category called Category:Aviation accidents and incidents with disputed or undetermined causes. Add the article to that and change the type back to "disputed". Will also fit nicely with the proposal to have the "type" (or "cause", as it may become) entry link to the category, which would certainly make it plain to people that the correct type/cause/whatever for this crash had been selected. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, sounds good, and I have a desire to work on Arrow Air Flight 1285 next, so maybe I'll make that category soon. Just as a note, I'm sure most people here (including myself) believe that this crash was a deliberate one by Al-Batouti. In all likelyhood, so did the NTSB. But when I read the Final Report (the day it was released; I'm a AAR junkie) I was struck by the fact the the NTSB quite carefully went up to, but not over, that line. They were not willing to say "deliberate", even with the appendixes talking at length about his behavior in the hotel, etc. I'm not sure if that was partially due to considerations beyond what would normally be considered in an investigation, but regardless, its not our decision to make to step over that line; we need to mantain that same inference, but not overt declaration. I understand how that subtlety might be lost on some people, but I think the article right now does a good job of showing that. Lipsticked Pig 00:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a repository for the NTSB. It is not a mirror site for the NTSB. It may not say "deliberate" but it is very much inferred. As they did not say his inputs were the result of something mechanically wrong with the plane. It does not say the co-pilot made the inputs to save the plane. The NTSB whitewashed the wording of the conclusion, in order for the Egyptian media not to raise hell against them. I strongly disagree with you that WP:UNDUE does not apply. We don't have to put in the box that it is disputed. It is the conclusion of many that it was deliberate. THe people who disagree with it are in the minority. I don't dispute the Egyptians have a right to their conclusion, it is mentioned and rightly so. What I dispute is the whitewashing of the information in the box. It is unnecessary. Fighting for Justice 02:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Fighting for Justice, I re-ordered your comments to be chronological, hope that is OK. Looking at your comments above, the funny thing is we agree 100% on some things. Most of the things you said up there were spot-on. But we disagree, strongly, on the following:
  • Cause of crash: "Flight control inputs resulting in loss on control" vs. "Deliberate crash" It is not proper for us to edit in our own cause the cause of the crash because we feel that the NTSB was pulling their punches, and we think we know what they really wanted to say. That's blatantly violating WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. When you find a reference that deserves more weight than the NTSB or ECAA reports, and that reference states that the probable cause was a deliberate crash, by all means put it in the article and change the infobox to "Deliberate crash". I do think "Flight control inputs resulting in loss on control" is too wordy however, and would like alternative suggestions.
  • Adding "Disputed": I feel WP:UNDUE was complied to; the infobox had read "Flight control inputs resulting in loss on control (disputed)", which gives predominance to the NTSB theory (because of its general acceptance), while acknowledging (without detail) the conflicting ECAA one. It was, after all, an Egyptian-flag carrier, giving them certain rights in the investigation, and their report was included in the public docket for the crash. A suitable "proportion to the prominence of each" was acheived, which is what has been accomplished in the body of the article as well.
I admit I'm not 100% sure on the "disputed", and request other editor's comments though. While this argument may seem kind of excessive for one line in the article, there are going to be plenty of "disputed" accidents, and many of those will be disputed along national lines - Flash Airlines Flight 604 is very similar. Lipsticked Pig 04:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
No it is not original research. Original research refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The deliberate cause theory is not something I pulled out of a hat. It is what the Egyptians are against therefore it exist. It is more then fair to include it in wikipedia. The Egyptians let the NTSB take the lead in the investigation. Now if they don't like what they were being told that is their problem. Fighting for Justice 04:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
While I understand your perspective, unfortunately, this is getting into the realm of Original Research, which is defined as "The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position". Because the NTSB - nor any authoratative body - has not published this conclusion, we can't publish it, either. Unfortunately, your argument also sounds like you're getting a bit close to POV issues, as you're accusing the NTSB of whitewashing things, and then using Wikipedia as a forum to set things straight. Because we're supposed to be neutral, we really can't be going beyond what's published, even if we think its right. AKRadecki 14:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, yeah, the NTSB goes out of their way never to say "deliberate crash", but the ECAA then offers their "rebuttal" report which says "The Relief First Officer (RFO) did not deliberately dive the airplane into the ocean"...pretty telling, and another obvious sign of the 500-lb gorilla in the closet that the NTSB didn't want to admit. So I understand your argument there, but now your are skirting very close (if not over) to synthesis of a position: WP:SYN. I still don't agree with you, but the more I think about it can see it both ways. Lipsticked Pig 05:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
What if we simply leave it as Disputed? Nothing more, nothing less just that single word. Fighting for Justice 05:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, please don't mad at me for saying this, but now at the end of the day I feel like, "sure, whatever". Again, I see your point, and I appreciate you taking the time to discuss it here in talk; you raised some valid points that other editors can now read. Cheers! Lipsticked Pig 05:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resolution or Consensus

Any sign of a consensus regarding the 'cause? KyuuA4 08:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Mostly I take the foregoing to imply "Disputed" is the closest thing to a consensus. I think I agree with using "Disputed" because this is an infobox and should not be forced into holding the large amount of text needed to adequately explain the situation without misleading the reader. -R. S. Shaw 00:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)