Talk:2006–2007 Brazilian aviation crisis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Government/Administration[edit]

I changed government into administration. It seems to be a more appropriate term, because, in the U.S, government means the state, and administration refers to the executive, as seen on this thread at the reference desk. A.Z. 18:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CINDACTAS[edit]

I removed detailed information about each of the CINDACTAS. It seemed to be cluttering the article, rather than giving important information. A.Z. 18:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dalillama reverted my changes. OK, the information is important, but it's still cluttering. My suggestion is to feature a map of Brazil showing the area covered by each of the CINDACTAS, so the article gives the important information and is not cluttered. Plus, people reading this are likely not to know where each state is located, so one more advantage of the picture. A.Z. 18:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example (another link)of such a map. The large picture is on a post of 23/11/2006. A.Z. 18:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on my comments, because there are no other articles detailing air traffic control in Brazil, we need to provide detail for context. It is important to disambiguate between different CINDACTAs. Some have had equipment malfunctions--others have not. CINDACTA IV in Manaus, for example, has seen significant investment through SIVAM, etc. This way, when we talk about CINDACTA I shutting down for a shortcut, the reader knows which section of the country suffered a problem. I don't feel that it clutters the article at all, but provides important context. I do agree that a map could be a better way to represent the information, but until someone steps forward to create one, I think the status quo is the most appropriate balance of context and presentation. I personally don't know how to create those maps and the ones that I have found online (including the ones you provided) are of "dubious" copyright status (though one could always make the case for fair use).--Dali-Llama 20:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I asked an user [1] how to make maps. A.Z. 20:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent events (as of nov 2007)[edit]

This article is in serious need of an update. I am currently working on a wikinews article on the topic:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Sky_Falling_Over_Brazil

some recent events that merit attention:

  1. Passenger plane crash in São Paulo
  2. Two helicopters crash in São Paulo within 20minutes of each other
  3. Brazilian minister of aviation resigns

-Shaggorama 02:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but until the cause is found, one cannot attribute it to a crisis which is generally considered regulatory in nature. And there is no minister of aviation, btw--just as much as the FAA Administrator in the US isn't a cabinet secretary.--Dali-Llama 03:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Added[edit]

I added a citation for the line ("In July, 2007, after TAM Flight 3054's crash, a Rede Globo story reported that the TAM plane's right thrust reverser was inoperative at the time of the crash.") since there is an article about this in Wikipedia that contains the necessary citations for this line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.152.145 (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect representation of situation in Europe[edit]

The statement "This is also the case of Eurocontrol and each of its member nations' air defense systems." does not reflect the organisation of ATC in Europe. Eurocontrol - counter to what the organization's name suggests - does not provide ATC services for the whole european airspace. The actual setup is much more complex as air navigation service provision is a state obligation, indeed most of the european airpsace is controlled by national ANSPs.

As the current sentence is misleading and not essential to the page I would suggest simply taking it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.21.238.251 (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POV template[edit]

Hi, I just came across this article and saw the POV template, which seems to have been added in 2018 by User:70.160.33.72. I've added some information about the official conclusion that ATC was in part or mainly at fault. I think the POV template can probably be removed now unless there is any objection to this, although I think it would be even better if someone with more expertise than me could expound a little more on what mistakes ATC made that resulted in the two aircraft being sent onto the same airway in opposite directions (these mistakes aren't mentioned in the Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 article). Edderiofer (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just removed the pov template. As per the main article, appears to be a fair representative of the facts. The issue of expounding on the mistakes the ATC made is covered by the "further explanation needed" tag and I do not believe this effects the neutrality of the section. If anyone wants further details they can read the main article Ilenart626 (talk) 06:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006–2007_Brazilian_aviation_crisis&oldid=1196494382"