Talk:2017 Essendon Airport Beechcraft King Air crash

Deleted text

User:Malchemist added the following text:

== ATSB Preliminary Report ==

Investigation number: AO-2017-024

Key points:

• Investigation found no aircraft faults that could have caused crash
• Pilot made mayday call, but voice recorder failed
• Witnesses said take-off took "longer than normal"

File:Https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5772607/ao2017024 figure-1.png

ATSB Reconstructed Flight Path

=== Further investigation === The investigation is continuing and will include:

• examination of both propellers to determine the blade angles at impact, their pre-impact condition and to assess the impact damage
• further examination of a number of retained engine and airframe components
• further interviews with a number of witnesses and involved parties
• further analysis of numerous witness reports
• review of the aircraft’s maintenance and operational records
• review of the meteorological conditions at the time
• review of the approval process for the building that was struck by the aircraft
• analysis of aircraft performance and other operational factors
• review of the pilot’s medical and flying history
• review of the operating processes and approvals
• determining the reasons for the failure of the CVR to record during the accident flight
• further analysis of recorded information, including:

- Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast data - dash camera and other video footage provided by witnesses - closed-circuit television video footage - air traffic control audio recordings.

I took the first section and turned it from a list into prose as per WP:PROSE and retained the reference. I removed the image, since it doesn't exist. I removed the "Further investigation" because it contains no useful information. It is strictly generic and is just a laundry list of things that are examined in every aircraft accident. It adds nothing to the article. I also took the external link included and turned it into a ref, as per WP:EL external links are not used in article text. I also moved the remaining text and refs up into the main body of the article since the additions did not follow the normal format used in aircraft accident articles. In this case there isn't enough information from the accident investigation yet to have a separate "Investigation" section. - Ahunt (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

References

I feel that a list is the most appropriate format for the two groups of data that was added. The original data was in bullet list format and the bullet list enables easy discernment between the items in the list. The length that this might add is the only negative that I can see to doing it. The Manual of Style (MOS) provides for lists under these circumstances.

The image didn't link properly. I must admit I was hoping a more experienced editor might have fixed it but accept that was sloppy. If the image could be fixed, I believe it would aid the understanding of the events of the accident.

Given that the investigation is current and on-going, I feel that the direction that the investigation is taking is informative and pertinent. While some of the items are generic to all air crash investigations, there are quite a few that are specific to this investigation. I had included all the items from the ATSB preliminary report but if you feel that is excessive, perhaps we could direct readers to the report, if they are interested. A reduced list would be irrelevant, this list needs to be all or nothing (nothing being just a link).

The link to the report was referenced already. The inclusion of a link in the section was pertinent given the nature of the section. The inclusion of external links in the body of an article are discouraged but not prohibited in the MOS. If you feel strongly about it, it could be moved to an external links section. My preference (under this specific circumstance) would be to have links in both places.

When I created the "ATSB Preliminary Report" section, there was no other relevant section that could include it. The section could, and maybe should, have been "Investigation" with a sub-section of "Preliminary Report" but that would have been cumbersome at this stage. The official investigation is underway and the reports produced merit inclusion in the article in their own right. At this stage, the hearsay press reports should be deleted or at least clearly shown as conjecture. Evidence given to a government constituted independent board of inquiry is tested and testimony is subject to rules of evidence. To list official reports alongside grabs from witnesses sort out by the media or those seeking to get their fifteen minutes of fame diminishes the value that should be placed on this information. This is the approach that leads to "Fake News". Judicial review or independent boards of inquiry are a step above the other "notable" sources (at least in Australia and, I presume, North America).

I apologise if I have made my response too personal. I appreciate the effort and thought that you have put in and would welcome improvements that you might make to the section/article. Malchemist (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The link to the report is there as a reference, so readers can quickly find it. We don't put it in the text or as an external link when it is already cited as a ref. As I noted above the text I removed is just a generic laundry list of things the ATSB are planning to check in the investigation. It is common to all investigations and doesn't belong in this article as it adds nothing to the understanding of the subject. They are going to check a bunch of things - so what? It isn't germane unless they find anything. The initial report actually adds very little understanding, since it has almost no actual information at all, but I left it in, with the refs anyway, and converted it into prose instead of a list format.

Images cannot be "hot linked" into Wikipedia to prevent copyright violations and also because externally-hosted images are not reliable - they may get deleted or moved any time. The image cannot be uploaded to Wiki Commons as it is government copyright, as per the ATSB website.

Basically other than a description of the accident we are going to have to wait for the ATSB final report to add what happened, because at this stage, as after most aircraft accidents, there is very little information to cite. - Ahunt (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ahunt, all we need is the key points which have been added to the article the rest really just says we are continuing with the invesstigation, we can wait for the final report. MilborneOne (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

You have also copied-and-pasted text, which is a huge no-no on WP. YSSYguy (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

That is true, the report is all "© Australian Government 2017" and so this was a WP:COPYVIO. - Ahunt (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

ATSB Copyright statement

© Copyright 2016, Commonwealth of Australia

The material on this website is copyright.

In the interests of enhancing the value of the information contained in our investigation reports you may download, print, reproduce and distribute the material acknowledging the Australian Transport Safety Bureau as the source. However, copyright in the material obtained from other agencies, private individuals or organisations, belongs to those agencies, individuals or organisations. Where you want to use their material you will need to contact them directly.

Apart from the Coat of Arms, the ATSB logo, photos and graphics in which a third party has copyright, our investigation reports are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence."

As this paste from the ATSB demonstrates, the use of information from the ATSB is allowed ( and would have been allowed under the "Fair Dealings" provisions of the copyright conventions). In this way Wikipedia can include the first few bars of a copyright song/performance/recording in an article. NB Wikipedia is all referenced information. A good encyclopedia has no original ideas in the content (as opposed to delivery). When reporting/Quoting others, verbatim is the ethical way to go. It is best to think of the copy paste issue in terms of where/how it is used. A quote must be word for word, the article overall must be Wikipedia copyright, not attributable to anyone else.

As far as having to wait for the final report, if that were the case the MH370 article would have no investigation section up to point of publication, a patent nonsense. Once an official investigation report is published, interim or otherwise, a good deal of facts become clear. I encourage you to read the report. I chose not reproduce the report in full, or personally select which are the most pertinent findings. I went to a notable source to see what they reported, and referenced them (ABC). This article WILL have an "Investigation" section, there is a current report to include, why not include it.

I stand by the concept that hearsay and conjecture should not be given equal weight as an official report. To have the near contradictory statements side by side;

"The aircraft was reported to have crashed as a result of an engine failure on take-off." The Guardian, vs

"Investigation found no aircraft faults that could have caused crash" ATSB,

Examination of the building roof showed evidence of propeller slash marks…

The engines were removed from the accident site to a secure facility where they were disassembled and inspected by the ATSB with assistance from the engine manufacturer. That examination found that the cores of both engines were rotating and that there was no evidence of pre-impact failure of either engine’s internal components.

The propellers separated from the engines during the impact sequence. Both propellers exhibited evidence of rotation and have been retained by the ATSB for detailed examination.

(Selective extracts from the report)

that is the slippery slope to "Fake Articles". Let the facts stand tall and not be subsumed by thought bubbles. Malchemist (talk) 02:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response here and thank you for clarifying the copyright status of the ATSB text. I wasn't able to find that yesterday as the ATSB website was down all day and I was working from archive.org copies. Some points in response:

1. You really need to adhere to WP:AGF and WP:NPA and stop accusing editors of being close to creating fake news.

2. All WP:RS are weighed for use in articles like this. In general official investigations are given priority, because media sources are often based on the official reports. That said sometimes media sources carry out their own interviews and thus are not ignored. In some countries the official reports miss important parts of the investigation for various reasons and the media reports fill those in. In some cases media reports have caused official investigations to be reopened. All that to say that that media reports have their value in providing balanced articles and cannot be discounted. If the media and the ATSB preliminary reports vary then we will note that in the article. Keep in mind that accident investigation preliminary report findings are often changed in the final report.

3. Wikipedia does not exist to just reprint government press releases. Even when text is freely licenced, we almost never just cut and paste it in, except for specific quotes. We are here to create balanced articles and not promote one single point of view, even if it is the official one. That means that we read all sources and include the relevant information, in our own words and properly footnoted to source. That allows readers to verify the text and also to read the original sources if they want to.

4. If sources disagree than we note that in the text and resolve it with updates as more information becomes available. The contradicts you note may actually turn out to not be contradictions. In this case the ATSB initial report says both engines and propellers had evidence of rotation, but only the left propeller left rotational impact marks. The Guardian reported that the accident was due to an engine failure. These two statements are actually not contradictory. I have about 3500 hrs flying PT-6 powered aircraft. The PT-6A engines that power the King Air are free turbines and even after an engine failure, but before complete prop feathering, will continue to rotate, even though they are not producing power, although on impact only a prop producing power will leave impact slashes, normally. If the engine failure was due to to a fuel interruption and not a core failure than the ATSB and Guardian reports could both be right. This is why we aren't going to start deleting sources, at least not yet. After the final report comes out we may be able to indicate that early media reports were incorrect. I will update the article to indicate the latest engine information from the ATSB report, though.

5. When the final official report comes out that will be given more weight than the official preliminary and the earlier media reports but if there are later media reports reacting to the final official report or disagreeing with it, or if other experts or witnesses disagree with it, then that will be noted in the article as well. - Ahunt (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

1&2. AGF and NPA also apply to unsubstantiated accusations of copyright violations. I do not believe that I accused you of deliberately creating Fake News/Articles. My point was that they are a consequence of giving equal prominence to sources of distinct difference in the hierarchy of reliability. Boards of Inquiry are not infallible, but I have confidence that they would do a more thorough investigation (in this jurisdiction) than anything bar a Royal Commission. The ATSB Final Report will be used by the Coroner’s Inquests, insurance settlements and perhaps even law suits. It will be evidence that can and will be challenged by those affected. Where justified, it would be up-dated with new information or errors of substance addressed. It may (rarely) evolve but never left knowingly wrong.

3 The ATSB report is a document of Record, not some kind of press release. The Preliminary Report is a step towards that goal. Once constituted, Executive government in the great democracies, like ours, does not influence the investigations and processes that produce them. Every effort is made to ensure that they are fully independent and free of corruption. That being said, other points of view are welcome and the evidence of the reports should be challenged in a vibrant democracy. Other reports may be included in the article but care should be taken to ensure conjecture is not confused with evidence.

4&5 ATSB will not be able to prove a negative. They will never be able to prove that engine failure was not the cause. What they are searching for is evidence of the cause. Given the deaths of all on-board, failure of the CVR, the damaged of the crash and the destruction of evidence in the subsequent fire, we may never know with absolute certainty what the cause was. But it will be after considering the evidence, not a gut feeling at the time of the accident. Don’t delete relevant sources, but do rank the sources.

I feel we are becoming entrenched in our own arguments. If you agree, and after your right of reply, I suggest we seek the opinion of an arbitrator to determine how the article should be presented. If you do agree, please have a final say and then sign-off by offering our mutual condolences to family, friends and colleagues of those killed in the crash with the sincere hope that the report will resolve the causes to help prevent future accidents. Malchemist (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC).

It looks like we agree then, that when the official final report is completed and released we will incorporate what it says, but then if you have read other aircraft accident articles you will know that we always do that. At that time we may adjust earlier sources that turn out to be inaccurate, to reduce or eliminate them and add other sources that build on or challenge the results of the official investigation.

Thanks for the lecture on how investigations proceed and what they may conclude, but being a retired mil and civ safety investigator, I actually do already know that. Most of the members of WikiProject Aircraft do have related expertise in the field, which is why we are all here working on this. We aren't beginners here. If the official report says the cause is "undetermined" then the article will reflect that.

There is no need to ask for arbitration or any other dispute resolution as we already have a clear WP:CONSENSUS above not to include your proposed text. If you want to try to take it higher, it will just get referred back here, as consensus was already reached.

At this point, until the official final report is made public or further information is released the article won't change much as there is nothing of value to add. You can note that at Wikipedia we don't "sign-off by offering our mutual condolences to family, friends and colleagues of those killed in the crash with the sincere hope that the report will resolve the causes to help prevent future accidents". It's not our job here. See WP:NOTMEMORIAL.

You can also note that there has been suggestion elsewhere of sending this article to deletion as it is a light aircraft accident which at this point does not look like it will have a lasting effect, beyond the deaths of those involved. It does run afoul of our WP:NOTNEWSPAPER Wikipedia policy. I just note that in case it gets nominated for deletion, you won't be caught unawares. - Ahunt (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus because I do not agree with your approach, as stated above. Malchemist (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding how consensus works. Please see WP:ONUS, which says "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." As that explains, you wanted to insert some text, but it was reverted and a discussion on the topic started. Because you want to insert the text you have to gain a consensus to do so. Three editors opposed the insertion and none agreed with you, so you didn't gain the consensus needed to insert the text. If it worked the other way around it would give any editor a veto on anything they put in the article being removed. That would make Wikipedia non-collaborative in nature. The articles all look the way they do because consensus is needed to add material.

I do want to thank you for clarifying the copyright status of the ATSB materials. I have stricken my comment above, because it was wrong. That was based on what the actual page said. Your copyright clarification has allowed me to add the impact diagram you wanted to hotlink into the article before. If you check the article you will see it is there now. - Ahunt (talk)

To avoid anymore copyright discussion. Please include acknowledgement to Google Earth for the background image (as per ATSB report). Malchemist (talk) 07:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. We have a problem. As per Google Earth#Copyright Google Earth images are copyright images and cannot be used here. As per ATSB "Apart from the Coat of Arms, the ATSB logo, photos and graphics in which a third party has copyright, our investigation reports are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence." I am afraid I made a mistake in uploading this to Commons and it will have to be deleted. Thanks for letting me know. - Ahunt (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)