Talk:Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
April 26, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
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.
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. GA-Class
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Flag
Portal
 Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Brazil and Brazil-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
To-do list for Brazil:
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

For the most part this article is very good: very good use of images, lots of citations (except for one section, see below), and easy to read. I made a few simple changes for you, that can be viewed in [this diff]. I did a little bit of minor copyediting, but most of the changes were expanding acronyms (remember that not everyone is an expert on the subject and therefore will not be able to understand the acronyms). Also, article titles should not be italicized, as per the Manual of Style (titles). The more major issues I found have been outlined below for the editors of this article to consider.

[edit] Suggestions

[edit] Overall

  • Too much reliance on acronyms. The first instance of an acronym should be spelled out, and if there are further instances, add the acronym in brackets. As mentioned above, I fixed these wherever I spotted them, but keep this in mind for future edits.
  • I think we got most of them. If you spot one we missed, please holler. Crum375 22:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:MOS#Units of measurement: units should be given with a conversion. Also, conversion unit should be the short form (mi vs miles), whereas the original unit should be in long form.
  • Note the for point 3b above. The reason for this is that the article contains some points which may not be really important to the scope of the article. For some examples, does the IATA code for the airport the Embraer jet took off from matter in the scope of the article? (It could be easily retrieved by a reader by looking at the airport's article.)
  • I think a lot of people recognize airports by their short IATA code better than by their long official name (JFK in the US comes to mind). Many airports are named after people with long-ish names and titles and it can be confusing, especially to foreign readers (as most of our readers here would be relative to Brazil). Yes, they can click, but it's extra effort and just seeing: 'SJK' makes it easier to recognize. But I agree that having the 'IATA' wikilink is excessive, so I removed it. Crum375 22:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Is the explicit mention of 42 minutes (in "the Legacy took off from São José dos Campos at 14:51, reaching FL370 at 15:33, 42 minutes later") necessary or can it be understood by the reader?
  • I think it is important, because it saves the reader doing the math, and the time line is very critical, as it gives us a perspective and a mental picture of how much time was available for ATC to catch and correct any altitude mistakes, regardless of who caused them. Every minute counts, when you are about to collide. Crum375 22:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Is the specific VHF frequency used important information (later in that same section)? While this is not a failing point for this GA nomination, I wanted to point it for future consideration.
  • The frequencies are important as they show the various different communication channels that were available and tried. Without the numbers, we'd have to say: they tried frequency A and failed, then B and failed, etc. This would only sound more obscure. Crum375 22:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • What about something like "Attempts to contact the aircraft, using several different radio frequencies over a span of [x] minutes, failed"? If the specific frequencies are important, however, that is fine. —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 01:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
      • In many typical accidents, your suggestion would make sense. In this case however, we have an extremely sensitive situation, where many people perished due to what could well be human error related to communication. At this point, it is best to present just the raw facts as we know them, with minimal interpretation. Using your suggested verbiage, while generally accurate, would obscure the specific efforts that were made to contact the Legacy by different controllers. In general though, when there is a communication loss that leads to a major loss of life, I think every frequency used should be noted. Crum375 03:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boeing aricraft and crew

  • Not sure why "Short Field Performance" is italicized. Perhaps quotation marks would be better?
  • This is the name of a model, so the italics represent a marketing name. I think quotes look more like a 'just made up' name. Crum375 21:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • This, and the other case mentioned further down, are not specific entities covered by the italicizing rules given in the Manual of Style (titles). It is acceptable for the purposes of this GA review, but I'd suggest possibly asking at that page's talk page for further guidance. —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 01:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Embraer aircraft and crew

  • The text starting at "Brazilian Air Force and ANAC (Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil) officials" until the end of the section seems out of place. It would probably be better located as part of (or a subsection of) Initial investigation or Legal action.
  • I don't think this belongs in legal or investigation, because it is a direct continuation of the accident sequence, at least from the Legacy passengers' perspective. Crum375 22:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • True that neither of those sections are perfect fits. My problem with the current placement is that it disrupts the chronology of the article by introducing events that took place after the crash before describing the crash itself. —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 01:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • These facts about Legacy crew should be reported to understand the events better: "From August 9, 2006 to August 30, 2006, Joe trained at FlightSafety International in Houston, Texas to obtain his initial type rating on the EMB-145, which included the Legacy. [...] The FlightSafety training was comprised of 76 hours of ground training and 26 hours of flight training including 14 hours in the simulator as pilot in command and 12.5 hours as second in command. [...] Following their training at FlightSafety, Joe and Jan were given an opportunity to fly a Legacy with Embraer pilots, before raveling to Brazil to pick up the new aircraft. Joe and Jan each flew a leg in a Legacy during a round trip flight between Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL) in Florida and the Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport (MKC), in Kansas City, Missouri. They spent all day with the Embraer pilots. [...] After arriving at the Embraer factory in Sao Jose dos Campos, Brazil, Joe and Jan flew the new aircraft, N600XL, on three separate acceptance flights for ExcelAire, taking turns in the left seat. These flights were conducted in a practice area and included a full stall series, a 60 degree bank, a visual approach to land, and a go-around that allowed two approaches, among other things. These acceptance flights were again conducted with Embraer factory pilots on board and totaled approximately four (4) hours" - source: Excelaire.

[edit] Recovery operation

  • Is it possible to add information as to why Canada and the TSB was brought in? This seems unclear to me. (If there isn't, then it's understandable, of course.) Also, which country's air force is being referred to: "The Air Force deployed a C-115 Buffalo aircraft to transport the bodies to Brasília for identification."
  • Fixed, by adding footnote for Canada, and using BAF with initial definition and wikilink. Crum375 21:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Initial investigation

  • What is IFR?
  • Fixed by adding wikilinks
  • To me, this section seems overly technical. Is there a way to make it easier to be understood by a layperson (for example, explaining what the ATC responses mean)? The explanation of the "TERES fix" is a good example of something technical explained.
  • Fixed the Teres caps to be consistent. Will try to improve the lay-language, maybe with more footnotes, so as not to interrupt the flow. Crum375 22:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Facts that should be reported about S.Jose clearance:

Of the responsibilities of the Legacy crew.
One of the crucial questions through which the whole investigative proceeding passes is that of what was the valid flight plan was for the Legacy N600XL’s trip, and the conclusion that is reached is that the pilots considered that the current flight plan was one, while the flight controllers considered that there was another, as is explained in detail below:
- a flight plan, requested and cleared, from the radio clearance, to the Legacy’s crew, which provided level FL370 (37,000 feet) from São José dos Campos (SP) to Eduardo Gomes Airport, in Manaus (AM); and
- a flight plan, submitted and approved to and by ACC-Brasilia, which foresaw three different flight levels, obeying the flight plan originally submitted: level FL370 (37,000 feet) from São José dos Campos (SP) to Brasilia (DF); FL360 (36,000 feet) from Brasilia (DF) to waypoint TERES; and FL380 (38,000 feet) from waypoint TERES to Eduardo Gomes Airport, in Manaus (AM).
This fact, especially, has served as an argument for those who take up the defense of the North American pilots, as they understand that the current flight plan corresponds to the verbal authorization provided them on the departure from São José dos Campos, and in which, considering the procedural rules, they have reason on their side. However, in at least two moments related to this fact, the Legacy crew failed to act with special caution, considering that the pilots had little knowledge, not only of the Legacy’s operation, but of Brazilian air space:
- when they did not question the authorization received, with level FL370 (37,000 feet) for the entire route, differently than in the original flight plan, which foresaw different levels than previously authorized;
- when they perceived, by the onboard documentation (and, if they did not perceive, they had the professional duty to have one so) that level FL370 (37,000 feet) on airway UZ6 provided for traffic in the direction opposite that in which the aircraft was proceeding.
Although there is documentary evidence the crew had marked the flight route on an aeronautic chart of Brazilian air space, according to the indictment presented by the Federal Prosecutors’ Office against the pilots, as far as everything has been seen, the probably is immense that the pilots did not even become aware of the originally presented flight plan, only coming to worry to about this after embarking on the aircraft, since there are no records of their presence in the AIS Room of the São José dos Campos Aerodrome.
Source: Report of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry of the Air Traffic System Crisis.

  • It must be emphasized that the Area Control Center (ACC) provides Air Traffic Control Services, with the specific function of Area Control Service, to aircraft when they are in cruising flight, aiming to, principally, maintain separation from other aircraft. The ACC’s area of jurisdiction is the air space called Flight Information Region (FIR). There were two ACC involved: ACC-Brasilia, included in the structure of CINDACTA I, and ACC-Amazonico, included in the structure of CINDACTA IV. S.Jose dos Campos is an Aerodrome Control Tower (TWR – Tower) where Embraer has its factory. Netheir ACC-Brasilia, neither TWR-S.Jose can clear level until Manaus without agreement of ACC-Amazonico. To facilitate understanding, here an example: a flight that intends to leave S.Jose for Manaus can only do so after receiving authorization from ACC Manaus.
  • It is not clear in this article that the “UZ6” airway has traffic in both directions, as if it were a “two way street”, with levels distributed from FL290 to FL410. Aircraft that are traveling from north to south fly at odd levels (FL 290, FL 310, FL 330,... to FL 410), while those that are traveling from south to north normally fly at even levels (FL 300, FL 320, FL 340,... to FL 400). This vertical space from FL290 to FL410 is reserved for RVSM - Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum – flights, with vertical separation between aircraft being 1,000 (one thousand) feet. So, a FL 370 Legacy clearance in this leg would be against the rules.

[edit] Preliminary CENIPA factual report

  • Why is "Flight 1907 Accident Investigation Commission" italicized?
  • It is a special commission that was officially created - it was italicized since it's long-ish and quotes look more 'made up'. I took out the italics for now, but may return them. Crum375 22:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "the Legacy's original flight plan called for an altitude of FL370 to Brasilia, FL360 to Teres and FL380 to Manaus" – should that not be "TERES" as in the previous section?
  • Harmonized to 'Teres' everywhere. Crum375 22:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legacy flight and communication sequence

  • "At that point the Legacy was just approaching the Brasilia VOR" – this and the following sentence convey to me that some sort of station or installation is being referred to, yet VOR itself is just a type of radar navigation, as per its article. I think it could be more clearly explained. Also, acronym.
  • Wikilinked, and added footnote to explain the VOR is a transmitting facility on the ground. Crum375 22:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "by calling the Legacy in the blind" – this should be defined or wikilinked to an article that does, as it is unclear what is being said.
  • Added explanatory footnote. Crum375 22:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This section is completely uncited, which, given the amount of specific facts within, needs to be fixed.
  • Copied ref from above to first sentence. Crum375 22:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • These facts should be reported: "Transcription of the segment of content of the CVR of the Gol Boeing 737-800 aircraft making Flight 1907, registry PR-GTD, immediately before the accident, on transfer of control from ACC Amazônico (ATC-ACC/AM) to ACC Brasilia (ATC-ACC/BR), reveals that communications were perfect on another frequency, 125.20, in the region of the collision (our emphasis to set apart the frequency on which the Gol Boeing began to operate and how it received perfectly the messages directed to Legacy N600XL on this frequency, approximately 3 minutes before the collision). [...] The indications point to the existence of radiocommunications coverage in the region in which the N600XL aircraft was found when it lost radio contact.[...] On the other hand, the frequency used by N600XL was 125.05, possibly indicating that this frequency was improper for use in that region." - Source: Report of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry of the Air Traffic System Crisis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdruvss (talk • contribs) 14:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal action

  • Alan Armstrong, in "Suggestions to pilots and aircraft operators on avoiding infractions of the Federal Aviation Regulations": "Most of the problems I have seen are the consequence of lapses in judgment, a lack of situational awareness, or a breakdown in communication between the pilot and air traffic control. Before embarking on a flight, the pilot is expected to engage in appropriate pre-flight planning to ensure the flight can be safely conducted. One of the most common operational violations seen by aviation lawyers concern altitude deviations. The 'warning' ATC is to give a pilot if he is suspected of deviating from his altitude is imposed on the controller with the condition ‘workload permitting’. In other words, if the controller is too busy with other activities, the FAA will take the position that he had no obligation to notify the pilot of the altitude deviation."
  • Phillip J. Kolczynski, in "Criminal Liability in Aviation": "Some states have established criminal liability for unintentional homicide with an offense they call ‘criminal negligence’. Other states punish negligent homicide as a form of ‘manslaughter’. This charge is often called ‘involuntary manslaughter’. These criminal charges require more than just simple negligence. In fact, most well-written state laws require more than ‘gross negligence’ for a criminal prosecution."

[edit] External links


[edit] References

  • References #5, 8, 10, 17, 22, 30, 32, 50, 61, 65, 67 and 69 are broken links.
  • Fixed. Lots of linkrot. Crum375 01:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reference #14 does not appear to point to what its description describes.
  • Fixed. Crum375 13:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There is a large reliance on non-English links as sources. See Sources in languages other than English. While this is not a failing point, it is something to keep in mind, and the sources should be replaced with English language ones if possible.
  • We try our best. The most important source we have at this point is the CENIPA report which is in Portuguese. Obviously we'd love to have, and greatly prefer, English sources, but we have to live with what we have. Crum375 22:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I understand that due to the circumstances, Portuguese sources may be all that are available. All I was saying is that if it was possible, it would be preferable to use English sources. In any case, as I said, this point is not important for the GA review, just something to think about. —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 01:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Understood. I was only saying we have the exact same goal and sentiment as you. Crum375 14:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusions

  • Ensure that the prose is understandable by a layperson, and avoids (or explains) technical jargon. Expand acronyms.
  • Fix up the broken references.
  • Add references to the Legacy flight and communication sequence section.
  • I tried my best to fix all these issues - let me know if I missed anything. Crum375 01:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I am placing the GA nomination of this article on hold for one week pending the above suggestions. When they have been made, I will be glad to pass the article. —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 17:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Just wanted to thank you here for your very thorough review. It is very much appreciated. Please don't hesitate to point to any remaining problems. Crum375 01:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Pass

Good work in improving the article as per my earlier suggestions. This article is a very good read, and has now been upgraded to GA status. —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 14:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again for your constructive and thorough review. Crum375 16:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rearranging of Embraer crew detention and charging

In his GA review comments, Daniel Vandersluis raised an important point, which is that the Embraer crew detention and charging are illogically placed before the collision section. I therefore relocated those components into a separate section, currently following the collision section. I am still not sure about its location - the legal section is also possible, in principle, but typically the legal section in accidents is where various lawsuits are filed by victims, whereas the crew's detention is a) extremely unusual, b) is an integral part of the accident sequence and investigation itself, and c) preceded in time even the discovery of the wreckage. So for the time being I have left the section where it belongs on a timeline (based on the initial events in each section), and we can reconsider its placement as the entry matures. Comments are of course welcome. Crum375 16:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead simplification

I have also replaced the lead with a tighter and more simplified version, while adding details to the lower sections. This should make it easier for a casual reader to get a quick overview of the overall article. Crum375 19:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IFATCA statement

I found this document issued by the INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS' ASSOCIATIONS, which claims to be a "worldwide organisation representing more than fifty thousand air traffic controllers in over 130 countries."[1] Since it is not a government body like CENIPA or NTSB, I would not rely on its data in the text, but it does seem to have some important observations, that I have not seen elsewhere, which could actually hold the key to what really happened, if they pan out. So for the time being I am including it as an external link only, pending the CENIPA official results. Comments about this are welcome. Crum375 02:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New NTSB documents?

I just read on the newspaper that the NTSB has published some new documents. The online version of the newspaper story seems to be [2], but it seems to be missing some of the things on the paper version (for instance, the paper version says about suggesting a sound alert when it fails, instead of just a text message). I'm going out right now, and will only be able to look at it (searching for the NTSB documents, for instance) later this night. --cesarb 09:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polícia Federal Report

FYI everyone, per a story in O Globothe Federal Police has concluded that the pilots were negligent in the crash. I hope we all agree that the article should consider the coming CENIPA report as the main source of findings, as the PF report is a criminal investigation finding. Also, the O Globo story itself mentions that CENIPA is currently working with two hypotheses: that of equipment failure or involuntary action by the pilots which turned the transponder off. I'd recommend we just wait until the CENIPA report to come out before amending the article further (other than perhaps mentioning the PF report). Also, be on the lookout for the actual report to be posted in the media.--Dali-Llama 20:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A better story is [3]. --cesarb 23:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
...and a much better one is [4]. It's from the Federal Police's own news agency, so it should be the most reliable source on what the Federal Police has to say. --cesarb 23:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
And the number given on that page (670/2006) led me to [5] (warning: 134-page 1 MiB PDF), which looks very interesting. --cesarb 00:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Do people here feel we should use the Policia Federal Report (PFR) as a source, or just wait for CENIPA/NTSB? I think the PFR is probably OK under our special rules, since it is an official government agency tasked with investigating the accident, but I personally would prefer to wait for the CENIPA/NTSB, which are aviation specialists. The problem is that there are lots of sensitive BLP issues here, and ideally it would be nice to have one final official report that we can quote. Comments? Crum375 00:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Crum, you're dead-on, echoing my concerns of the first comment. Since we don't have access to even the full PF report, my vote is wait for the CENIPA report to come out.--Dali-Llama 01:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to this report, link kindly supplied by cesarb above, which seems pretty complete and professional. But the issue remains - it seems like a BLP minefield - almost anything could relate to allegations of criminal negligence etc., and for us to analyse this primary source could easily violate OR and BLP. OTOH, the final CENIPA/NTSB reports should have clear conclusions designed for public consumption and should be an acceptable secondary source. Crum375 02:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
That's not really a report, it's a dossier—basically a brief—submitted by the Legacy crew's attorneys to the FP superintendent in charge of the investigation. It contains and references excerpts from the CENIPA report and NTSB recommendations, but one could easily argue that this is a partisan document. We may want to note the existence of this document and its relevance, but it is not the FP's report. That, IMHO, will be much more relevant (and at least nominally reliable) when and if it is made public. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, my mistake. I agree that calling it a 'brief' would be most appropriate. Of course it includes much third party materials, but also analysis and interpretations. I think this document may become an acceptable primary source at some future point, when we have a reliable secondary source interpreting it. Bottom line, it seems we agree that we need to wait for the final CENIPA/NTSB reports. Crum375 18:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd think so, yes. Should we want to keep the article current re the criminal investigation, the FP press release (second link provided by Cesar above) is probably our best bet in terms of reliability. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, FP press release is of questionable value at this time. It really doesn't say much that we don't know, seems unclear in what point it is making, and doesn't appear to be written by aviation accident investigation professionals. I think we need to wait for the agency with the right expertise and the mandate for the investigation to issue its report. Crum375 19:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the press release could be used to add that the investigation has ended (and the results sent to the Federal Justice) to the "Detention and charging of the Embraer's crew" section; the rest mostly summarizes the police investigation's conclusions (but adding it to that section of the article could end up being repetitive). As to the large PDF I've found, it's not suitable as a source for the article, since it's IMO too one-sided (unless we wanted to list in detail the pilots' exact legal position); but even then, it's still a very interesting read. --cesarb 00:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pilot claims: Embraer is to blame

This weblog, written by an experienced Brazilian pilot and flight instructor, makes some shocking claims:

  • The RCZ unit (integrated transponder, TCAS, and VHF radio) installed on the Embraer Legacy was not new: it had been used in another plane, months before the disaster -- and removed from it because it had malfunctioned, and had been returned to Honeywell for repairs.
  • The avionics must be turned off before the Auxiliary Power Unit is turned on; before the Legacy's test flight, three days before the disaster, Embraer's pilots tried to do it, but the flight displays remained turned on. After 45 minutes trying to fix that, and failing, they decided to turn on the APU anyway -- which exposed the avionics to excessive electricity.
  • Two days before the disaster, the Flight Management System's screens were flickering. The plane was checked and it was found that some systems were not properly installed, which could cause them to fail. Rather than fix it right away, the manufacturer promised the buyer to iron out all the bugs later.

If he is right, Embraer is to blame for the Flight 1907 disaster. - Stormwatch 03:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

On the first point, I'm told Honeywell is on the record as stating that the RCZ unit was not subject to the recall that the same RCZ model was subject to (this conclusion reached by comparing serial numbers). On the other points, these are the arguments made by the ExcelAire dossier. While they may very well be true, they are circumstantial evidence, and whether or not something like a power spike would damage the avionics is something that the CENIPA investigation is supposed to uncover. And on the blog, by the way, the author forgets one thing: There is a warning indeed of the TCAS's status on the left MFD between the vertical speed indicator the heading indicator, and it cannot be turned off. In any case, we've generally agreed to wait for the CENIPA findings before amending the article further.--Dali-Llama 13:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Blogs in general are not admissible as sources on WP, so there is no need to discuss them here. There is even more information in the affidavit submitted to the Federal Police by the Legacy crew's attorneys, but we decided that given the BLP sensitivities of this article, we only accept official CENIPA and NTSB publications to interpret technical aviation issues for us. Crum375 14:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Legacy are equiped with Honeywell Primus 1000. Cessna Citation and Bravo and Learjet 45 are also equiped with the same avionics model. "The Primus® 1000 and Primus 2000 systems represent the first steps in integrated avionics, combining the latest Honeywell flight control functions and architectures with displays, flight management and fault warning in an integrated computer" - Source: Honeywell website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdruvss (talk • contribs) 21:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update

Well, it's official: Legacy crew and four air traffic controllers indicted.[6][7] Let's keep an eye out for any poorly sourced additions. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Since it seems the official court paper has not yet published the indictments, I would wait for that to happen first, as we want to be extra careful. Then we can summarize the actual indictments, along with responses by the attorneys of the accused. Crum375 01:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unreliable source? The jet hit the ground while traveling at nearly 500 kilometers per hour (310 miles per hour)

I used this http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/09/30/brazil.crash/index.html as a citation for the "d. The jet hit the ground while traveling at nearly 500 kilometers per hour (310 miles per hour) [8]." statement - And Crum said that is not a reliable source.

What would be a reliable source? Why is CNN not a reliable source in this instance? WhisperToMe 21:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snopes and info about internet hoax

" An e-mail hoax stated that it has photographs of the inside of Gol Flight 1907's cabin. The pictures come from a television show called Lost [9].

In late 2006 the hoax was propagated from a blog [10] [11] of a Brazilian man named Carlos Cardoso. Cardoso admitted to creating the hoax, and saw it as a demonstration of skimming; he used incorrect and false details for the entire hoax entry and saw the story believed as true and propagated by e-mail [12] [13].

The Brazilian media posted stories about the hoax [14] [15]."

Snopes is considered to be a high quality reference of urban legends and e-mail hoaxes. Plus we have the website of the author of the hoax and Brazilian news stories about it. WhisperToMe 21:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my edit summary not being clear or detailed enough. If you look at the discussions in this talk page, you'll see that after this accident occurred, there were lots of articles about all kinds of rumors and theories published by various outlets. We decided early on, in order to maintain a high quality to this article (which subsequently obtained a GA status), to stick to the highest possible quality sources that relate to the accident. We agreed that those sources would generally be government bodies officially charged with investigating the accident (such as CENIPA and NTSB), or legal representatives of the parties, etc. If we were to allow a newspaper article describing some hoax or wild theory related to this case, it would open the floodgates to all kinds of heated conspiracy theories and nationalistic accusations that have dogged this case. Since I believe we had a clear consensus to this 'high quality sources only' approach, I think we should have an equal consensus to change it. My own opinion is that there is no reason to change our approach, and in any case this hoax does not appear very notable, and is not widely reported, so it could violate WP:UNDUE also. I would appreciate comments from other editors. Thanks, Crum375 21:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Scrum on its removal. In my opinion, while we cannot dispute the hoax happened, it would not be encyclopedic to include it and would be, in fact, a bit trivial compared to the rest of the tone and content of the article.--Dali-Llama 21:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I feel that this is not the same kind of scenario - unlike the nationalistic theories, this e-mail hoax has been proven as false. With a nationalistic scenario nothing is proven, and we can wait for official courts/legal stuff to clear.
WP:UNDUE has nothing to do with this. It says: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth doesn't mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority." - In other words, this has to do with disputed viewpoints. What you mean, Crum is that you feel the information is "trivial," (as Dali-Llama said) NOT "undue weight." Since WP:NOT#INFO is the policy that affects this, it may be best to discuss this with the village pump. WhisperToMe 22:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, About.com, a notable and well-known website, also discusses the Gol hoax: [16] - I feel that this and the Snopes link prove that the Gol e-mail hoax is widespread, and therefore a notable/non-trivial subject. WhisperToMe 22:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If you scroll higher up, you will note that there were many theories published by otherwise respected Brazilian papers, and some outside Brazil, with all kinds of wild allegations and speculations. The way we kept them out, was by agreeing to only accept the very best sources, the official government ones. I would agree that if a hoax became so notable that all the major international mainstream papers carried it, like the NYT and Sunday Times, then at some point we'd consider it unavoidable and insert it. But this is not the case here. About.com is not a reliable source - it often just echoes WP itself, and quite often you can find an old WP version there, that had been proven wrong and corrected on WP. In any case, I wouldn't consider it a top-notch mainstream publisher. The UNDUE does apply here — if we describe one theory out of dozens or more that were published, without describing all the rest, we'd be giving that theory undue weight. Again, I'd like to get more input from the other editors here. Crum375 22:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I still do not see how this hoax has anything to do with the debate asking "Why did Gol Airlines crash?" nor do I see how this is the same type of debate. - The sole subject of the e-mail hoax was a set of pictures from Lost falsely attributed as a real picture from Gol Airlines. For that matter, we can use the Lost episode itself as a source and label the e-mail hoax as false. I am not familiar with the show, but it should be easy to find the episode and the time frame to cite. There cannot be any "undue weight" because the statement that e-mail is false is held by everyone who is informed of the Lost episode.
The remaining issue is whether the e-mail hoax is notable. Now, I could prove that Snopes and About.com are often-seen websites, with Snopes having an Alexa rank of 2,666 and About.com with a rank of 123 (the closer to zero, the busier the website) WhisperToMe 22:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Mikkelsen also cites "Sharkey, Joe "The Wreck and the Reckoning" Sunday Times Magazine 26 November 2006" WhisperToMe 23:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Look what I found, http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/midair-photos-shot-down-as-a-hoax/?no_cache=1&cHash=db938ed0fc

"Blurry photos supposedly taken from the inside of the Gol Airlines 737 after it collided with an Embraer Legacy 600 on September 29 over the Amazon jungle making the rounds through e-mail are a hoax, according to several reputable sources, including mythbuster Snopes.com and the NTSB."

I need to search the NTSB databases to see if the NTSB actually stated something about this.... WhisperToMe 23:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Whisper, the issue is not just "why did the plane crash?" It is what are the most important bits of information we can provide our readers about it, based on the most reputable and reliable sources, presented in a balanced and neutral fashion. If we include idle speculation, there are huge amounts of those, and they would need to be sorted according to their source quality and notability, as well as relevance to the core issues. If we stray from that proper sorting, we violate WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. At this point, we are waiting for the CENIPA final report to come in, hopefully within days. There are good odds the article will be seriously overhauled at that point, as it was built 'on the fly', as events were unfolding, whereas with the final report we can write it in a better organized fashion. We'll be focusing on the accident, its causes and the investigation. Speculation and hoaxes will take a back seat, per UNDUE, unless they can be shown to be very highly notable, based on the most reliable and reputable mainstream sources, and tightly connected with the events. Crum375 00:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I understand why quality control of the article is stressed and why one must avoid adding speculation. What we should do before discussing this hoax. My point is that UNDUE specifically discusses multiple points of view of a contentious subject where there is no consensus on what is correct. Since few people believe in flat earth, flat earth is not discussed in an article about Earth since the viewpoint is in the minority. However, just about everyone who knows about the hoax says it is false, and therefore this is not a minority viewpoint. Since the hoax has nothing to do with viewpoints of an issue, UNDUE does not apply. I do not see why there is an insistence on UNDUE when NOTABILITY and WP:NOT#INFO apply to this case? I can understand why people may say that the hoax is not notable or not encyclopedic, but I do not see how it is affected by WP:UNDUE. WhisperToMe 04:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
NOW, I would like to hear more about how about.com is not a reliable source; I know that about.com hosts a Wikipedia mirror, but I do not see how about.com has anything like Wikipedia other than the Wikipedia mirror. Aside from the Wikipedia mirror, why do you feel that about.com is not reliable?
Anyway, what we should do is wait for the final report, revise the article, and then discuss the hoax and determine how notable it is. About.com cannot be ignored since it is one of the most widely-viewed websites in the world. WhisperToMe 04:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(moved from Crum375's talk page) Please see the talk page :) - I would like to know more about this... WhisperToMe 21:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I must also add that Snopes is considered to be a high quality source - This may sound strange, but the Mikkelsens (the authors of the website) research data - I also included external links to Brazilian media stories that cover the hoax. The Mikkelsens + the author of the rumor + brazilian media sources should add to a reliably-sourced paragraph. I will add it back, but if you want to talk about it, please discuss that. WhisperToMe 21:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the Gol/Lost hoax is not in the same league as the wild theories about how the plane was downed, as the e-mail hoax was demonstrated as false. The issue is whether mentioning the e-mail hoax would be "Trivial" - It may be a good idea to reveal this to the Village Pump. I feel that a "slippery slope" would not happen even if the e-mail hoax info was posted since I can simply revert every wild theory edit easiy. WhisperToMe 22:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, after reading your writings about About.com, they seem to be referring to about's Wikipedia mirror. The article about the hoax is not a part of the Wikipedia mirror. Casting aside the Wikipedia mirror, what about David Emory's works is not reliable? About.com is owned by the New York Times, so the NYT would want its staff members to be careful about what they say. WhisperToMe 04:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Whisper, there are lots of hoaxes, jokes, rumors and theories all the time. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a supermarket tabloid. The only such items that deserve WP space, IMO, are ones that are extremely notable, relevant, and widely published by the most reputable mainstream media. I don't consider this to be the case here, as I think it fails all 3 criteria. I welcome other views. Crum375 17:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I posted this to the village pump to check for other opinions. Anyway, I still do not see how About.com is not reliable since it is easy to separate the Wikipedia mirror from the other bits of the site. WhisperToMe 03:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I just want to point out that I haven't participated in the discussion after my initial comment because I've mostly agreed with Crum's arguments. I do welcome other points of view as well.--Dali-Llama 03:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Whisper, regarding the About.com aspect, a publication may have, say, a joke column, and solicit funny episodes from the public. Let's say someone provides a story or a video clip about a dog doing some trick on the grounds of the White House, and let's say the publication decides to publish it, after they verify the dog trick incident was true. This would not qualify this incident for inclusion in the article White House, even if we are sure it is true, and there is a solid reference for it. Why? because of notability and WP:UNDUE. For something trivial in importance that has little if any impact on the main subject to be included, we must show that its inclusion is still justified by its effective weight relative to the other covered issues. What UNDUE says is that if it's marginal in its notability and relevance and therefore effective weight, it stays out, even if we have the references. So even if About is considered 'reliable' in principle, its article still cannot sway the relevance or notability of this incident. If the hoax were so notable that it got published widely by the mainstream media on their front pages, and/or had a significant impact on the investigation of the accident or on the legal cases, then we'd need to include it, but this is not the case here. Crum375 03:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Crum, your description of "UNDUE" is *actually* a description of "Trivial" or "Unencyclopedic" - Your argument is that the hoax is trivial or unencyclopedic and therefore does not need to be on Wikipedia. WhisperToMe 03:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree there is a correlation between trivia, unencyclopedic content, and UNDUE. But only the latter is actual policy, whereas the others are not. In fact, we are not supposed to use 'unencyclopedic' as a rationale for suppressing content, because it is too broad. WP:UNDUE specifically says that content must be properly balanced, per WP:NPOV, and therefore we may not exaggerate the amount of material devoted to a relatively unimportant aspect, and in fact we must suppress it if it is too marginal. This is actual policy which derives from the core NPOV policy, which tells us that our overall presentation must be neutrally presented, without any element receiving improper weight. Crum375 04:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
And let me again emphasize that if a hoax can be shown (via reliable sources) to be notable and to have had a significant impact on the investigation or legal cases, for example, then it would belong in the article. Crum375 04:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see - In your opinion, the merit of inclusion is whether it impacts the legal cases and investigation cases. I do not see how this hoax can impact legal cases since it has been easily proven false. I know the NTSB has commented, but I do not see how this will significantly impact the investigation of the crash. In other words, it appears that are you stating that crash articles should focus on the investigation into the incident and the effects of the incident on aviation practices, correct? WhisperToMe 05:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I only used the investigation and legal cases as examples, because they are typically the most relevant in accident articles. But in reality anything that relates to the article's subject is a candidate for inclusion assuming it achieved sufficient notability and was mentioned prominently enough in mainstream publications, etc. For example, if a movie is made, that would be notable and includable. And even if a hoax achieved sufficient notability to be very prominently and strongly associated with the subject, typically by being widely written about in mainstream publications, that would be includable. So it's a matter of degree, and in order for a hoax to be included, given limited space per article as well as the readers' attention span, it would have to displace other items, possibly investigation or legal case related. So we must choose and assign relative weights carefully. Crum375 05:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
So, would the main issue be whether discussion of the hoax at About.com AND Snopes (websites known for containing sections devoted to e-mail urban legends) would indicate an includable subject, correct? If you believe that the two websites do not pass muster, then the subject is not notable. If you believe that the website passed muster, then the subject is notable. WhisperToMe 05:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Notability and reliability are not binary – they have many shades. Everything is notable, to some extent; the issue here is to determine the relative significance of these items as compared to many others. It is my view, that there are many investigation related items that are much more pertinent than that trivia. So if we expand the article by adding items, we have to add those first. Otherwise, we violate UNDUE. As I see it, these trivia and hoax items are insignificant overall compared to the huge amounts of information published about this accident. We need to prioritize the important items first, and the hoax is well below the UNDUE cutoff line at this point. This is true even if we accept that someone did make a joke, or a hoax, per some relatively reliable source. The issue is its relative significance. Crum375 06:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Victim list in English (It would be great if one could find one!)

So far the only comprehensive lists of Gol victims I have found are in Portuguese - I entered names of some victims in Google (with English as a parameter) and found nothing.

IF an English victim list is found, please list it alongside the Portuguese link OR replace the Portuguese link with the English list. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Did the aircraft break up on descent?

I saw a Discovery Channel documentary on Gol 1907 and saw a CG of Gol breaking apart as it fell to the ground. So, does the preliminary report make the conclusion? Or did DC come up with that on its own? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  • EDIT: I saw the report. I don't think it actually said that, but it had a wreckage map showing the plane pieces scattered around. That and the recorder stopped at around 8,000 feet. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead paragraph, grammar

From what I notice on other accident flight articles, the leads reflect that the flight number is actually a route, and on X particular day Y particular aircraft had Z occur. Should I ask Wikiproject Aviation about this? I think there's a preference to use the style that I used.

Also, I thought that all (or as many as possible) sentences in a formal English paper use active voice, and that passive voice is almost never used. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the lead, it was improper English with that semi-colon, which I fixed. Regarding the passive voice, despite what some people say, it is perfectly valid to use, especially where the object is in focus. In fact, using active in such cases is awkward. Please feel free to ask others. Crum375 (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, regarding the use of "Flight X" as the article subject: in Wikipedia accident articles, as in aviation safety reports in general, "Flight X" refers to a specific aircraft, crew and passengers. In airline logistics and dispatching, "Flight X" is a route, time, and "equipment". Crum375 (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the Comair 191 intro is different I asked on the Wikiproject page to see which intro is better. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation WhisperToMe (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I see that discussion. I don't think there is any clear consensus there, and even if there is, it would not be at a policy level — even the MOS is only a suggested guideline. In WP we need to follow our sources, and in aviation safety articles, the air traffic control terminology is normally used, where "Flight X" refers to the aircraft. I don't think it makes sense for Wikipedia to invent its own terminology for aviation safety or accidents. Crum375 (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anynobody's models for the Gol 1907 and TAM 3054 planes

Here are Anynobody's models for the planes: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Anypreview.png WhisperToMe (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)