Talk:Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

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.

Suggestions

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)
  • Fair enough. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 01:13, 25 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)

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)

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.

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)

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.

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)

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)

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."

External links

• Sao Jose dos Campos Airport and Embraer plant (Legacy departure) from Google Maps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdruvss (talk • contribs) 18:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

CENIPA and NTSB final reports

These have just come out, and although they concur on most of the factual findings, they differ considerably on the bottom line probable cause(s) and contributing factors. The CENIPA does not have a probable cause section — only "conclusions", which reiterates many of the finding. CENIPA essentially concludes that there were many contributors to the accident, including errors by the air traffic controllers, the Embraer pilots, and various organizations. The NTSB effectively disputes many of the CENIPA conclusions and focuses almost exclusively on errors by the air traffic control system and personnel.
Given WP's NPOV, BLP and V policies, we need to tread very carefully here. I suggest we focus on the highest quality sources. Since the two best sources, CENIPA and NTSB, are in conflict, I suggest we rely on high quality secondary sources (e.g. aviation safety publications) interpreting the differences for us. We should stay away from lower quality publications, like newspapers, with nationalistic agendas. The higher quality secondary sources should (by definition) include the divergent CENIPA and NTSB viewpoints and compare them objectively for us. Crum375 (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

FA effort

I think this article would be a good candidate for FA status. Suggestions of how to improve it for that would be most welcome. Crum375 (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Joe Sharkey's blog

Joe Sharkey, the NYT journalist who was a passenger on the Legacy, has posted numerous entries in his blog about the accident, including this recent one. My opinion is that, despite the fact that WP policy arguably allows its inclusion (he's an eyewitness, he is an otherwise respected published journalist), we should refrain from including it, to help maintain NPOV. As we agreed two years ago on this page, right after the accident, I believe we should do our best to focus on the official experts, e.g. NTSB and CENIPA. When those disagree, then we should use the best possible sources which interpret the disagreement among the official experts, and in my opinion those should be published articles in mainstream media, with emphasis on aviation safety oriented publications. There is a lot of derogatory material and accusations published and posted about both sides, and we should do our very best, per NPOV and V, to focus only on the top level sources and avoid the rest. Crum375 (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources and FAC

I was asked to pop over here and look at the sourcing on the article with an eye towards a possible FAC. However, the first thing you'll need to do is clean them up. Websites need to give a title, publisher of the site, and a last access date, at the very least. It's very helpful if the names of publishers are spelled out in full, rather than abbreviated. Newspapers/magazine titles should be in italics. (This makes it easier to tell they ARE newpapers/magazines). I suggest that you look into using the {{#tag:ref|(notes)|group=notes}} function for your explanatory notes, to separate them out from the sourcing footnotes. Some other suggestions, not related to sources, are that you combine the large number of short stumpy paragraphs into a smaller number of fuller paragraphs. Short, choppy paragraphs are hard to read, and make it harder on the reader to keep their place. Hope this helps. Let me know when you have the references straightened out and I'll revisit. (Note I'm not watchlisting this article, so you'll have to ping me again on my talk page.) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have separated the explanatory notes from the references per your suggestion. I have converted all references into a common (brief) style, using citation templates. Since there are a lot of references, which leads to a lot of scrolling, I decided to use the short names for most publishers, but have wiki-linked the ones notable enough to have an article with their full name, so hopefully this will help readers who are not sure, since they will see the full name when their mouse hovers over the link. I have combined many short paragraphs, but I feel that, in some cases, it can make the material harder to follow, since there are important details which can get lost when inside a single paragraph, or an important time-line which can get squashed. But feel free to combine anything which you think makes sense. Crum375 (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments by User:Fvasconcellos

(copied from talk page)

OK, just a few comments to get you started :) I apologize for the delay, but I've been dealing with some RL issues and my involvement here has been pretty limited.

• Most of the citations are poorly formatted. Many are missing essential information such as author, date, access date, and publisher, and some (such as refs 3 and 4) are completely "bare". In the more comprehensive ones, there are some inconsistencies in author presentation (Lastname, Firstname vs. Firstname Lastname) and date formatting (YYYY-MM-DD vs. Month Day, Year) and date linking.

• I have overhauled the citations into a common (brief) style (see my reply above to Ealdgyth).

• The "Investigation" section is very jargon-heavy. What does "squawk ident" mean, and how does that ATC exchange "confirm" the Legacy's altitude clearance? Perhaps a link or footnote would be useful.

• I added a lot of explanatory notes, per your suggestion. If you think any more are needed, please let me know.

• Speaking of notes, it would be better to separate footnotes (such as note 13) from references. See Richard Hawes for an example of how to mix {{ref}} and Cite.php.

• I agree, and have done that, using the explanatory note template suggested above by Ealdgyth.

• The images are all right-aligned and are concentrated very heavily at the beginning of the article. Can't we move any images to the bottom sections?

• I tried my best to alternate sides, given the various constraints, esp. at different font sizes. There is still some non-image space at the bottom, but I have no image which would make sense there. If you can think of anything, please let me know.

• In the "Search and recovery operation" section: "The recovery teams spent nearly seven weeks, working intensively in an extremely harsh jungle environment, painstakingly searching for and identifying the victims' remains." May come across as peacocky—way too many adjectives and not really descriptive.

• I agree and have toned down the language.

Addressing these would be a good start. Would you like me to place any further comments at the article Talk page? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• I moved your comments here for convenience. Thanks for all the suggestions. Crum375 (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Post-FAC suggestions

I've had a go at making several edits myself, but there were a few I wanted to list here for consideration:

• "... they were cleared by air traffic control (ATC) to FL370 for the entire trip, all the way to Manaus." Would it change the meaning just to write "for the entire trip to Manaus"?

• Not by much. The "all the way" was added for emphasis, since this point was (arguably) the key to the entire accident, but it can be dropped if you feel it's excessive. Crum375 (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• "... and disappeared completely from the radar screen by 16:38, eight minutes later." Is that last clause necessary? It's evidently eight minutes later, as you've just specified 16:30.

• I felt that a typical reader hates doing math, esp. with time, and the time here adds perspective. But this too can be dropped if you feel it's detrimental. Crum375 (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• The "Search and recovery operation" section includes a couple mentions of harsh jungle conditions. Do the sources give any sense of what the conditions were, aside from dense forest? This information would make a good addition to that section.

• Yes, they do -- heat, humidity, dense brush, insects, etc. I'll see if I can find a good source and add it. Crum375 (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

--Andy Walsh (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your edits and comments. Crum375 (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The first two, I wouldn't change, now that I read your rationales. Thanks for the responses. --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • A lot of the original news sources are hard to access now, either gone or in some subscription required site, and I can't find where I read about the specific conditions at the recovery scene, such as high temperatures, although sources say it was "extremely" difficult. So I have removed mention of the "harsh" conditions for now, pending discovery of appropriate sources. If there is anything else you can think of, please let me know. Crum375 (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Relevant omissions in this article

• Applicable airspace rules:
  “1.1 The RVSM airspace include all flight levels between FL 290 and FL 410, inclusive, in Amazônica, Brasília, Curitiba, Recife FIRs. In Atlantico FIR, the RVSM airspace will be implemented to the northwest of the line joining the coordinates 01° 39’ 32” S / 030° 13’ 45” W and 02° 23’ 39” N / 027° 48’ 58” W.
  Note: Concerning RVSM in Atlântico FIR, see Chapter ENR 3.5, AIP BRASIL.
  1.2 Except those cases provided in the Enroute Charts to keep flight level continuity in some airway, the Cruising Levels to be used in the RVSM airspace will be those stated in the table below:
  Magnetic course from 000º to 179º - FL 290, FL 310, FL 330, FL 350, FL 370, FL 390, FL 410.
  Magnetic course from 180º to 359º - FL 300, FL 320, FL 340, FL 360, FL 380, FL 400.”
  (ANNEX to AIP Supplement A045/05, Page 1.8).
  Note: S.Jose dos Campos to Brasilia magnetic course: 006º. Brasilia to Manaus magnetic course: 335º.
• Rules applied to ATC clearance that places the aircraft in jeopardy:
  “Pilots should also request clarification or amendment, as appropriate, any time a clearance is not fully understood or considered unacceptable because of safety of flight. The pilot is responsible for requesting an amended clearance if ATC issues a clearance that would cause a pilot to deviate from a rule or regulation or would place the aircraft in jeopardy” (FAA Instrument Flight Handbook, Page 10-4).
  This is the main issue that NTSB and CENIPA disagree. CENIPA believes that the crew shouldn’t have accepted the FL 370 clearance from Brasilia to Manaus because it violates airspace rules and NTSB believes this should not be a pilot concern.
  CENIPA says: “It must have had bigger attention to the flight plan to be presented and with vertical and lateral navigation to be carried through, since it had concern with the fuel and the Amazon region that would possibly be flied over in the nocturnal period. (...) was evident the lack of specific guidance from their company a systematic procedures to be fulfilled by their pilots in preparation of an international flight. The PIC took the decisions in that the situation would take place without following any pattern previously established operational. The pilots took the most decisions following its ‘background’ and in accordance with the progress of facts, which contributed to that were not adequately covered all verification, preparation and care that required the implementation of this flight. Even considering the different versions on the times and that preparations before the flight, he saw that the pilots were not sufficiently systematic and not planned properly the tasks they should undertake personally” (CENIPA report, page 92).
  NTSB says: “Beginning on page 92 and recurring throughout the report are numerous passages and citations of events that are associated with the flight crew of N600XL not being aware of the elements of the flight plan, an unusually short time elapsing between the obtainment of the printed flight plan and the departure, or the crew having an unusually short period of time to prepare for the flight. These items appear to be partly in support of paragraph (e) on page 264 of the report, which indicates, ‘Planning – a contributor.’ We do not agree that the analysis is sufficient to support any deficiency in the conduct of the flight, which can be related to planning. The crew flew the route precisely as cleared and complied with all ATC instructions. The crew’s awareness of their current altitude and its relation to the hemispheric convention applicable to the course of flight north of Brasilia is entirely independent of the requested level in the flight plan” (NTSB Detailed Comments, page 5). Not true as we saw reading applicable airspace rules.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdruvss (talk • contribs) 17:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: Sdruvss was confirmed to be the sockmaster of Herbmartin, Lmc9 and Wiki2wk who have all posted on this talk page. See: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sdruvss
Crum375 (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: I confirm all I wrote. "Now every one who, in the domain of ideas, brings his stone by pointing out an abuse, or setting a mark on some evil that it may be removed--every such man is stigmatized as immoral" (Balzac). XX Sdruvss 16:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• I am not sure I follow this. It sounds like you are trying to analyze or interpret primary material, which would be original research unless referenced to a specific reliable source that makes that same interpretation for you. Ideally, in a controversial case as this, it should be a high caliber mainstream publication. More specifically, in the final report section we present the (somewhat conflicting) CENIPA and NTSB conclusions, and in this section we try to highlight the differences between CENIPA and NTSB conclusions, as interpreted by reliable sources. Crum375 (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• I am not trying to analyze or interpret primary material, but (1) I believe that this article omits applied airspace rules where this accident took place. As it is written, it seems that it is an ordinary issue an aircraft fly at FL370 from Brasilia to Manaus, and it is not. This issue should be highlighted. This is the first mid-air collision of aviation history in which both aircraft were in the same airway. Aircrafts fly safely over oceans and deserts where there is not radar or radio coverage because there are rules to be followed. Which are these rules? This is not primary material interpretation. (2) I think that could be better highlighted why NTSB and CENIPA disagree, and as both reports are published, it is just a matter of reading them and to highlight the differences. This is not interpretation. This article just states: "The CENIPA report concludes the accident was caused by mistakes made both by air traffic controllers and by the Embraer pilots, whereas the NTSB focuses on the controllers and the ATC system, concluding that both flight crews acted properly but were placed on a collision course by the air traffic controllers". This is not "conflicting" conclusions. CENIPA says causes are "X" and "Y", and then it is said that NTSB has focus on "Y". It must be highlighted which mistakes CENIPA says were made by pilots that NTSB says they didn't made. We read this article and we don't know which were the pilot's mistakes pointed by CENIPA that NTSB disagrees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdruvss (talk • contribs) 00:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your point about the use of FL370 from Brasilia to Manaos, the issue was not whether this was routine or not, but whether the Embraer crew should have followed their last ATC clearance or not. The article currently states that "CENIPA concluded that the Embraer pilots also contributed to the accident with, among others, their failure to recognize that their transponder was inadvertently switched off, thereby disabling the collision avoidance system on both aircraft, as well as their overall insufficient training and preparation." Note that CENIPA did not conclude (and neither did NTSB) that the Embraer pilots should have deviated from their last assigned altitude clearance, which is what you are suggesting above.

Regarding your point about readers not knowing "which were the pilot's mistakes pointed by CENIPA that NTSB disagrees," the article lists the key mistakes which CENIPA attributed to the Embraer pilots, and then says that NTSB disagreed with CENIPA that mistakes were made by the pilots, concluding that "both flight crews acted properly but were placed on a collision course by the air traffic controllers." So your "X-Y" analogy should be: CENIPA said controllers were at fault (X), and so were the Embraer pilots (Y), and while NTSB agreed with CENIPA about X, it disagreed about Y ("both flight crews acted properly"). This is made clear in the Final reports section. If you can suggest a better wording, please post here your proposed language. Crum375 (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Crum, you said “Note that CENIPA did not conclude (and neither did NTSB) that the Embraer pilots should have deviated from their last assigned altitude clearance, which is what you are suggesting above”. Neither I am suggesting what you said, neither is this the issue. My comment has the meaning that this article should better highlight which are conflicting conclusions of CENIPA and NTSB. It seams to me that it is enough to read both reports, and this is not interpretation.

One conflicting conclusion, for instance, is what CENIPA says about pre-flight preparation and what NTSB says:

1. “The non-elaboration of an adequate planning of the flight, a behavior that was influenced by the habitual procedure of the company, an aspect not favorable for the construction of a mental model to guide the conduction of the flight” (CENIPA, p. 259).

2. “There are numerous situations recorded in the CVR showing the lack of an adequate concern of the crew with details of the pre-flight planning. An example was that only in flight did they learn of NOTAM of SBEG containing information about the reduction of the runway length available. This fact, added to the little familiarization of the pilots with the fuel system and with the aircraft weight and balance calculations, favored the deviation of their attention, during the flight, from the aspects relative to the operation of the aircraft, allowing the nonfunctioning of the Transponder and TCAS to go by unperceived” (CENIPA, p.264).

3. “When, at an interview, the crew was asked about having entered a wrong flight level for the heading they were flying, they said it is not uncommon to receive non-standard levels from the air traffic control. According to them, they were flying en route, under radar contact, and did not receive any instruction from the control unit whose frequency they were monitoring” (CENIPA, p.210). I wish to highlight “wrong flight level”, not mentioned in this article.

NTSB says about pre-flight preparation:

1. “We do not agree that the analysis is sufficient to support any deficiency in the conduct of the flight, which can be related to planning. The crew flew the route precisely as cleared and complied with all ATC instructions. The crew’s awareness of their current altitude and its relation to the hemispheric convention applicable to the course of flight north of Brasilia is entirely independent of the requested level in the flight plan. Therefore, we do not fully concur with contributor (e) and the citations in the report leading to it” (NTSB, p.5).

CENIPA doesn’t say that the crew didn’t fly the route precisely as cleared and complied with ATC instructions in any point of their report, CENIPA says that the non-elaboration of an adequate planning of the flight did not promote the “construction of a mental model to guide the conduction of the flight” and this made the crew to not perceive that they were entering a “wrong flight level for the heading”.

So this is one of the conflicting points that this article could explain. CENIPA says that crew should pre-plan a “mental model of the flight” and its lack “favored the deviation of their attention during the flight”. NTSB, by their side, says that it doesn’t matter since crew follows the clearance.

There are more conflicting conclusions that it is enough to read both reports to point them (without interpretations) and should be listed in this article, and not just say the conclusions are conflicting. The way is written here, CENIPA points the mistake and NTSB just disagrees. Why they disagree? NTSB says it was not a mistake? No, NTSB says it didn't contribute to accident, what is different. I will try to post here to your appreciation. Sdruvss (talk) 12:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The CENIPA and NTSB reports are long and detailed. For this article, we need to summarize the contents of their conclusions in a "top down" approach, where we focus on the most critical points for both reports. The ideal way to do it, and the way it's normally done in Wikipedia aviation accidents, is by relying on the "probable cause" statements (PCS). This case is a bit unusual, in that while the NTSB did issue a PCS, CENIPA, which was the lead investigative agency, did not. CENIPA only has a long "conclusions" section in its report, which is not in a brief and tightly focused PCS format. So it makes the job harder for us as editors, since we have to create a short and neutral summary of the CENIPA conclusion section without the benefit of their own PCS.

We do have numerous reliable secondary sources which do the summarizing, and the current article reflects those sources, in combination with the CENIPA report itself. A note about "reliable sources": since this was a very contentious and highly politicized accident, we decided early on to try to rely on CENIPA and NTSB as our best sources. But since CENIPA has no PCS, we need to rely on additional secondary sources to summarize CENIPA's conclusions for us, and those sources should be the highest quality aviation publications, if possible.
If you feel that there is some key point missing from the article, which is described in the CENIPA conclusions section and highlighted by highest quality reliable secondary sources, then please identify the specifics (including link to the secondary source(s)), and we can discuss it. Note that per WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:SYN and WP:V we must rely on the reliable secondary sources to prioritize the key points for us. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Dear Crum, I’m trying to correct Wikipedia that interprets CENIPA and NTSB reports, changing their meaning. There is a topic here saying reports are conflicting. There are secondary sources referenced here that say they are conflicting. It seems that these people didn’t read both reports, so these people, including Wikipedia, are inferring by themselves. I’m concerning about this specific Wikipedia statement: “While agreeing on most basic facts and findings, CENIPA and NTSB, which collaborated in the accident investigation, arrived at disagreeing interpretations and conclusions. The CENIPA report concludes the accident was caused by mistakes made both by air traffic controllers and by the Embraer pilots, whereas the NTSB focuses on the controllers and the ATC system, concluding that both flight crews acted properly but were placed on a collision course by the air traffic controllers”. Please, justify why this is “conflicting conclusions” and not complementary or not just emphasis in casual factors. These cause factors are not mutually exclusive. Please, justify pointing where in NTSB report is said that they disagree with CENIPA. On the contrary, NTSB is clear when saying “However, to clearly define the causal factors of this accident, each of the ATC issues described in the report should be fully analyzed, lead to specific findings of risk, and support the probable cause” (NTSB, p.1). Which ATC issue was not fully analyzed by CENIPA and which of them NTSB says CENIPA is wrong? NTSB doesn’t say, they repeat CENIPA analysis. The only statement that NTSB clearly says they don’t agree with CENIPA is “We do not agree that the analysis is sufficient to support any deficiency in the conduct of the flight, which can be related to planning. The crew flew the route precisely as cleared and complied with all ATC instructions” (NTSB, p.5). So one can conclude from this statement if crew flies the route precisely as cleared and complied with all ATC, crew doesn’t commit any mistake. I think there is a logical issue in this statement because there are a lot of more mistakes besides conducting the fly, but this is not to dispute here. The point is: Wikipedia says NTSB disagrees with CENIPA, and I have read many times NTSB report and I didn’t find this statement. So I ask to Wikipedia to quote what NTSB disagrees with CENIPA, or Wikipedia would be making a wrong citation. Sdruvss (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
• I would write about final reports in a more objective way, as: "Final reports from CENIPA and NTSB differently emphasize causal factors, although both agree with each other in respect of all facts and events. CENIPA says that major event that led to accident was the turning off of transponder, which brings by consequence ATC losing control of Legacy altitude. NTSB put emphasis on the incapacity of ATC recover from a missing transponder signal. Both agree that there are a lot of failures of both sides that have contributed to the accident. Both agree that ATC have not taken the proper actions to recover transponder signal and that the crew was distracted when transponder turned off". Both agree that crew has conducted the flight as they were instructed to. Sdruvss (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood my message above. You say you want to write about the "final reports in a more objective way." But as I tried to explain, per our sourcing policies, we can't just take a large number of findings and create "an objective summary" on our own, because it would mean that we, as Wikipedians, have chosen to highlight specific aspects and a specific subset of the detailed reports and conclusions of the two agencies. So to summarize those conclusions, and to compare and contrast the two reports and highlight the conflict between them, we need a third party reliable source doing it for us. There are several high quality secondary sources cited in the article which support the current version, such as Aviation Week ("Brazil Air Force, NTSB Spar on Midair Causes"), and The New York Times ("Brazil Lays Some Blame on U.S. Pilots in Collision"). If you'd like to modify the current version, you need to cite specific secondary sources of the same high caliber which support your changes. Note that the investigative reports themselves are essentially primary sources. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Crum, You may have misunderstood my message above. Wikipedia and those "reliable" sources (magazines) say CENIPA and NTSB disagree. This is false. Aviation Week say in their article "Notably, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) strongly disagreed with the Brazilian conclusions regarding the Legacy pilots' actions as a causal factor, noting, 'The crew flew the route precisely as cleared and complied with all ATC instructions,' as did the GOL airlines crew". CENIPA agrees with this statement that the crew flew the route precisely as cleared since there is nothing in their report that contradicts it. New York Times, say "But a dissenting report by the United States National Transportation Safety Board on Wednesday put the main responsibility on the Brazilian air traffic control system". This is false and impossible. “The sole objective of the investigation of an accident or incident shall be the prevention of accidents and incidents. It is not the purpose of this activity to apportion blame or liability” (ICAO, Annex 13). Therefore, NTSB don't apportion blame, liability or "put the main responsibility" as said by New York Times. Consequently, Aviation Week and New York Times are not reliable sources, and Wikipedia should keep only CENIPA and NTSB as reliable source. If you don't have a reliable source, Wikipedia should not include those unreliable sources. If Aviation Week, New York Times and Wikipedia are not able to prove they disagree, Wikipedia should not afirm they disagree. Regards.

PS: I said "I would write [if I were Wikipedia]", I didn't say "I want to write...". Sdruvss (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sdruvss, I realize you don't edit WP much, but I think you would find it helpful to read some of our key content policies, specifically WP:V and WP:NOR. You have a few misconceptions, which are not uncommon, and I can try to summarize them here. Here is what WP:V says: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. What this means is that WP's mission is not to dig out the truth and expose it to the world. WP is a "tertiary source", which means that what we do is collect and summarize information about notable subjects from reliable published sources. Our best sources are reputable mainstream publications, like Aviation Week, and New York Times, which are some of the secondary sources relied upon for this article. That you, as an anonymous person with no established professional credentials (like all WP editors) disagree with the NYT's conclusions, does not mean it stops being a reliable source. If you were a world renowned expert on aviation safety, and authored an article in a prestigious and reputable aviation safety publication, you could then link to it, and we could (in principle) include your conclusions in the article. But to just say "I, an anonymous WP editor, disagree with the NYT's and Aviation Week's conclusions therefore they are wrong and unreliable" has no impact whatsoever on the reliability of these sources. As I noted above, if you do find other reliable secondary sources, of the same caliber as the sources we currently use, which support your interpretations, please provide links to them and we may be able to use them. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Crum, don't mind; let it be. It was my intention to alert you, as editor, that those interpretations of unreliable sources are incorrect if we face them with reliable sources. Our debate is so bizarre because what I am saying is that WP should be supported by reliable sources as NTSB and then you answer that WP have to use unreliable sources as magazines (AW) and newspapers (NYT) to "interpret" reliable sources (NTSB). This is a nonsense discussion, reliable sources don't need interpretations or summarizations of unreliable sources, and it is just a matter of quoting reliable sources. The positive side of this discussion is to show how unreliable is WP, and alert readers that many of their editors don't follow scientific research procedures defended by WP. Regards.

PS: By the way, I ever alert my students, when they write an article to scientific journals not to do what is done here: to quote unreliable sources assuring that a reliable source said something that they didn't. This is a very common mistake.Sdruvss (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sdruvss, you imply you are a teacher, which is a very important job. I doubt you'd listen to my recommendations, but here is what I suggest you tell your students:

• Wikipedia is not a journal; it is a "tertiary" source which summarizes (with citations) other published sources which are considered reliable by a consensus of editors

(Everybody knows it, even an elementary grade student knows it. Sdruvss (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC))

• Wikipedia relies on specific policies to determine the content of its articles; for example, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:SYN

(You should follow them. Sdruvss (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC))

• The above mentioned policies make a distinction between "primary" sources, such as scientific or investigative reports (e.g. an accident investigation), and "secondary" sources — published documents which analyze and interpret primary sources

(Everybody knows it. Sdruvss (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC))

• WP's sourcing policies strictly prohibit editors from taking primary sources and analyzing, interpreting, contrasting or comparing them, or even selecting subsets for quotation, which can be used to advance a particular point of view, unless they can cite published reliable secondary sources which include those interpretations and promote the same view

(Primary reliable sources should not be interpreted, only used in citations. Sdruvss (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC))

• The ideal WP article relies on secondary sources to analyze primary sources, although the primary sources may also be presented alongside, to add details and perspective

(Secondary sources should not be used to analyze primary sources if secondary sources are not reliable as primary sources. Secondary sources should only be used if we don't have information from a primary source, this is not the specific subject in debate. This is not a scientific procedure. Sdruvss (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC))

Sdruvss: Wikipedia:Primary_sources#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources says "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." - Wikipedia's policy is very clear. And if you feel some secondary sources are not reliable, which ones, and why? This article recently passed the FA process, so I'm doubtful that we have any non-reliable secondary sources cited. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

WhisperToMe: My point is clear. Wikipedia cites Aviation Week and New York Times (unreliable secondary sources) saying that NTSB (primary reliable source) disagrees from CENIPA. Anyone can read NTSB report and say this is not true. NTSB is clear in their statement: "In summary, the team has no substantial disagreement with the facts gathered and discussed in this [CENIPA] report and generally concurs that the safety issues involved in this accident are related to ATC, operational factors, and the loss of in-flight collision avoidance technology. However, the interpretations, conclusions, and understandings of the relationship between certain factual items and the demonstrated risk differ in a number of respects" (NTSB, Appendix 1, p.2). "This investigation has identified many safety issues for ATC operations, but these issues need to be further highlighted" (NTSB, Appendix 2, p.2). It's absolutely clear that that there are not "substantial disagreement" and is just a matter of "risk" valuation and issues that should be "highlighted". NTSB highlights issues reported in CENIPA report, so how can one say they disagree? Sdruvss (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Now, let me be more specific about this article. I agree with you fully that the NTSB and CENIPA reports are highly reliable sources. Nobody doubts that. But they are (essentially) primary sources, which we may not interpret without violating WP:NOR. So to do the interpretation we need to enlist secondary sources, of the best possible caliber, such as NYT and Aviation Week. As I noted several times above, if you have other secondary sources which are of the same (or better) caliber, which analyze, compare and contrast the NTSB and CENIPA reports, please let us have them and we may be able to incorporate what they say into the article. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems you don't read what I write: You SHOULD NOT interpret primary sources, specially RECURRING to secondary sources to interpret them. If you want to say NTSB doesn't agree with CENIPA you should make a citation of NTSB saying "We NTSB don't agree with CENIPA about X, Y, Z (NTSB,p.xxxx)" instead of saying that "Aviation Week magazine says NTSB doesn't agree with CENIPA about X, Y, Z (AW, p.xxxx)". Is this clear? Sdruvss (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sdruvss, I do read what you are saying, but what you are saying is neither what Wikipedia policies say, nor the way we edit Wikipedia. If you'd like to change Wikipedia, the way to do that is by posting your suggestions on the policy talk pages, and trying to get the policies modified. If would help you a lot if you started editing other topics, to get some experience and perspective. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Crums: sorry, but as you can see, I am a headstrong guy. What I am saying is what Wikipedia policies say. I don't want to change Wikipedia policies, they are perfect the way they are. I repeat: the editors of this article are not following WP policies. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed". When you say NTSB disagrees from CENIPA, this material is not verifiable. We may read NTSB report and they say "In summary, the team has no substantial disagreement with the facts gathered and discussed in this [CENIPA] report". If a secondary source affirms that a primary source says something, the primary source must be verifiable and not if the secondary source is verifiable. I am saying that you are against WP policies and not me. Sdruvss (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Being headstrong is not always bad, I have been described that way too. You say that "when you say NTSB disagrees from CENIPA, this material is not verifiable", i.e. you imply we have no reliable source saying that the CENIPA and NTSB reports disagree in their conclusions. So how would you characterize these statements:

• Brazil Air Force, NTSB Spar on Midair Causes
• Notably, the (NTSB) strongly disagreed with the Brazilian conclusions regarding the Legacy pilots' actions as a causal factor
• (CENIPA) report put part of the blame on the American pilots ... But a dissenting report by (the NTSB) put the main responsibility on the Brazilian air traffic control system

These sources from mainstream highly respected publications interpert the NTSB and CENIPA reports (which are highly reliable primary sources), and clearly tell us there was significant disagreement between those reports on whether the Embraer pilots had any blame in the accident. While CENIPA says they had at least partial blame, NTSB tells us they acted properly, "(NTSB) strongly disagreed with the Brazilian conclusions regarding the Legacy pilots' actions as a causal factor, noting, 'The crew flew the route precisely as cleared and complied with all ATC instructions,' as did the GOL airlines crew."[17]

So you either have to argue that these sources are unreliable or unverifiable, or just ignore them. If it's the latter, you'd be going against our content policies, while if it's the former, you'd have to convince a consensus of Wikipedia editors that The New York Times and Aviation Week are not verifiable or reliable sources, and that your own personal analysis and comparison of the NTSB and CENIPA reports is better. I think this will be a very hard, if not impossible task, even for a "headstrong person". Crum375 (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

:Let’s read your “reliable sources”.

Aviation Week says: “Draft final report by Brazilian Air Force investigators released yesterday on the Sept. 29, 2006 in-flight collision over the Amazon of an Embraer Legacy 600 owned by ExcelAire of Ronkonkoma, N.Y., and a GOL Boeing 737 placed the blame for the accident, which killed all 154 persons aboard the Boeing, on U.S. Legacy pilots Joseph Lepore and Jan Paladino and Brazilian air traffic controllers.”

1. This comment is about a “draft final report”, and there is a final report. Thereof, we should discard this article because it was superseded, and NTSB comments were about “draft final report”. Final report was amended by many NTSB comments.

2. AW says “placed the blame”, and ICAO ANNEX 13 literally says: “The sole objective of the investigation of an accident or incident shall be the prevention of accidents and incidents. It is not the purpose of this activity to apportion blame or liability”. So, neither CENIPA, nor NTSB place blame in anybody. It’s impossible to find a single world in CENIPA report or in NTSB report placing blame.

New York Times says: “A Brazilian report issued Wednesday on the collision of an American-owned business jet and a Brazilian Boeing 737 airliner over the Amazon in September 2006 put part of the blame on the American pilots for apparently turning off cockpit equipment meant to alert other planes to its presence. But a dissenting report by the United States National Transportation Safety Board on Wednesday put the main responsibility on the Brazilian air traffic control system”.

1. NYT uses the same phrase as AW: “put part of the blame” (remember Annex 13). If the objective of investigation is not to apportion blame, how CENIPA or NTSB “put part of the blame” as NYT says?

2. NYT makes a correct lecture of reports saying: “American apparently turned off cockpit equipment” and then connecting with a “but” says that NTSB put the main responsibility on Brazilian ATC. These are two disconnected affirmatives. One is how transponder was turned off, and the other is incomprehensible. Responsibilities of what? Of turning off transponder?

3. NYT uses the expression “dissenting report”, but NTSB says “The U.S. investigative team’s comments are submitted to CENIPA pursuant to section 6.3 of Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation”. Section 6.3 of Annex 13 says “The draft Final Report of the investigation shall be sent for comments to: a) the State of Registry; b) the State of the Operator; c) the State of Design; and d) the State of Manufacture. If the State conducting the investigation receives comments within sixty days of the date of the transmittal letter, it shall either amend the draft Final Report to include the substance of the comments received or, if desired by the State that provided comments, append the comments to the Final Report”. Thereof, it was not a “dissenting report”, but just comments to CENIPA’s report as Annex 13 prescribes.

Conclusion: Neither Aviation Week, nor NYT statements are verifiable facing NTSB and CENIPA reports. They interpret NTSB in a way that is not verifiable and worse, are opposites of the primary source. WP policies say that material should be verifiable and from reliable sources. Indeed, we can verify that AW and NYT effectively say what WP states they say, but what AW and NYT say are not verifiable, so they can’t be considered reliable sources. The editors here commit several mistakes facing WP policies: 1) First, they are supported on an unreliable secondary source when there is a primary reliable source that contradicts secondary source; 2) Second, WP editors use a secondary source to publish what a primary source would have said instead of what the primary source said; 2) Third, they transfer the verifying responsibility of the material to an unreliable source. The result is the same, published material that is not verifiable. WP editors use this trick: “A” (reliable source) says “X” and then “B” (unreliable source) says that “A” says “Y” (where X<>Y). Then WP editors publishes that “A” says “Y”. This is a very clever strategy, I admire you. Every time we face a reliable primary source that doesn’t say what we want, we find a “reliable” secondary source that says that the primary source has said what we want.

PS: The Aviation Week article is posted by Jim Swickard. He has just been invited to visit Embraer, as he says on 9/10/2009, same thing Joe Sharkey did in september, 2006: “I'm off to visit Embraer in Brasil this Sunday. I have no idea what the itinerary is. I do know that BCA Senior Editor Fred George has flown the Phenoms, He has reported the flight control systems innovations that will be featured in the upcoming Legacy 450 and 500. What's left? Plenty. I'll report as I can on site, but for sure when I get back”. And in Aviation Week blog we find: "Did you know that a blogger -- namely Joe Sharkey of The New York Times -- provided thousands around the world an unprecedented, first-hand account of the Sept. 29 midair collision of an Embraer Legacy 600 and a Gol 737-800". Just coincidences that "reliable sources" are Aviation Week and NYT. Sdruvss (talk) 12:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sdruvss, you are still missing the main point. On Wikipedia, verifiable and reliable sources are not (as you seem to think) sources which you as editor believe are accurate or close to the truth. On Wikipedia, "verifiability" simply means that if we say that source X said Y in publication Z, a reader will be able to verify that source X in fact said Y in that publication. "Reliable" sources for Wikipedia purposes are sources which appear in respectable mainstream publications, or other publications which have independent editorial oversight. Both Aviation Week and The New York Times meet these criteria and are verifiable and reliable secondary sources, regardless of whether you personally agree with what they say. The NTSB and CENIPA reports are essentially primary sources which we may not interpret ourselves, as you seem to be doing. Crum375 (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Crum, you are still missing the main point. X said in publication Z that K said Y. Ok, we can verify that. But that K said Y is false, and we can verify that. So, WP is publishing a false statement about what K said. What X said is clearly false.

Warning: Read before you cite!

A cunning statistical study has exposed scientists as sloppy reporters. When they write up their work and cite other people's papers, most do not bother to read the original. The discovery was made by Mikhail Simkin and Vwani Roychowdhury of the University of California, Los Angeles, who study the way information spreads around different kinds of networks. They noticed in a citation database that misprints in references are fairly common, and that a lot of the mistakes are identical. This suggests that many scientists take short cuts, simply copying a reference from someone else's paper rather than reading the original source.

To find out how common this is, Simkin and Roychowdhury looked at citation data for a famous 1973 paper on the structure of two-dimensional crystals. They found it had been cited in other papers 4300 times, with 196 citations containing misprints in the volume, page or year. But despite the fact that a billion different versions of erroneous reference are possible, they counted only 45. The most popular mistake appeared 78 times. The pattern suggests that 45 scientists, who might well have read the paper, made an error when they cited it. Then 151 others copied their misprints without reading the original. So for at least 77 per cent of the 196 misprinted citations, no one read the paper.

SIMKIN, M.V., ROYCHOWDHURY, Read before you cite! Complex Syst. 14 (2003) 269-274.

Crum, this is a very easy issue to be solved. If NTSB disagrees from CENIPA, it will not be too difficult to find just one phrase in NTSB comment that they substantially disagree from CENIPA. Cite here, please. Sdruvss (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, Sdruvss, but you are still not getting it. There is no such concept on WP as a "false" statement by a source; we don't judge the "truth" or "falsehood" of sources, only their verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." It seems that you are simply ignoring this crucial point, which strictly controls WP's content. Perhaps you should post a question on WT:V, to see if you can garner support for your view that if a source publishes what you consider to be false statements, they are no longer a reliable or verifiable source for Wikipedia. Crum375 (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Crums, Wikipedia says in “Conflicting Conclusions”:

• “While agreeing on most basic facts and findings, CENIPA and NTSB, which collaborated in the accident investigation, arrived at disagreeing interpretations and conclusions”. This is false, we cannot verify. If you want to make up a story that CENIPA and NTSB disagrees, you should start this sentence with “According to Aviation Week, while agreeing...”. Then, it would be verifiable, and you would be right.
• “The CENIPA report concludes the accident was caused by mistakes made both by air traffic controllers and by the Embraer pilots, whereas the NTSB focuses on the controllers and the ATC system, concluding that both flight crews acted properly but were placed on a collision course by the air traffic controllers.” This is not conflicting conclusions and interpretations, note the connector “whereas” and the word “focuses”. If someone says sky is blue and another say ocean is blue, this is not conflicting conclusions. We still can conclude that sky is blue AND ocean is blue. It’s not because ocean is blue, that sky is not blue.
• “According to Aviation Week, "the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) strongly disagreed with the Brazilian conclusions regarding the Legacy pilots' actions as a causal factor, ...”. This is true because it begins with “According to Aviation Week...”
• “... noting, 'The crew flew the route precisely as cleared and complied with all ATC instructions,' as did the GOL airlines crew." This observation is not conflicting with CENIPA report, instead, it is affirmed in CENIPA report that the crew flew according to ATC instructions, but the crew flying according to ATC instructions doesn’t necessarily means that they did not commit other mistakes, as turning off transponder, for instance. Thus, there is no logic in this statement, and I don't understand why WP cites ilogical sentences. But it is ok with WP policies, ilogical statements are not against them, and can be verified. But I think that WP could help us, readers, turning them logical. This is just a suggestion.
• “Aviation Week adds that "the Brazilian military operates that country's air traffic control system, conducted the investigation and authored the report". Why is this phrase included in “Conflicting conclusion”? And why is "Aviation Week" that says that? Everybody knows that Brazilian military operates ATC and conducted the investigation, as everybody knows that in US, the US Departament of Transport through FAA operates ATC and through NTSB conducts aircraft accident investigation. Is there a conspiracy theory that we don’t know? It seems to me that this phrase is out of place, and should be placed elsewhere or should be clearer saying "Aviation Week has a conspiracy theory that...".

Regards. Sdruvss (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that editors here should follow Reliable sources:

• “Quotations should be cited to the original source if possible; when secondary sources are used, those that cite the original source should be preferred over those that don't”.
• “Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion if they lack neutral corroboration”.
• “Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion”.

Sdruvss (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sdruvss, I think/hope that we are finally in agreement that CENIPA and NTSB are excellent high quality reliable primary sources. In order to interpret their conclusions and compare them, we need equally high quality secondary sources. Two such secondary sources currently used for this purpose in the article are Aviation Week and The New York Times. Can you suggest others? Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Crum, this is not my point. I think we don’t have reliable sources to interpret CENIPA and NTSB, and we don’t need them. I think that no one should “interpret their conclusions and compare them”. And what I am saying is not primary research. It would be primary research if you quoted pilots or controllers. NTSB says in so many words why they disagree. We don’t need anybody to say what they said, neither to “interpret them”. They don’t need interpretation, this is nonsense. As ANNEX 13 says, “The sole objective of the investigation of an accident or incident shall be the prevention of accidents and incidents. It is not the purpose of this activity to apportion blame or liability”.
If I were an editor I would keep myself neutral and I would redact final report topic this way:
Final report
NTSB says in their comments of CENIPA draft final report that “[...] the team [NTSB] has no substantial disagreement with the facts gathered and discussed in this report and generally concurs that the safety issues involved in this accident are related to ATC, operational factors, and the loss of in-flight collision avoidance technology. However, the interpretations, conclusions, and understandings of the relationship between certain factual items and the demonstrated risk differ in a number of respects”.
CENIPA points many contributors factors relatively to the crew of the N600XL, as “lack of an adequate planning of the flight, and insufficient knowledge of the flight plan prepared by the Embraer operator; non-execution of a briefing prior to departure; unintentional change of the transponder setting, failure in prioritizing attention; failure in perceiving that the transponder was not transmitting; delay in recognizing the problem of communication with the air traffic control unit; and non-compliance with the procedures prescribed for communications failure”. By other side, NTSB says that “We do not agree that the analysis is sufficient to support any deficiency in the conduct of the flight, which can be related to planning. The crew flew the route precisely as cleared and complied with all ATC instructions”.
NTSB also highlights many ATC mistakes reported by CENIPA, as incomplete flight clearance; diminishing of the situational awareness of controller in relation to the aircraft as the need to change its level, radio frequency and indications for the loss of transponder; and ATC software failures when facing missing transponder signal. NTSB concludes saying “Probable cause - The evidence collected during this investigation strongly supports the conclusion that this accident was caused by N600XL and GOL1907 following ATC clearances which directed them to operate in opposite directions on the same airway at the same altitude resulting in a midair collision”.
Sdruvss (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sdruvss, you are still not getting it. Both the CENIPA and NTSB are primary sources. On WP, we are not allowed to interpret, analyze, compare or even "summarize" primary sources. To create meaningful articles, we strive to rely on secondary sources which interpret primary sources for us. This is what we do here. We use Aviation Week and The New York Times as secondary sources to interpret the NTSB and CENIPA primary sources. Your suggestion above would violate WP:NOR, because it selectively quotes from a primary source. WP articles are based on secondary sources; please provide us high quality secondary sources if you want to analyze, or even selectively quote, primary sources. Crum375 (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Crum, you are messing up things here. Primary sources are sources very close to an event, for example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources on the topic and summarizing their claims in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. A primary source (also called original source) is an artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study. If created by a human source, then a source with direct personal knowledge of the events being described. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. Many sources can be considered either primary or secondary, depending on the context in which they are examined. Moreover, the distinction between primary and secondary sources is subjective and contextual, so that precise definitions are difficult to make. The topic here is the accident, then neither CENIPA nor NTSB are original source of information. The original sources are pilots, controllers and others closer to event. All the accidents described here in WP, summarize and rephrase source material without changing its meaning. You, AW and NYT should not interpret or compare CENIPA and NTSB. Sdruvss (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sdruvss, an accident investigation is no different from a scientific study which investigates some physical phenomenon. It is filled with findings, witness statements, and other types of evidence (or scientific measurements), all leading to a conclusion section. This is a classical primary source, in that it is written by a professional investigator collecting and sifting through evidence, and reaching a conclusion. To present a scientific paper — or an accident investigation — on WP, we need a reliable secondary source, i.e. a source removed from the investigative process and looking at it from a distance, which interprets the results of the investigation for us. If this is not clear in your mind, feel free to ask this question on WT:NOR or WT:V. Crum375 (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Crum, an accident investigation is no different from a scientific study which investigates some physical phenomenon. It is filled with findings, witness statements, and other types of evidence (or scientific measurements) collected from primary sources, all leading to a conclusion section. This is a classical secondary source, in that it is written by a professional investigator collecting and sifting through evidence, applying scientific procedures, and reaching a conclusion. A original scientific paper — not an accident investigation, that was already published — should not be presented on WP, we need a reliable secondary source, i.e. a scientific source that has done the investigative process and is looking at it from a distance, which reports the results of the investigation done by the experts in their fields for us, like NTSB and CENIPA, for instance. Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. WP do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If this is not clear in your mind, feel free to ask this question on WT:NOR or WT:V. Sdruvss (talk) 11:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As you can see in the Unisist Model of Information Dissemination that supports WP, it says that primary sources make “Selection, Production and Distribution” and their product are books and journals (when published) and thesis and reports (not published). In this model the NTSB team of researchers is primary source. As can be noted in the model, secondary sources make Analysis, Storage and Dissemination throughout Libraries, Information Centers and Data Centers. In this model, NTSB Library is the secondary source. They assure primary source intellectual production authenticity. And, as it is absolutely clear in this model, that Tertiary Services make Reviews, Syntheses, etc. Thereof, in this model AW, NYT and WP are all tertiary sources. Secondary sources are not authors. They are intellectual production storage and certifiers. NTSB team of researchers is primary source, their output (report) is disseminated by secondary sources (NTSB organization and library). They attest the origin of the thesis or report. NTSB team is the primary source, NTSB library is the secondary source. I note that you want to be supported by WP policies, but you lack scientific research background behind WP policies. This is not all bad, you can learn. Regards. Sdruvss (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sdruvss, Wikipedia makes its own rules and definitions, all reached by consensus. Although Wikipedia's definitions are related to those used by other publications or organizations, they are specific to WP. So when we call a source "primary", "secondary" or "tertiary", we mean according to Wikipedia's definition. Crum375 (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I’m following this discussion and it is becoming very remarkable, but Crum, the guy has a point, you are crossing the line. He is right. Wiki2wk (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Wiki2wk was confirmed to be a sockpuppet of User:Sdruvss
Crum375 (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: I confirm all I wrote. "Now every one who, in the domain of ideas, brings his stone by pointing out an abuse, or setting a mark on some evil that it may be removed--every such man is stigmatized as immoral" (Balzac). XX Sdruvss 16:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? This IS Wikipedia rules: Primary Source! It may be not what YOU call a source but is what WP and the world call a source. Wikipedia's definition describes exactly what I said. Are you playing with me? This is not funny. Sdruvss (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

To solve this problem I posted Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Gol_Transportes_A.C3.A9reos_Flight_1907 WhisperToMe (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the discussion, so far the only post there is "They're both reliable sources. I don't understand how anyone could possibly claim otherwise. KillerChihuahua" - So unless anyone makes any further comments... WhisperToMe (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)