Talk:Air France Flight 447/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Extlinks: Photographs of the aircraft

Does anyone have an issue with reducing the number of links to airline photo sites? Currently three are listed and this seems a bit over the top when in all likely hood one would suffice (say airliners.net?). Thanks/wangi (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment do we need any image links?, none actually add to the article as we already have a picture of an A330. MilborneOne (talk) 10:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The article is in need of a good clean-up anyway.PB666 ^yap 16:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support.-Classicfilms (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• A play on words in title(may need to insert somewhere else)-if any photos or recording system of exterior of any plane exists, it may help assessment of environment which plane traverses and exterior condition of the airframe.Patelurology2 (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This bomb threat stuff again

The autopsies also revealed no evidence of burning or charring, suggesting that there was no fire or explosion on the craft prior to the crash.[83] However, if the lower fuselage burned or exploded, "passengers would not be exposed to any blast damage and the plane would still disintegrate in flight," said John Goglia, a former member of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board. "These are scenarios that cannot be ruled out."[85][86]

Bomb blast as a pertinent cause in the accident have not been cited by any official within the investigation. Should be removed.PB666 ^yap 18:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article we have no need to speculate it is not a news service, no rush we can just wait fo the official investigation and not try and do their job. Suggest remove all speculation. Time is not an issue at Wikipedia and Under investigation is all we really need. MilborneOne (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• If a member of the US NTSB states that blast damage below the passenger deck wouldn't necessarily harm passengers, that's not speculation because he's a competent authority. It's entirely legitimate to claim that this scenario cannot be ruled out until concrete evidence exists to do so. Absence of a proof does not equal proof of an absence. That's Argument from ignorance one would be committing by refusing the hypothesis at this stage. Mgw89 (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• • If a meteor hit the pilot in the head that would not necessarily cause meteor fragments in passengers in the aft section. If a can of cheese-whiz exploded in a galley cabinet blowing the pressure hull that would not necessarily result in cheese on the passengers. If the NTSB official is not associated with the investigation, he has no more clout than an Air-France pilot speculation on whatever. The material was deleted, again. What you are doing is baiting an argument that is one of dozens of possible scenarios. If one entertaines one has to entertaine them all. Stick to the facts. I read in a newspaper article today that an embalmer noted that the injuries to the bodies were so severe they could have only occurred if the passengers died by being slammed into something at high speed (such as a mid-air collison or striking the water), so do we now include this line of speculation. Once you begin that dance of media x-spirts (= big drips of information) it does not stop with the first hypothesis.PB666 ^yap 05:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is another speculative sentence.

On 22 June 2009, French Navy ships detected a weak signal that was believed to be a black box locator beacon.[87] The minisubmarine Nautile was sent to investigate, but the signals had not come from either black box.[88]

However other newssources questioned the official sources of the information and they denied this. I think it should be removed. French vessels in the search area have picked up noises regularly, but subsequent investigation has revealed no link to the black boxes, French military spokesman Christophe Prazuck told Associated Press Television News. "The black boxes have not been found. The black boxes have not been located. We're still looking for the black boxes," Prazuck said in English."[1]. I don't think there needs to be entry added to the article every time someone on a ships thinks they heard a black box. Either they have found the black boxes or they have not.PB666 ^yap 22:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Also removed.PB666 ^yap 05:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"notable" passengers

I feel that all the passengers on this flight, subject to a horrible, terrifying death, are "notable". Just because someone is heir to an extinct throne doesn't make him more "notable" than the stay-at-home mother of three who perished alongside him. Would it be possible to change the title of that subsection to something less demeaning for those not listed? Perhaps "Passenger details"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.4.241 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 2009 June 24

The entirety of Wikipedia operates on notability, which relies on comparison — if everyone or everything is "notable", then nothing is. To suggest the passing of the third in line of a specific defunct monarchy (of which there is absolutely only one of) is no more noteworthy than that of a stay-at-home mother of three (of which there are millions), is unrealistic. This isn't about measuring a person's worth, only their relevance within the scope of this project. Wikipedia is not a memorial, but an encyclopedia. ¦ Reisio (talk) 06:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I bet you wouldn't write that Reisio if it was one of your family or children on the flight....& I'm sure millions of stay-at-home mothers would like to chat to you about that too...perhaps an open forum if your game..Remy103 (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This is irrelevant and I agree with Reisio, the section needs to be cleaned up to cite the most relevant events, individual memorials and tributes to all the passengers is just no possible.PB666 ^yap 13:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Aviation accident guidelines: Optionally notable passengers may be recorded but should be limited to individuals with a Wikipedia article. Information including ethnic or religious backgrounds and school affliations should not be included. --TAG (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

In flight breakup

The airplane did not "crash into" (which implies flown into either controlled or uncontrolled) the Atlantic but rather fragmented in flight as based on forensic evidence from the deceased victims. Whether this was caused by structural failure or sabotage is uncertain at this point, but there was no high speed collision with the whole aircraft into the ocean.

Is there a reference to this? The BEA says no such thing as yet.AlexandrDmitri (talk) 07:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Reading the reference to Yahoo news, I agree that in the section "Autopsies" that we can add that it is strongly suggested, albeit by an unnamed source (and the BEA themselves have not received any of the results), then speculated upon by former "experts"; however the lead seems to give unwarranted weight to this opinion.AlexandrDmitri (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it so difficult to wait for the authorities to make these statements?PB666 ^yap 13:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it isn't. But, notwithstanding the reliability of YahooNews, if the autopsy results themsleves can be included, common sense suggests that bodies stripped of clothing have almost certainly fallen from altitude. Use of the word "crash" thoughout this article (and probably many others) may be a separate, and perhaps more important, issue? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not true, bodies, particularly dismembered bodies will loose their cloths after several days floating around in the oceans. Particularly in rough sees the white caps tend to remove articles of clothing. Again we should let the experts do the interpretation, and frankly we don't need to present any information at this state on the state of the bodies.PB666 ^yap 13:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well we have a named and directly quoted "expert" (Jack Casey), and we have lack of burns and we have non-dismembered bodies, all of which suggest high altitide break-up in this case, apparently (if we can believe YahooNews). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Whilst only a proposed policy, Aviation accident guidelines has some valid suggestions:

• Introduction - The introduction should be a summary of the accident and should reflect the content of the body of the article. It should as a minimum detail the location, airline and aircraft involved, the number of persons involved and when known the official cause of the accident.(my emphasis)
• Investigation - A description or summary of the investigation it should only include information from the official bodies involved in the investigation. (my emphasis)

AlexandrDmitri (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree fully. The BEA is the reliable source here - we should wait for their conclusions rather than following public speculation. Socrates2008 (Talk) 14:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• I removed the sentence on autopsies, though I am not fully against returning it in some very brief unopinionated form. Are their guidelines on the Search and Recovery section? Its a mess of facts with many now trivial or impertinent.PB666 ^yap 14:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Surprised all now removed. Perhaps the significance of the autopsy resuts rests to a large degree on whether or not one believes they provide any evidence of how the aircraft broke up. But in the light of proposed policy happy to leave for now. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Passengers and crew section

This was initially based on Air France's official list, and the final sentence before the table reads "The nationalities as released by Air France were as follows:". Nationalities are being added, with or without references. My comments:

1. It is going to be hard to find consensus as many people had dual nationalities
2. Unsourced material should be sourced or removed (example Sweden)
3. If we are going to update the nationalities, the sentence preceeding the table needs copyediting

-- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• • From a beginner: Recognising importance of accuracy in reporting; nationalities of passengers and crew is the least important; great loss has to be contend with nonetheless.

Patelurology2 (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

My intention to reflect accuracy in the article in no way whatsoever precludes any sentiment I may feel with respect to the loss of life, quite the opposite. I'm being objective, not subjective. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the list now reflects AF's official list and the AF list should prevail over any other. There will always be referenced claims to other nationalities because of multiple citizenship and these I believe will be impossible to reconcile; if I had been on the plane you would find newspapaer articles from the UK, NZ and Australia each quite correctly claiming me as a son. The citizenships here are based on the passports tendered at the check-in counter and that is probably the only way to go, leave it at that. Ex nihil (talk) 04:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree (struck comment on Sweden which ironically I had moved alphabetically myself). Numbers now add up. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 05:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Cross-section image in Investigation section

What is the point of the East-west cross section image in the Investigation section? It's so distorted as to be quite misleading. To show the true profile of the ocean floor, it must be stretched 100x horizontally, and then it shows about what you would expect: a gently undulating seafloor between 2500 and 4000 meters deep. It's nothing like the cliif-like appearance of the graphic. Keno (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The idea was to give an impression that the sea floor in the region was not flat but highly complex, indicating the difficulty in doing radar and sidescanning radar searches. WP:CRYSTALPB666 ^yap 19:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

More on Cross-Section Image

"The vertical scale is greatly exaggerated for contrast purposes." I agree with Keno that, in this particular case, an unusual situation exists which may make such distortion very much out of order. Sometimes there are other interests at work in air crash investigations, as there were, for example, in the 1954 BOAC Comet crashes. Airline profits may figure against pure regard for safety. In the 447 disaster, Air France has said repeatedly, since the beginning, that the chances of finding the black boxes are very very slim. Not everyone has agreed, notably some Brazilian voices. Before very long, such speculation leads to people saying, "you DO want to find the boxes, of course?"

The situation is quite sensitive, as people have asked why the plane attempted to fly through the storm-tower at all, even if it would have saved fuel costs; other aircraft went around. Although distorted images generally have a value, in this case a stretched-out interpretation of the same data would show a gently undulating sea floor on which black boxes would be more discoverable. However, the controversy need not be raised at all. The diagram is a catalyst for arguments about conflict of interest, inviting readers to question Air France's claims and perhaps to discredit the airline. GroonxCarson (talk) 02:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a COI at all, however I question the value of the inclusion now, I also question the value of the inclusion of trivia in the hunt-and-search effort in general. If you desire to remove the image, please do so.PB666 ^yap 22:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Agree no COI. Air France is not the responsible agency for any investigation. Ex nihil (talk) 05:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete Memorials?

In a bid to start reducing and simplifying the volume of text in this article I would be interested in your opinion regarding the deletion of the Memorials section in toto. This section was valuable at the time but is now news that has passed, contributes little to an understanding of the disaster, is non encyclopedic and seems to be an anomally among air crash articles. Ex nihil (talk) 05:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree - if somebody erects a physical memorial in the future then it can be added back in. MilborneOne (talk) 10:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Time to remove Memorials 58.170.83.226 (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Some specific areas of the article that I think need cleaned up are the search and rescue section, we still have superfluous reports of spottings that have been discredited along time ago, an there is a positive ID of the last known positions. Someone be bold and take a scalpel to that section and remove the fluf.PB666 ^yap 19:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Memorials section in toto as nobody wanted to keep and mild agreement was apparent. Ex nihil(talk) 02:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagree, it's important to keep to reflect the huge impact of this accident. Why then not to delete the memorials from the World Trade Center or from the Michael Jackson article? Elmao (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Problematic claims

I think its time to remove certain items from the article that are clearly no longer relevant.

Also late on 1 June, the deputy chief of the Brazilian Aeronautical Communications Center, Jorge Amaral, confirmed that 30 minutes after the Air France Airbus had transmitted the automatic report, a commercial pilot had reported the sighting of "orange dots" in the middle of the Atlantic, which could indicate the glow of wreckage on fire. This sighting was reported by a TAM Airlines crew flying from Europe to Brazil, at approximately 1300 km (700 miles) from Fernando de Noronha. Another similar sighting of "something flashing brightly over the ocean then taking a descending vertical trajectory" was reported by the Spanish pilot of Air Comet Flight 974 flying from Lima to Madrid. The Brazilian newspaper O Globo reported that wreckage debris was discovered off the Senegalese coast, but that its origin was still uncertain. EarthTimes and news.com.au reported that the crew of the French freighter Douce France spotted debris floating on the ocean in the area earlier indicated by the TAM crew.

later the article: "On 4 June, the Brazilian Air Force claimed they had recovered the first debris from the Air France crash site, 340 miles (550 km) northeast of the Fernando de Noronha archipelago,[68] but on 5 June, around 13:00 UTC, Brazilian officials announced that they had not, in fact, recovered anything from Flight 447, as the oil slick and debris field found on 2 June could not have come from the plane.[69] Ramon Borges Cardoso, director of the Air Space Control Department, said that the fuel slicks were not caused by aviation fuel but were believed to have been from a passing ship.[70] Even so, a Brazilian Air Force official maintained that some of the material that had been spotted (but not picked up) was in fact from Flight 447. Poor visibility, however, had prevented search teams from re-locating the material.[71] On 6 June, five days after Flight 447 disappeared, it was reported that the Brazilian Air Force had located both "bodies and debris" from the missing aircraft, after they had been spotted by a special search radar-equipped aircraft near Saint Peter's and Paul's Rocks.[72] "

References

Clearly both the TAM reference and Air Comet reference were too far from the crash site to have seen the crash, the TAM< which was closest was 600KM away by their report. The BEA has documented where the crash site is believed to be, and these erronous reports should now be removed. I think we can clean up the page by removing these ad-hoc media reports and also removing the counter-claims. I anyone has anything against removing these items please say so here. PB666 ^yap 19:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea. I expect that the final BEA report will clean up the whole article in due course anyway but that could take 12 months or more. Ex nihil(talk) 02:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Le Figaro interview of Pierre-Henri Gourgeon

Air France posted an English translation of an interview of Pierre-Henri Gourgeon, head of Air France, in Le Figaro - http://alphasite.airfrance.com/en/s01/frequently-asked-questions/

I am not sure how much of this is already used in the article, but this could be helpful to this article. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

New CNN story

There's a new story. http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/12/13/air.france.investigation/index.html 173.24.181.55 (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The number of deaths

According to http://di.se/Nyheter/?page=/Avdelningar/Artikel.aspx%3FArticleID%3D2009\12\17\366568%26sectionid%3Dundefined there where three swedish casualties in the accident. My question is where the information that only one passanger was from Sweden come from and how this could be changed to avoid further inaccuracy ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desplow (talk • contribs) 23:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of the problems are from people with dual-citizenships, they will be listed by the airline against the passport they used to travel but may not be the country of origin. MilborneOne (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Velocity vs Acceleration

In the paragraph entitled 'Investigation' it is stated that an examination by the BEA showed that:

"the aircraft was likely to have struck the surface of the sea in normal flight attitude, with high vertical acceleration"

This sentence references note 3 at the end of the article which states:

"the aircraft was considered to be in a level attitude with a high vertical component of velocity [...] causing momentary high acceleration"

Now the sentence in note 3 correctly describes the cause and consequence; it is the high velocity upon impact that causes the high acceleration. This might be described in fact as a high deceleration of the aircraft upon impact, from the frame of reference of the surface of the Atlantic. I therefore consider that the first sentence should use the word 'velocity' instead of 'acceleration' as it is not really correct to say 'strikes with high acceleration' but rather 'strikes with high velocity (causing high acceleration)'.

Would anyone object to such a change of wording?

Kevoreilly (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't object---that makes more sense. My understanding is that "acceleration" means that the velocity is increasing. There is no way they can determine if the velocity, during the fall to the ocean, was actually increasing at the time of impact, if they have no data from the FDR. It could very well be, that the plane had already reached its maximum vertical velocity at the time of impact which, if that was the case, would mean that it was NOT still accelerating its vertical speed. EditorASC (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I am beginning to wonder if the word "acceleration" as used in the English version of the Interim Report, might not be the best English word, for translation from the original French version of the Report? Indeed, the BEA itself warns that "This interim report has been translated and published by the BEA to make its reading easier for English-speaking people. As accurate as the translation may be, the original text in French should be considered as the work of reference."

As a matter of logical inference, they could not possibly know if the vertical speed of the aircraft was still accelerating (vertical speed increasing over time) when it impacted the water, since the FDR has not yet been recovered. It is well known that all objects which fall thru our atmosphere, eventually reach terminal velocity They did conclude that there was a high rate of vertical speed, as evidenced by severe compression at the bottom areas of recovered parts of the plane. At any rate as it now stands, the wording of note # 3 needs to be revised, because it is confusing, rather than clarifying:

The current wording of note # 3, in Wiki AF447 article:

"# ^ to clarify; On investigation the aircraft was considered to be in a level attitude with a high vertical component of velocity when it impacted the ocean surface, causing momentary high acceleration induced vertical compressive force deformations seen on recovered aircraft pieces[citation needed]"

Here is the actual wording of the English translation, from Page 40, of BEA-AF447 Interim Factual Report:

1.12.4 Summary of visual examination

Observations of the tail fin and on the parts from the passenger (galley, toilet door, crew rest module) showed that the airplane had likely struck the surface of the water in level flight, with a high rate vertical acceleration.

I would suggest a revision of the wording in that note, somewhat like this:

"Recovered portions of the wreckage indicated the plane impacted the water in a level attitude, at a high rate of vertical speed."

I will appreciate comments from other editors on this suggested revision of note # 3. Thanks much, EditorASC (talk) 13:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with your change. Here is my suggestion.

"Recovered portions of the wreckage indicated the plane impacted the water while flying level, at a high rate of downward speed."Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks for that comment. I think you just discovered another problem with that translation, from the French original document: The report says it was in "level flight, with a high rate vertical ....."

Now, I am wondering if that word ("flight") also was not the best English translation, from the French document. It seems clear from that report, that the plane hit the water much in the same manner as did the Colgan Air Dash 8, last Feburary----both hit belly first and their vertical speed down was very high. That means that the planes were in a deep stall condition (and maybe in flat spins too), and that makes the word "flight" rather poor nomenclature, because a plane is not "flying" at all, when it is dropping like a rock.

I think we need someone who is expert in both the French and English languages, to take a look at this. While we need to avoid making the report say something it didn't say, we also need to know if the choice of English words are such that the English translation does exactly that. I find it hard to believe that the BEA report really meant that the plane's vertical (down) speed was actually increasing when it hit the water, and I also doubt they really meant to imply that the plane was still "flying" when it hit the water in that attitude.

Got any ideas how we can find an English/French expert to look at both versions of the report? EditorASC (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No sorry, no idea on how to dig up an expert. I was trying reduce ambiguity (level attitude - altitude? vertical - up?). I don't have a problem with a plane "flying" whilst in a spin. I'm happy with your judgement on this. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Really, try to understand text before you change it. attitude and Acceleration were used quite correctly in the original text.LeadSongDog come howl 22:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

1. I understood the text. 2. I didn't change it. 3. Yes, you came across as curt. 4. You didn't understand my comment. 5. I'll remove your duplicated comment. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 03:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to LeadSongDog

I really don't understand your statement here. It sounds almost like a condescending insult, but I am willing to assume, according to Wiki's [[2]] policy, that you did not mean it that way.

It seems obvious to me that we have been making a rather concerted effort here to do exactly that: to fully understand the intent and meaning of the BEA investigation team, when they were describing how that plane hit the water. They did make it clear that the plane did not break apart before it hit the water. Then, they seem to also be saying that the plane was in a level attitude (wings and nose level, in reference to the horizon), but that it was coming down like a rock (not flying as a plane would do, if it has enough forward speed to enable the wings to generate enough lift to offset the force of gravity). The problem then, comes down to using two English words, in a manner that will not tend to mislead the average lay reader:

• "Acceleration." This is a word, as you well know --- since you are a physicist --- that can have a very different meaning (depending on the context) in physics, than it would likely have, to a lay reader that might be reading an article like this. In my view, if you asked the average person to define what that word means, if it is applied to an auto or plane, he would likely say that it means the speed of the auto/plane is increasing. But, I don't think that is what the BEA investigation team meant to convey, when they described the plane as falling vertically, at a high rate of (vertical) speed. It simply doesn't make sense that the BEA team would be telling us that the vertical speed was increasing at the time it hit the water, since they had no way of making such a determination (FDR not recovered and no radar tape) yet that is what the lay person is likely to think we are saying in this Wiki article, if we use the word "acceleration" to describe the descent of that plane. That is why we have been discussing how we should use or not use that word, in this article. We don't want to mislead the average reader into thinking that the plane's vertical speed was increasing, if there is no way that could be known, at this stage of the investigation.

• "Flight." I think I do understand what that term means, since I am a retired airline pilot and was a flight instructor before that. However, it is again important that we do not use this word in a way that might mislead the average lay reader of Wikipedia. Since the plane had no significant forward speed at the time of impact, using the world "flight" might tend to mislead readers into thinking the plane was still flying, when in fact it was falling like a rock. That is why I expressed concern about the use of that word too.

Here is the current wording of Note # 3:

to clarify; the aircraft was considered to be in a level attitude, but with a high rate of descent when it impacted the ocean surface. That impact imposed a high deceleration-compression force on the plane, as evidenced by the deformations found on recovered aircraft pieces.

I think that is a fairly good compromise of words, which still conveys what the BEA report was saying, but without using their exact words, which might be misunderstood by the average lay reader. I think we all would like to have your detailed input on this subject too, but to be helpful, you will need to say something more illuminating than merely telling us to try to understand. EditorASC (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's fixed now. Ex nihil ^(talk) 01:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should not edit when tired. Yes, I was curt, as I am wont to be. "Acceleration" is a perfectly good word that was used correctly, although a wikilink would have been an improvement. "Deceleration" is questionable at best. There is no reason to "dumb down" the text when we are trying to inform readers. But my principal objection was to the parenthetic suggestion that "attitude" would be replaced by "altitude". It is nearly inconceivable that a pilot would ever confuse these terms, even using English as a second language. Certainly no accident investigator would do so.LeadSongDog come howl 14:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make, badly, was that attitude and altitude are, to the eye, very similar typographically and subject to misreading. An equivalent term, such as "level flight", which avoids 'attitude', might improve the article from the 'plain english' viewpoint. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"Horizontal" or "level orientation" might be used to convey that meaning of "attitude" without creating the unsupported implication of normal lift that goes with the word "flight". Although one could say technically that a projectile falling ballistically against drag is still in "flight", that meaning will not be the one which many readers will take unless they are guided to it. LeadSongDog come howl 19:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Further response to LeadSongDog:

"Perhaps I should not edit when tired. Yes, I was curt, as I am wont to be."

Thank you for being candid about that. Now that you know how it is likely to hit other editors, perhaps you can try to avoid curtness in the future, and just tell us in lay language, how you would improve a passage which we are discussing. And, if you are not clear on something that we have said, then just ask for clarification. We all are likely to make rapid progress towards reasonable consensus that way.

"Acceleration" is a perfectly good word that was used correctly, although a wikilink would have been an improvement. "Deceleration" is questionable at best. There is no reason to "dumb down" the text when we are trying to inform readers."

While it might have been a proper way to describe it in a physics journal, I think just the opposite is true in an encyclopedia like Wiki. This note # 3 statement, was worded very poorly, IMHO, when considering that we are supposed to be writing to the average lay reader:

"# 3 ^ to clarify; On investigation the aircraft was considered to be in a level attitude with a high vertical component of velocity when it impacted the ocean surface, causing momentary high acceleration induced vertical compressive force deformations seen on recovered aircraft pieces."

It is official Wiki policy, that we avoid jargon whenever possible, and use jargon only when it is essential to the subject matter of the article itself. I recommend you review the Wikipedia:Readers First and the Wikipedia:Plain English pages. Using lay language, so as to avoid equivocation and ambiguity, does not constitute a "dumbing down" policy. To the contrary, it constitutes a policy in the best traditions of Strunk/White The Elements of Style.

"But my principal objection was to the parenthetic suggestion that "attitude" would be replaced by "altitude". It is nearly inconceivable that a pilot would ever confuse these terms, even using English as a second language. Certainly no accident investigator would do so."

I agree that no pilot or accident investigator would confuse those terms. However, I did not interpret Darrell Greenwood's query to suggest that we should replace the word "attitude" with the word "altitude." It was clear to me that he was worried about ambiguity, when the average lay reader tries to understand what was being said on this subject, if those terms weren't expressed in the clearest possible manner. And, I agree that his concern was legitimate, especially in light of the very poorly worded (former version) of note # 3. He just explained further, to clarify his concerns, after you apparently misunderstood the gist of his comments. Again, I would suggest that when you think another editor has said something that does not quite make sense to you, just ask him/her to further clarify----sans a tone of condescension/curtness. We can all benefit from your input that way.

"Horizontal" or "level orientation" might be used to convey that meaning of "attitude" without creating the unsupported implication of normal lift that goes with the word "flight". Although one could say technically that a projectile falling ballistically against drag is still in "flight", that meaning will not be the one which many readers will take unless they are guided to it."

Very thoughtful comments. Thanks much for that kind of respectful input. EditorASC (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to the show. The original text says:

On peut déduire de ces observations :

• que l’avion était probablement entier à l’impact ;
• qu’il a heurté la surface de l’eau avec une assiette positive, une faible inclinaison et une vitesse verticale importante ;
• qu’il n’y pas eu de dépressurisation.

This translates as:

It can be inferred from these observations that:

• the plane probably impacted the water as a whole;
• it hit the water surface with a positive pitch angle, a low roll angle and a high vertical speed;
• there was no loss of cabin pressure.

I hope that this can help you. Best regards. Cochonfou (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The underlying question is whether we should be substituting our own unsourced translation (WP:OR) for sourced official translation, offering an editorial comment on the sourced translation, or simply quoting it. While my personal preference would be for the second choice, I believe that the first or second should only be done with an explicit concensus to WP:IAR in this case. Otherwise, the sourced translation should rule. If we were to change or comment on the translation, I would prefer something closer to:

One may deduce from these observations:

• that the aircraft probably was whole at the impact;
• that it struck the surface of the water with a positive attitude [pitch], a slight inclination [roll] and a [significant] verical speed;
• that there hadn't been a depressurization [of the cabin].

The use of square brackets should make it clear to the reader where our translation varies from the official one. User:LeadSongDog come howl 16:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

My sincere thanks to Cochonfou (talk). That seems to confirm that our fears about the proper translation from the French language, on that particular point, were justified.

I am not an expert on Wiki policy about what and whose translations should be mentioned in the article, so I will not make any recommendation on that, for now. I will say, however, that I would not replace the word "high" with "significant." I think that to the layperson, the word "significant" is more ambiguous than "high," within that particular context, and also because the phrase "a high rate of descent" is much closer to the normal aviation nomenclature found in official accident reports around the world. In fact, I would be hard pressed to come up with any past accident report, where the word "significant" would have been used in that kind of context (in lieu of "high").

My conclusion is that the accident report says what we thought it would LOGICALLY say, in describing a situation where the plane was intact and hit the water belly first: It had to have a high rate of vertical speed, for it to impact in that way. That situation describes a plane that is in a fully stalled condition (not flying forward with any control left for the pilots -- dropping like a rock). Possibly in a flat spin too, but without the FDR, we can only call that a reasonable conjecture, under those circumstances (and no, I am not suggesting we say that in the article).

As to a "high rate of vertical speed," vs a "high rate of vertical "acceleration," I seriously doubt the French meant to say "acceleration," since that implies (in English) that the downward speed was increasing at the time the plane impacted the water. Since there was no way anyone could know the precise vertical speed at the time of the impact (without the FDR, or radar tapes, or continuing ACARs messages), they certainly could not know if that vertical speed had stabilized (reached Terminal velocity), or if the full stall had occurred at a much lower altitude, than its cruise altitude, so that it had not yet reached Terminal velocity by the time of water impact.

Thus, I think that Cochonfou's translation contribution above, amounts to an additional support to our logical conclusion, namely that the French did not mean to imply that the plane's vertical speed was actually increasing at the time of impact. EditorASC (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

3rd Search Phase

I see the article address the first two search phases, but do not see this article mention the planning of a third search phase. I came across this AP article stating that a third search phase is planned in February, 2010. Maybe we should include this information as well. --Stivo (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I initially thought the same until I saw the WikiNews banner at the bottom in the External links section. I think it would save a lot of edits & confusion here if one leaves the news bits to WikiNews until they found the blackbox or cancelled the search. --WideBlueSky (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Did the aircraft attempt to turn around?

I remember reading somewhere that there was evidence the pilots had attempted to turn the aircraft around. This does not appear to be mentioned on Flight 447's Wikipedia page -- has this theory been disproved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.211.139 (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Such vague theories do not belong in Wikipedia until there is some concrete evidence and references. Alandeus (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutral heading

Seriously, this is in the text "The BEA announced that they expected the search to resume in mid-March, depending on weather. The new search plan covers an area of 770 square miles and will utilize four sonar devices and two underwater robots.". See the investigation part of the article. The black box search has not started yet. Heymid (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I might be particularly thick today, but I don't understand what Heymid is trying to say here. Is he objecting to my revert of his edits that introduced strikethrough markup into the article, is he objecting to my rephrasing and referencing of this to avoid a WP:NOTCRYSTAL violation, or is he suggesting something new? I have no objection to the quoted text above, that's how I left it. NOTCRYSTAL doesn't say we can't talk about published plans, but we certainly can't simply state future events as facts. This text makes it clear that we are discussing a plan, not a reality.

In any case, it's usually considered bad form to use editor names in talkpage section titles with a few exceptions: see WP:TPG for details. I'd appreciate if it doesn't recurr.User:LeadSongDog come howl 17:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? Everyone signs their posts in the talk pages, so what do you mean? Heymid (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

LeadSongDog was commenting that you used his editor name as the Talkpage Section Title. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I should have been more precise in my choice of link to Wikipedia:TPG#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages, specifically the section "Never address other users in a heading". User:LeadSongDog come howl 03:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Air traffic control?

What, exactly, is the purpose of the section called "Air traffic control"? There's no context given for the conversation. It looks like the only thing it shows is the wording of the final verbal communication with the aircraft, but that could be done in one sentence in the "Disappearance" section. – jaksmata 18:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've got the same problem with the "Error messages" section. While this info is true and verifiable, I don't think it is an encyclopedic collection of facts/statistics. – jaksmata 20:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest that "Air traffic control" provides useful timeline information showing clearly the last verifiable time that the flight crew were (very likely to have been) in control of the aircraft. Also that "Error messages" are significant in support of the hypothesis that the critical event in the chain of accident causation was the failure (probably through very rapid icing) of the air data pitots. But I'd agree that the relevance of these two sections, to the article as a whole, could be enhanced. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The timeline has already been given, starting in the second paragraph of the "Disappearance" section, without a table full of jargon to interrupt the readability of the article for general readers. And the section is still without context.

The "Error Messages" section is similarly a duplication of the prose from the "Automated messages" section, which explains in excellent detail what the error messages were about and how investigators have interpreted and used that information.

"Air traffic control" and "Error Messages" are redundant, without context, interrupt the flow and readability of the article and are unencyclopedic. For these reasons, I'm going to remove the sections. – jaksmata 19:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The detail for both were hidden in drop-downs and so there was no particular "interruption of flow" for me. And both provided useful detail that any official investigation would certainly be using (although this article should not, of course, pretend to be an official investigation). Sometimes jargon does need to be explained, even by means of a table? I am surprised that you have not tried to reach some consensus before deleting both of these sections wholesale. Although I didn't object, I think the article is poorer without this information, even if it had been re-located to footnotes. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

"...not tried to reach some consensus"? I started this thread over three days ago, and I'm surprised that nobody else (other than you) has ventured an opinion, or attempted to improve the sections to address my concerns. I don't think I removed any important information that isn't already covered and explained in other parts of the article. If anybody does feel strongly about keeping them, hopefully they'll come here to discuss. – jaksmata 20:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Waiting for three days and then, after one counter opinion, deleting unannounced, does not constitute any kind of "consensus" for me. But I quite agree, other opinions may still be recorded here at any time. It's the sort of material that, in a written report, one might expect to find in an Appendix? Martinevans123 (talk)

Paragraph 3 - cited source doesn't mention "phasers"

Additional citation needed to verify paragraph 3 claim, "a pahser confirmed from the ailiens home planet later confirmed to have been issued for the flight." The included reference does not support:

That any phaser was recovered

Phaser type, settings, power level, etc

If its use was implicated by any recognized authorities (i.e. not Fox news)

What ailies organization was contacted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.225.22 (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Simple vandalism should just be reverted. No need to bring it to discussion here. HkCaGu (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Two links: WHOI and alternate Air France press release

• "AF 447 located: statement by Pierre-Henri Gourgeon." Air France. Sunday 3 April, 2011.
• "News Release : WHOI-led Team Locates Air France Wreckage." WHOI. April 4, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

2011 search in the Investigation section

One paragraph in the "Investigation" section of the article seems to be more related to the 2011 search rather than the investigation itself. Maybe that whole paragraph should be removed from that section? HeyMid (contribs) 10:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

AAIB, DGAC, and CENIPA press releases

AAIB:

• "Air Accidents Investigation Branch Press Release Air France 447 – Wreckage recovery operations." - 20 April 2011.
  • "Press Release - Air France 447 - Wreckage recovery operations." (page leading to PDF)

DGAC (French):

• "Vol AF 447 : découverte du 2e enregistreur de vol." 1 May 2011. Updated 3 May 2011.

CENIPA (Portuguese):

• "CENIPA divulga participação do Brasil na investigação do acidente com o voo AF 447."
  • "AF447%20-%20Apresenta%C3%A7%C3%A3o%20Chefe%20do%20CENIPA.ppt."
• "OPERAÇÃO DE BUSCA DO AF447."

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Investigation

The Investigation section has this text:

"The main task currently occupying the investigators is recovering parts of the aircraft, primarily the flight recorders. BEA chief Paul-Louis Arslanian said that he is not optimistic about finding them since they may be under as much as 3,000 m (9,800 ft) of water and the terrain under this portion of the ocean is very rugged.[116]"

It might be worth changing it to say this is what was thought before recent discoveries. The section before notes that they just found a recorder on fairly flat terrain.

Vypo9 (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Quite right, well spotted; I have tried to correct the tense in this section. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Wreckage pictures on seabed.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/52000000/jpg/_52000604_52000603.jpg

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12961710

http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flight.af.447/images.du.site.php Dunno if fair use or not. Pär Larsson (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I was just going to post that link. The pictures shouldn't be lifted, but I don't see why the web page can't be cited in the article somewhere. Victor Engel (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I fail to understand how there can be any reasonable expectation of privacy or privileged use or how pictures can be considered proprietary after they are posted on a government website by said government? But I guess I'm lucky there are smarter people than I when it comes to copyright issues, no offense to you. Agreed on the link, though.Pär Larsson (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Some governments copyright their images, or use images copyrighted by someone else.

The U.S. federal government doesn't copyright its images

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

All images are copyrighted upon creation. If the U.S. federal government releases such images into the public domain, that is a grant of copyright to others. That is not the same as there not being a copyright. For the images in question, I really don't know who owns the copyright, so I will not presume to answer the required questions when adding them to wikipedia. Someone closer to ownership would need to do that. Victor Engel (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Victor, you are mistaken about US government copyright. Copyright status of work by the U.S. government will be helpful. In short, it is not true that all images are copyrighted upon creation. Images created as "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. government as part of that person's official duties" are not copyright, and no "grant of copyright to others" is necessary. I am only making a general comment, as I don't know if this has any precise relevance to the images under discussion here. (Were they created by US government employees as a part of official duties?)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Copyright law does not apply in this case. It is international copyright law that applies. I'm not an expert on the Berne Convention, but I think that would need to be studied. In any case, wikipedia likes to be clear about permissions. Interestingly, the article you cited states, "The act only speaks about domestic copyright. The U.S. government can still hold the copyright of those works in other countries." Victor Engel (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The WHOI news release says they were created by a REMUS-6000 autonomous underwater vehicle. It was in international waters, and not attended by a human of any nationality. That vehicle was owned and operated by WHOI, a private US institution under direction from the BEA, a public French institution on an effort funded (IIRC) by Air France. I'm not certain, and IANAL, but I suspect any attempt to enforce copyright on these images would be on very tenuous legal footing. Of course that doesn't mean they couldn't try, but they'd need to take on not just WMF, but a lot of bloggers. That said, there's a media relations contact listed on the news release. Why not just ask them? LeadSongDog come howl! 15:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the guardian photo legend [3] it looks like photograph is Bureau d'Enquetes et Analyses /EPA.93.25.165.221 (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Gthumb software describes the "Special instructions" attribute (which might be embeded within the photo) of [4] (a nypost photo) as: «UNDATED PHOTO PRIVIDED BY THE BEA - NO SALES - AP PROVIDES ACCESS TO THIS PUBLICLY DISTRIBUTED HANDOUT PHOTO TO BE USED ONLY ...» 93.25.165.221 (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

For a better clue, this photo also includes those two texts (I copy here after regardless of its copyright!): «UNDATED PHOTO PRIVIDED BY THE BEA - NO SALES - AP PROVIDES ACCESS TO THIS PUBLICLY DISTRIBUTED HANDOUT PHOTO TO BE USED ONLY TO ILLUSTRATE NEWS REPORTING OR COMMENTARY ON THE FACTS OR EVENTS DEPICTED IN THIS IMAGE -

:This undated black and white photo provided Monday April 4, 2011 by France's air accident investigation agency, the BEA, shows a wing of the flight AF447. All 228 people aboard the plane were killed when Flight 447, en route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris, slammed into the ocean northeast of Brazil on June 1, 2009. Specialists could start pulling up bodies and wreckage from an Air France plane found on the Atlantic Ocean floor within a month, after the stunning deep-water discovery raised new hope of determining the cause of the 2009 crash. (AP Photo/BEA) NO SALES» 93.25.165.221 (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

For reference, I have asked BEA if they would be willing to license their images under a free license. It will not happen, as they have no problem about the re-publication of their pictures, but do not want them to be modified (which is very understandable in the context of the investigation). Cochonfou (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the automated messages

In the lead, it says, "Forty minutes later, a four-minute-long series of automatic radio messages was received from the plane, stating numerous problems and warnings." In the "Automated messages" section, it says, "An Air France spokesperson stated on 3 June that “the aircraft sent a series of electronic messages over a three-minute period, which represented about a minute of information." and "The failures and warnings in the 5 minutes of transmission concerned navigation, auto-flight, flight controls and cabin air-conditioning (codes beginning with 34, 22, 27 and 21, respectively)."

Was the series three, four, or five minutes long? I'm not sure if the article is inconsistent or just unclear. For example, the automated messages could have been three minutes long while the entire transmission was five minutes, etc. This should probably either be fixed or clarified... – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 03:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The first interim report shows that the series lasted for four minutes. In other words, what the Air France spokesperson said is incorrect. I've made a note to clarify that, and changed "5 minutes" to "4 minutes" in the third citation. HeyMid (contribs) 09:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 15:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

228 fatalities vs. 230?

It seems the list of the perished by nationality counts to a total of 230, not 228, as known. I also spotted some irregularities with a list published by the BBC, which seems to include 5 Lebanese passengers, but only 2 Moroccans (the BBC article seems to be missing 7 occupants, which seems to make up for the unmentioned passengers from Gabon and Liberia). Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eug.galeotti (talk • contribs) 23:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It may be that some passengers had dual nationality. Mjroots (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a possibility. However, seeing how it is known how many people died on the aircraft (228), it would be ideal to acquire a complete list from one source, rather than using other sources, which could contribute to this discrepancy. Eug.galeotti (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Wreckage map

Based on

• FR section: http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.af.447/presentation12mai2011.pdf 10/12
• EN section: http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flight.af.447/presentation12may2011.pdf 10/12

Someone could try to make a free equivalent map to show how the debris was found

Also found:

• http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flight-international/2011/05/af447-more-compelling-images.html

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

BEA press releases (EN, FR, PT, DE)

Here is the ongoing listing of all of the BEA press releases, for easy reference reasons When relevant, use them in this Wikipedia article or in the Wikipedia articles in other languages

English:

• "Flight AF 447 on 1st June 2009 A330-203, registered F-GZCP." (Alt) 7 June 2011. (Not available in Portuguese or German)
• "Flight AF 447 on 1st June 2009 A330-203, registered F-GZCP." 27 May 2011. (Alt)
• "Flight AF 447 on 1st June 2009 A330-203, registered F-GZCP." 17 May 2011. (Alt)
• "Flight AF 447 on 1st June 2009 A330-203, registered F-GZCP." 16 May 2011. (Alt)
• "Flight AF 447 on 1st June 2009 A330-203, registered F-GZCP." 10 May 2011 (alt) (not available in Portuguese or German)
• "Flight AF 447 on 1st June 2009 A330-203, registered F-GZCP." 9 May 2011 (alt)
• "Flight AF 447 on 1st June 2009 A330-203, registered F-GZCP." 3 May 2011 (alt)
• "Flight AF 447 on 1st June 2009 A330-203, registered F-GZCP." 2 May 2011 (alt)
• "Flight AF 447 on 1st June 2009 A330-203, registered F-GZCP." 1 May 2011 (alt)
• "Flight AF 447 on 1st June 2009 A330-203, registered F-GZCP." 29 April 2011. (alt)
• "Flight AF 447 on 1st June 2009 A330-203, registered F-GZCP." 27 April 2011 (alt)
• "Flight AF 447 on 1st June 2009 A330-203, registered F-GZCP." 26 April 2011 (alt)
• "19 April 2011 press release." (not available in Portuguese or German)
• "Sea Search Operations." 17 December 2009.
• "Update on the Investigation into the Accident to flight AF 447 on 1st June 2009." 17 December 2009.

French:

• "Vol AF 447 du 1er juin 2009 A330-203, immatriculé F-GZCP Information, 7 juin 2011." (Alt) - 7 June 2011. Not available in Portuguese or German)
• "Vol AF 447 du 1er juin 2009 A330-203, immatriculé F-GZCP." 27 May 2011. (Alt)
• "Vol AF 447 du 1er juin 2009 A330-203, immatriculé F-GZCP." 16 May 2011. (Alt)
• "Vol AF 447 du 1er juin 2009 A330-203, immatriculé F-GZCP." 16 May 2011. (Alt)
• "Vol AF 447 du 1er juin 2009 A330-203, immatriculé F-GZCP." 10 May 2011. (Alt) (not available in Portuguese or German)
• "Vol AF 447 du 1er juin 2009 A330-203, immatriculé F-GZCP." 9 May 2011. (Alt)
• "Vol AF 447 du 1er juin 2009 A330-203, immatriculé F-GZCP." 3 May 2011. (Alt)
• "Vol AF 447 du 1er juin 2009 A330-203, immatriculé F-GZCP." 2 May 2011 (Alt)
• "Vol AF 447 du 1er juin 2009 A330-203, immatriculé F-GZCP." 1 May 2011 (Alt)
• "Vol AF 447 on 1er Juin 2009 éF-GZCP." (sic) 29 April 2011 (Alt)
• "Vol AF 447 du 1er juin 2009 immatriculé F-GZCP." 27 April 2011. (Alt)
• "Vol AF 447 du 1er juin 2009 immatriculé F-GZCP." 26 April 2011 (Alt)
• "19 April 2011 press release." (not available in Portuguese or German)
• "Opérations de recherches en mer." 17 December 2009.
• "Point sur l’enquête de l’accident du vol AF 447 survenu le 1er juin 2009." 17 December 2009

Portuguese:

• "Voo AF 447 de 01 de junho de 2009 A330-203, matrícula F-GZCP." 27 May 2011. (Alt)
• "Voo AF 447 de 01 de junho de 2009 A330-203, matrícula F-GZCP Operações de busca no mar, fase 5." 17 May 2011 (Alt)
• "Voo AF 447 de 02 de junho de 2009 A330-203, matrícula F-GZCP Operações de busca no mar, fase 5." 16 May 2011 (Alt)
• "Voo AF 447 de 02 de junho de 2009 A330-203, matrícula F-GZCP Operações de busca no mar, fase 5." 9 May 2011. (Alt)
• "Voo AF 447 de 02 de junho de 2009 A330-203, matrícula F-GZCP." 3 May 2011. (alt)
• "Voo AF 447 de 02 de junho de 2009 A330-203, matrícula F-GZCP Operações de busca no mar, fase 5." - 2 May 2011 (alt)
• "Voo AF 447 de 01 de junho de 2009 A330-203, matrícula F-GZCP Operações de busca no mar, fase 5." - 1 May 2011 (alt)
• "Voo AF 447 de 01 de junho de 2009 A330-203, matrícula F-GZCP Operações de busca no mar, fase 5." - 29 April 2011
• "Voo AF 447 de 01 de junho de 2009 A330-203, matrícula F-GZCP Operações de busca no mar, fase 5." - 27 April 2011 (alt)
• "Voo AF 447 de 01 de junho de 2009 A330-203, matrícula F-GZCP Operações de busca no mar, fase 5." - 26 April 2011 (alt)
• "Balanço da investigação sobre o acidente do vôo AF 447 ocorrido em 1º de junho de 2009" - 17 December 2009
• "Operações de busca no mar." - 17 December 2009

German:

• "Flug AF 447 vom 1. Juni 2009 A330-203, kennung F-GZCP." 27 May 2011. (Alt)
• "Flug AF 447 vom 1. Juni 2009 A330-203, kennung F-GZCP." 16 May 2011. (Alt)
• "Flug AF 447 vom 1. Juni 2009 A330-203, kennung F-GZCP." 16 May 2011. (Alt)
• "Flug AF 447 vom 1. Juni 2009 A330-203, kennung F-GZCP." 9 May 2011. (Alt)
• "Flug AF 447 vom 1. Juni 2009 A330-203, kennung F-GZCP." 3 May 2011. (alt)
• "Flug AF 447 vom 1. Juni 2009 A330-203, kennung F-GZCP." 2 May 2011. (alt)
• "Flug AF 447 vom 1. Juni 2009 A330-203, kennung F-GZCP." 1 May 2011. (alt)
• "Flug AF 447 vom 1. Juni 2009 A330-203, kennung F-GZCP." 29 April 2011.
• "Flug AF 447 vom 1. Juni 2009 A330-203, kennung F-GZCP." 27 April 2011. (alt)
• "Flug AF 447 vom 1. Juni 2009 A330-203, Kennung F-GZCP Suchoperationen im Meer, Phase 5." 26 April 2011. (alt)
• "Bericht über die Untersuchung des Flugzeugunglücks AF 447 am 1. Juni 2009." 17. December 2009.
• "Die Suchoperationen im Meer." - 17. December 2009

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

And as a bonus: http://89.30.127.37/fr/enquetes/vol.af.447/point.presse.4avril2011.pdf WhisperToMe (talk) 11:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Victims association

In Portuguese the name is "Associação dos Familiares das Vitimas do Vôo Air France 447" WhisperToMe (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

First information from the black boxes

I added the following to the article, at the end of the investigation section:

On May 16th 2011, Le Figaro reported that the BEA investigators had ruled out an aircraft malfunction as the cause of the crash, according to first information extracted from the black boxes.

These are the first reports that come in. This may be too early for an inclusion in the article - it's up to your judgement, you may delete this sentence if you feel so. Cochonfou (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's the Google English translation page: [5]. The headline may give an indication of it's quality (!) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems implausible to me that aircraft malfunction could have been definitively ruled out this soon after recovering the data recorders. I'd urge caution over this report. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It's surprising, but it is what is reported by an arguably rather reliable source. I agree that we should proceed with caution with this report, and maybe add a counterpoint. However, I should point out that the headline only gives an indication on the poor quality of the google translator. Cochonfou (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that you have correctly given the gist of the report, Cochonfou. I too am amazed at the rapidity of this report, although it seems that it does come from the FDR data alone. But even without the CVR, until there is some suggestion of an explanation of what caused the automated messages, surely any conclusion will be premature? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It sure looks very premature, and gives very little details. Honestly, I don't really know how to handle this. As could be expected, this report is already being picked up on TV, and it will probably land in international news sources tomorrow. For the better or worse, this "cat" is out of the box. Let's hope that the BEA will make an official statement stressing that no definite conclusion had been drawn yet. Cochonfou (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The BEA just made a press release saying that the information is premature and that no conclusions can be drawn yet: http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flight.af.447/pressrelease17may2011.en.php WhisperToMe (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Also see the press release by Airbus: "Tom Enders on data download from AF447 black boxes." 16 May 2011. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added a sentence regarding the BEA rebuttal press release to the article for now - we should probably wait to see how this statement is received by the media before proceeding further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

And Airbus posted a press release saying the information was premature

"Airbus statement regarding media reports about the AF447 investigation." 17 May 2011. (Archive)

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a new article from Flightglobal, which specializes in aviation matters:

Kaminski-Morrow, David. "Initial AF447 evidence does not require operator action." 17 May 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• I think we should avoid writing about the FDR and CVR's respective data unless the data has been validated by the BEA. HeyMid (contribs) 08:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, but there is very interesting information about the investigation "leaking out". For instance, over this news article, it would seem that the aircraft did not fly into the storm, while many scenarios assumed it did. I think that if we take care of properly sourcing this kind of information (from WP:RS), stressing that it is not endorsed by the BEA, it could add some value to the article. Cochonfou (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources about DNA identification

This one is in Portuguese:

• Fernandes, Daniela. "França confirma que DNA permite identificar vítimas do AF 447." BBC Brasil. 18 May 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

BEA copyright status

Does anyone know what the copyright status of BEA press releases and reports is, specifically the imagery? Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

See above at #Wreckage pictures on seabed. Unfortunately their "no revisions" response is incompatible with WP free licenses. It may be possible to construct a Fair Use Rationale in specific cases though. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

"Finally"

In the lead, I see that users repeatedly add "the loss of the aircraft's black boxes, which were finally located and recovered". Do we really need to include the word "finally" in the sentence? The word "finally" means that it's something everybody has been waiting for and that it took a long time. However, I don't think the word "finally" should be included in an encyclopedia article. HeyMid (contribs) 13:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it didn't look quite right. I've reworded the section now, in a way that I think is clearer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Worse than that, "finally" suggested that the recovery of the black boxes was the end of the story, which is far from the truth. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011 reports of investigations

I see that there are several, at times contradictory, press reports regarding what BEA may or may not say regarding the cause of the accident. Since the BEA report will be published (at least in a preliminary version) on 27 May, I would suggest that we refrain from publishing press reports based on unverifiable leaks, at least until 30 May.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Simple typo

"At that point, the plane's ground speed was 107 knots, and it was descending at 10,912 feet per second".

Must be 10,912 feet per minute, otherwise they are going down about 12000 km/h! Also fits the description it took about 3 minutes go drop from 35000 feet. --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.79.167.152 (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems to have been corrected. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

3 or 6 Lebanese?

Searching on Google for flight 447 "six lebanese" gives reliable sources stating there were six Lebanese (Lebanon) passengers in Flight 447. I can't find any sources that say three. If three is right, where is the source?

Also, counting the amount of passengers in the list, I get it to 218, so that's two passengers too much. HeyMid (contribs) 10:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

In-depth information regarding latest report

The BEA, as expected, released another report today. However, I find the information in the "Findings from the flight data recorder" section superfluous. Does someone agree with me? Maybe we should instead mention just the most important parts of the new findings? HeyMid (contribs) 14:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Links to 2011 interim report:

• English: http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.af.447/point.enquete.af447.27mai2011.en.pdf
• French (original): http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.af.447/point.enquete.af447.27mai2011.fr.pdf
• German: http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.af.447/point.enquete.af447.27mai2011.de.pdf
• Portuguese: http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.af.447/point.enquete.af447.27mai2011.br.pdf

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• With the advent of finding the data recorder, it is important to develop this section further as opposed to being superfluous as indicated before; objectively, as described above in a way by floating the links to official bulletin, as a start. Further scope includes, besides other things, the collation of all avaialble time line information with the flight data recorder information. Second by second collation with estimation of events that are predictable by approximation, where approriate, to occur after a event recorded in any form, whether ACARS, voice, external navigation tracking systems etc. This collation may involve table with time in one column and corresponding events and comments in the third and other parameters in other columns as deemed fit.

This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources.

 : further development needed...

The table seems to go to the bottom of the entire discussion page and hence will temporarily be outed. Patelurology2 (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC) This from a novice: Desirability of such collation of events to be commented on. If appropriate, go ahead with the development of the list modifying to the the best format. Recognising contributions of all who have toiled for this topic and is another call to work further. Patelurology2 (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• The table seems to go to the bottom of the entire discussion page and hence will temporarily be outed.

Patelurology2 (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Apology to Patelurology2 but I have had to remove his post that was at this point as it messed up the code and caused other non-related messages to be hidden. I could not find the errors as it appears to be more than one, so it really needs to be checked with a preview before it is re-added, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks. A tabular collation of the time events is needed and ACARS table by PBB666 would be a start; that table and a simplified version of plug-in data table will be presented as was on that post but without other contribution by PBB666 and me as in that post. This under anew section.

Patelurology2 (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have reviewed the preliminary statements by the BEA and other media sources.I believe BEAs explanation of these statements and the issues they created will be markedly expanded in the final report. There are some ACARS that are consistent with the VD and FD recordings, I found alot of inconsistencies and open areas of interpretation. For this reason I recommend waiting for the final report.PB666 ^yap 21:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think we can do anything more until the final report is published.--Gautier lebon (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

"Type" in infobox

I believe sufficient information has been released from the BEA to formulate the following regarding the "Type" of accident, specifically:

• Type: Under Investigation, Airspeed indication failure followed by aerodynamic stall suspected

or something similar. A similar statement was used at 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash once the investigations zeroed in on Pilot Error in that particular case. I also note that this describes the "type" of accident, not the specific "cause". While the latter has yet to be determined, the former is no longer in dispute according to this press release from the BEA. Opening this up for discussion as the note says not to change "type" until the final report is released. N419BH 06:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree there is a large difference between type and cause. And your reasoning seems perfectly sound. But what does wikipedia mean by "type" - I'm sure there isn't a list of alternatives, is there? Should there be? Suggested text looks fine, but reads more like a mini description than a "type". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Type in the infobox should just be a one-line statement not a summary refer Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence which says Phrase describing the type and/or cause of the accident/incident. It should be left as it is until an official cause is published and probably changed to Instrument failure or similar. MilborneOne (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

See Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence#Example accident/incident types for examples. Judging from that, I believe that only the main cause of the accident should be mentioned in the "type" parameter. We do not currently know the main cause; we'll have to wait until the final report has been released. HeyMid (contribs) 09:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, we can conclusively say the airplane stalled at 38,000ft. We can conclusively say the airspeed indications were incorrect. But I agree we cannot conclusively provide a "cause" at this time nor substantiate such a cause with a reliable source. I don't think we can even call it an "instrument failure" type of accident as the extensive NOVA documentary (created before the black boxes were located) includes a segment where experienced pilots in an A330 flight simulator demonstrated the ability to control the airplane without airspeed indications using standard operating procedures. So even saying instrument failure caused the accident is incorrect. I think we're going to end up with a long series of causes here and it will be difficult to assign a one-line "type" even when the final report is published. Food for thought but we're getting into speculation at that point. N419BH 20:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Well that's the main problem with clinging onto an outdated static deterministic view of accident causation. It is the constant, but often wholly illusive, search for the one thing, or the one main thing or the principal cause of every accident. Someone OR something has to be shown to be to blame. If it's a terrorist bomb, then fine, that's pretty clear. But that isn't even an accident. With something as complicated as an airplane, with a man, possible many men and women, in the loop, it's not always easy to pin the tail on the remains of the donkey. An explanation won't always fit neartly in a wikipedia info box, I'm afraid. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with N419BH and Wittlessgenstein. At this time, all that can be said is that the immediate cause of the accident was a stall. But that is meaningless. We need to know what led to the pilots taking the action that caused the stall. Instrument failure is surely a contributory cause, but weather conditions may or may not have contributed, as well as pilot confusion and who knows what else. We have to wait until the final official report until we can put something meaningful in this field. I would suggest that, for now, it read simply "under investigation".--Gautier lebon (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your first statement. What I'm saying is even when the final report is published we're going to have a long list of causes. Every accident is a chain of events; all links must be there for the accident to happen. I'm getting into a bit of speculation at this point but this is a plausible chain of causation based on the known facts:

1. The pitot tubes had a design flaw, making them vulnerable to icing from supercooled water droplets.

2. The airplane flew into an area of supercooled water, and the pitot tubes iced over, causing airspeed indications to fail.

3. For some unexplained reason, the pilots apparently did not apply standard operating procedures, and allowed the plane to climb and slow down instead of keeping it level and using known thrust settings to maintain an approximate airspeed.

4. This climb caused the airplane to stall and begin losing altitude.

5. For some unexplained reason, the pilots apparently did not recognize the stall and were unable to recover the airplane until water impact.

There's a possible chain of causes, and the real cause will likely be even longer, possibly also discussing weather radar limitations, the need for enhanced training, and perhaps even getting into the highly automated world of modern aircraft and how uncommon it is for the modern pilot to actually have to take manual control of the aircraft. So how do we say that in three words? It can't be done. So what are we going to do? N419BH 16:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

And, of course, running through all of this chain of physical events was the group dynamic/ social psychology/ command gradient (whatever you care to call it). How much time was wasted by the co-piot trying to rouse the pilot, by the pilot trying to grasp what had happened, by the two possibly having two conflicting mental models, etc., etc? But, of course, we can never know all these things. So what do we do, indeed. I suspect we'll end up using a handy two or three word categorisation. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree fully with both comments above. For now it should say "under investigation". When the final report is produced, it may or may not give a reasonably short series of causes that can be summarized (for example, icing of the pitot tubes compounded by pilot errors, or whatever).--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Cross-section of sea-bed diagram

Now that the black boxes have been located and recovered, I was wondering about the usefulness of the figure, in the Investigation section, which shows: "East-west cross-section of Atlantic Ocean portion in which Air France Flight 447 was thought to have crashed". Is this figure now wholly relevant? Where is the actual debris site in relation to this area? Can it be added? Or should the figure now be replaced or removed? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I see that the cross section runs for 260 kms east of 32.47987527 W, 3.48075932 N. Did the plane in fact crash near here? Where were the black boxes located? Was it on, or at least near to, this line? Can the seabed terrain be extrapolated to that location? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It is relevant, at least in part; charting work to designate the location of pieces is needed with respect to all dimensions of ocean; revision of location, as necessary, to include other elements discovered may be needed.

Patelurology2 (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The extreme vertical exaggeration on this cross-section is very misleading. A casual viewer may come to the conclusion that the seafloor is covered in peaks and canyons, possibly explaining the delay in finding the wreckage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.105.46 (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

One assumes that a reader will at least read the caption, where this is explained. But it's relevance, in terms of proximity to the eventual wreckage site is totally unclear. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism Rules?

I am wondering if Wikipedia has its own special plagiarism rules? I ask because I have noticed that sometimes there will be word-for-word cut and paste from official accident reports, but without quotation marks. And, that is often mixed in with paraphrasing from the accident reports.

When I was in college, it was made very clear that using the exact words of someone else, without the quotation marks, could get one into some pretty deep trouble. 66.81.52.90 (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

WP has a strong copyright violation policy and a guidline around plagiarism, which incidentally are not the same thing. Is there a section of text in this article that you are specifically concerned about? Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The section 4.2, Findings from flight data recorder, is pretty much a verbatim transcription of the offical BEA report. However, this is not plagarism because the source is cited, and the material is in the public domain because it is an official report. So I don't see any problems.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I do understand that there is a difference between a plagiarism issue and a copyright issue. That is why I used the word "plagiarism": because that is the subject about which I intended to inquire. My understanding, from my college days, is that a simple footnote, which indicates where I got the information from, does not excuse the word-for-word copying from what someone else wrote, if I fail to clearly indicate I am quoting that person. Two ways to indicate I am quoting another writer:

a) With quotation marks (plus, of course a link to the source/name of who wrote it), or,

b) indenting the parts that are a quotation, so that my own words are separated from those that I am quoting.

That is why I asked if Wiki has its own special rules about how to avoid plagiarizing someone else's words - because I found some word-for-word cut and paste from some accident report, without either the quotation marks, or the paragraph indenting method. It appeared to me that the words were written by the Wiki editor that put them in the article, until I later discovered they were identical with the words in the accident report. Right now I cannot remember which article I was reading at the time, when I made that discovery, but when I get more time I will try and find it again --- if anyone really cares. The response I got seems to indicate it is no big deal with Wiki editors, so not sure if would be a good use of my limited time, to try and find it again. 66.81.53.218 (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The "no big deal issue" I think is that is because these are preliminary reports and the news media has already twisted and transformed the statements. I personally would adhere as close to the original as possible, in order to avoid making mistakes. If it were to be shortened I would remove the pilot "said this and that" stuff and paraphrase. I dont think this is a big deal because this article [I worked on from the very beginning] and has undergone many transformations along the way, and this new section, in time will be completely rewritten. I repeat I think we need to state here as little as possible about these findings until the full study is done.PB666 ^yap 20:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

More to the OP's point, whether there is an issue about using the material is not the question. It's whether to quote it. The presence of quotation marks explicitly shows that the text came from elsewhere and should be cited. That is how things are supposed to work on wikipedia. If you see an issue like this, just correct it, if you know the source.Victor Engel (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Probable Cause

The officials and professionals seem to have had an analysis failure here. An icing event, probably caused by unusual weather and super chilled water as others have suggested, that caused the three pitot tubes to ice over all at once, in one ACARS report cycle as opposed to a sequence of separate failure reports, would not be limited to the pitot tubes; it would affect the whole airplane. Nova’s pitot icing animation is wrong; the correct animation would have the plane covering with ice first and the heated pitot tubes icing last. The sudden and simultaneous pitot tube failures directly infer that an overwhelming mass of ice suddenly accumulated on the plane. It fell from the sky, perhaps stalling, because it was too heavy to fly. Such an icing event might also compromise engine thrust, control surfaces and flaps and slats making it impossible to fly at any altitude and speed; the crew had no chance to recover it. I’m not an expert; but this analysis of the many facts presented is pretty straightforward. Paulfixit (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Please read wp:NOR ant wp:NOTFORUM. If you can cite a reliable source that provides the above analysis, then please do so. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

To hell with the wp:NOR. For me is the best analysis to this date and maybe the real cause of the accident.200.189.118.10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC).

But WP:OR is one of the core pillars of Wikipedia, and one that is non-negotiable... WhisperToMe (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this theory holds no water (or ice, as it were). Transport category aircraft are designed to handle ice. It is entirely possible that the anti-ice capabilities of only one component (namely the pitot tubes) was inadequate while the remainder of the anti-icing systems performed as anticipated. N419BH 23:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps its time, if it hasn't been done already, for the FCMS people to incorporate GPS vertical and horizontal ground speed data into the flight control computer, so that when there are failures in the pitots' dynamic data, then the flight controller could drop down into the GPS data set. Such data would not yield any horizontal or vertical wind components, but would probably be far, far better than flying speed data 'blind', which is what may have happened on AF447. Does anyone know if such inputs are actually incorporated into modern FCMSs? HarryZilber (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Bad idea, but in any case not relevant to editing the article. Please see wp:TPG and wp:NOTFORUM.LeadSongDog come howl! 15:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

By criticizing the improved safety concept as a 'bad idea', you've engaged in the very forum discussion that you proscribe in the later part of your post -amounting to sniping. Feel free to expound on your idea of the poor quality (bad idea) of the GPS data concept on my personal talk page if you'd like to, or are even able to, justify your hit-and-run criticism, where WP:notaforum doesn't apply. HarryZilber (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, overly harsh or at least blunt. The difference is wind. The inertials can pretty well tell change in wind speed from change in actual speed, so the three sources can theoretically be used to make judgments about sensor system failures. This is a topic rife with armchair quarterbacking though: it's often easy to fix something in hindsight and NOT imagine a different scenario that would work out badly in the prospective logic. 184.99.200.137 (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Recognising the need to have neutral point of view and non forum format in convention, here, a discussion on whatever information is relevant and possibly may be applicable to this tragic incident, is germain and fully be expressed; atleast, furtherance of knowledge of the subject may result; any and all aspects of modern aviation from wish to whatever was available and applicable to the flight should be welcome. In this light, I have mulled over the thought about collation of second by second information from various sources, with prior effort at the end of this page under the section titled as Integration....; reposting of the completed table for this talk page is pending and now here on my talk page and can be moved to this page by any of you. A page was started under my page protection here for Flying by seat-of-the-pants; a section was found in a page on related topic in Wikipedia here ; applicability of this may have been limited in this case as in short period, the flight was in flux with respect to accleration-deceleration up or down movements; said limitation refers to the slow change of force is appreciable but sudden large flux may not be appreciated as to the degree, e.g. descent at high rate; fast ascent with large G forces, appreciable. The seat is one sensor, the others respectively in different orientation are the top of shoulder-harness complex and the back in in this context; the front of the chest has limited sensing input save the belt harness. Recognising, as major contributor has said on his/her user page, that matters pertaining to a subject should, in primum, be expressed on the respective talk page of the topic i.e. AF447 matters on this page as opposed to individual's talk page. In this context, it was tried firstly here and on noting some instability, the development carried out on my talk page as noted above.

Patelurology2 (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Patelurology2 (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Number of passengers

The table containing the number of passengers suggests that counting the number of passengers from each country gives a total of 216 passengers; however, counting manually, the total is 218 passengers. Could someone fix the issue, or add a note regarding eventual multiple citizenship? Thanks in advance, HeyMid (contribs) 19:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand now; in the text it says "Attributing nationality was complicated by the holding of multiple citizenship by several passengers." That should clarify the problem. Thanks, HeyMid (contribs) 23:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Nationalities of the passengers

The Air France press release lists Lebanese passengers, they do not figure in the table provided in the Article. Anyone knows why?

notice that Air France lists different numbers in the English release and the Portuguese release, i understand the dual nationality issue but still the two reports are supposed to be the same save only for the language, for Example: 3 Lebanese 3 Moroccans in English. 5 Lebanese 2 Moroccans in Portuguese.

So were there any Lebanese aboard that flight? 93.24.110.138 (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• English/Portuguese press release: http://alphasite.airfrance.com/en/s01/press-releases/#communique2546
• English does say: "3 Lebanese 3 Moroccan"
• Portuguese does say: "5 Libaneses 2 Marroquinos"
• The French version is at http://alphasite.airfrance.com/fr/s01/communiques-de-presse/#communique2545
• "3 Libanais 3 Marocains"
• Since French is the original language, it may be best to go with what the French version says.
• WhisperToMe (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The number of passengers from the Netherlands may be incorrect. The Dutch news item does not refer to someone else from the Netherlands (a software engineer whom I knew personally) that was a passenger on AF-447. DFH (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If that friend was a Dutch citizen but you believe he wasn't counted as one - it's possible he may have traveled under a different passport from another country, and therefore be at least a dual citizen WhisperToMe (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

New Interim Report Scheduled for Release

The BEA will release their third interim report on 29 July 2011 [6]. The BEA has stated this report will "present the exact circumstances of the accident" and include "additional analysis and some new findings". A press conference has also been scheduled for that same day. Looks like we've got a good deal of reading, writing and sourcing to accomplish here in the near future. N419BH 16:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Interim report is interim: time a-short for complex system tackle

• With the advent of release of the above said 3rd interim report, some jumping at the conclusion and alteration of the cause of accident slot on the article page box was observed. Interim reports are are be recognised as such as interim and accident still remains under investigation; final report may indicate the cause, but let the consensus on this discussion page rule as to the wording to be dispayed in the box.

• • Inadequacy of training is a judgement issue; most pilots by this stage have a seat-of-the pants feel, so the question arises what were the limitations of use of this feel? Some of the limitations and possibilities were addressed in the section above, here; up and downdrafts are additional with time a-short along with complexity of automation 'laws' going of and on in a compromised flight.

• • Report indicates lack of work distribution; task distribution often change with events; all the pilots in cabin in final moments with Captain walking in with walking-seat-of-feet feel information including the angle of attack feel must have assessed the need for nose down as it soon after happened briefly at least. Most highly trained pilots in the situation may not have had time on their side save the situation at least with the seat-of-pants feel with its inherent limitations as noted in section above,here

• • With undestanding of the episode a-lacking, the thought of collation of data elements review in tabular format is being presented again as explained in the first section above, here .

Patelurology2 (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Patelurology2 (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• • The French aviation investigation agency (BEA) is forming a special group, including aviation experts and physiologists and psychologists, to study the pilots' possible responses in the last few moments of the flight to help determine why they did what they did.

Patelurology2 (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• • The following was posted on User:Johnson487682 who appropriately deleted certain part on the main page and User:JRPG who tried to correct/add information in context, but the matter still needs work; most recently just before reviewing recommendation by User:JRPG to post the following here, an addition was made regarding a statement by Air France, which probably, in part, balances the other statements in the same section as in the block below.

• The paragraph deleted was:

  Lack of certain high altitude specific flying doesn't mean that the pilots cannot cope with a situation; the time a-short, weather unfavorable in a compromised aircraft with off-on flight 'laws' in short duration with coffin corner's narrow speed range limitation, can be challenging for the best trained.

• The BEA assembled a panel of aviation and medical experts to study pilot responses as to why they reacted in certain way.

• A brief bulletin by Air France indicated: that "the misleading stopping and starting of the stall warning alarm, contradicting the actual state of the aircraft, greatly contributed to the crew’s difficulty in analyzing the situation."

• Hi Patelurology2. Thanks for a very courteous and rational explanation of your problems with my post and please don't feel insulted that I amended what you wrote. We're both trying to make a better article -and one which won't further upset relatives. The key area of disagreement as I see it is whether Flight Safety Foundation is wp:NPOV. Could I suggest you repost on Talk:Air France Flight 447 as this keeps all article related discussions together and everyone can see it? I will do what I can to ensure we get agreement and of course will accept the majority verdict. Regards JRPG (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• The following posted on co-editor,User talk:JRPG and User talk:Johnson487682 , of matter in context. Thanks but the matter in context needs more work.

• A later report from the BEA, released on 29 July 2011, indicated that the pilots had not been trained to fly the aircraft "in manual mode or to promptly recognize and respond to a speed-sensor malfunction at high altitude" nor was this a standard training requirement at the time of the accident. Text before this indicates quotation from Flight safety foundation official giving the impression that the crew was specifically not instructed in flying at this altitude. The passage originally had just mention of FSF and has an article on this entity though a 'trust' type non profit, still being in endeavour to train pilots, the mention of lack of training may be in conflict with organization's self interest. The extension of what they do was added by me as a part copy verbatim from Wikipedia page on FSF Flight Safety Foundation so a conflict can at least be recognized. I believe those pilots did not need specific training; specific training can be helpful; all pilots should be able to handle such situation given time which was short and weather inclement. I know, you also must have felt, on deletion of my input, that there is still something lacking and User:JRPG has tried to rectify as per the User's last input on that page around the above paragraph. All this, ironically, stems from address by the BEA in third report about lack of training, which I believe is judgmental in the least. You must have seen my input on discussion page.I feel the section needs more work to neutralize implications of lack of training which ultimately will not hold water. Thanks.

Patelurology2 (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Technicalities: A Closer Look at What Happened to Air France 447 Flying magazine Aug 2,2011 describes some thoughts around the flight; however, in a situation, vertical separation is not the main consideration, especially in a sparsely trafficked locale; recovering a flight in stall takes precedence over most other thoughts.

Patelurology2 (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Recognising input for copyedit from User:LeadSongDog and User:Moonriddengirl, two of the above passages and respective input on the main page is also corrected.

Patelurology2 (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• BEA full Interim report 30 July 2011 (Including CVR transcripts)[7], is more than 100 pages long with details which need further study as it is already impacting the main page with partial random unbalanced views; all regular contributors are encouaged to monitor and prospectively execute a balanced comprehensive summary of report for the main page. The above link is already on the main page.

Patelurology2 (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Having reviewed the above mentioned 3rd Interim report of more than 100 pages, it seems various reporting agencies are reporting their own interpretations or understanding of the report as detailed by BEA or interpreteting in between lines or some logical explanations in context creating varying reports. Inasmuch as some of the latter also applies to BEA 3rd report, a need arises to have raw source of information ( actual transcript and recording, in any and all forms including e.g. background voices ) pertaining to this topic backwards from the 3rd report all the way to the start of the flight including the history of the aircraft; the pilots' credentials and training seem satisfactorily detailed in the 3rd BEA report. Report that propmts the above is: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Cockpit-terror-revealed-in-Air-France-A330-Airbus-recordings-126541623.html :a simple account, but not easily found on BEA 3rd report.

Patelurology2 (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Patelurology2 (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Nose-up

The article states: "The angle of attack had then reached 40 degrees, and the plane had descended to 35,000 feet with the engines running at almost 100% N1 (the rotational speed of the front intake fan, which delivers most of a turbofan engine's thrust). The stall warnings stopped, as all airspeed indications were now considered invalid by the aircraft's computer due to the high angle of attack. In other words, the plane was oriented nose-up but descending steeply."

Note that the angle of attack is the angle of the orientation of the plane relative to its direction of travel through the air. If the plane is traveling downward relative to the ground steeper than 40 degrees, the nose is actually down relative to the horizon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor Engel (talk • contribs) 21:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting point. The plane was stalled, so indeed it was pointed nose up with respect to the airflow even though it was falling. The horizontal speed was about equal to the vertical speed, so the trajectory of the plane was more-or-less a 45-degree dive. So if the angle of attack was 40 degrees, then indeed the attitude with respect to the earth was more-or-less horizontal. I hadn't thought of that before: the artifical horizon may have been showing a horizontal attitude, which may have contributed to the pilot's confusion. The pilots may have thought that the attitude indicator was not working property, so they kept pulling back on the stick to keep the artifical horizon flat. But I'm not sure that this is correct. Could others comment?--Gautier lebon (talk) 07:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, attitude ball may have been flat, but how could anyone miss a vertical velocity dial spinning down that fast? What happened to the stall warning? Didn't this aircraft have any ACARS or GPWS? Thanks. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

What happened to the stall warning was that the computer determined that it had insufficient reliable data to determine whether the plane was in a stall, so the alarm was turned off, leaving the crew to decide with equally poor data what to do. Victor Engel (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Found, to-day, an article by an Airbus Captain's take on AF447 disaster here indicating complexities of controls with the limitations of the system and human interfacing.

Patelurology2 (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like that was written before the recorder results were published. I'd like to see an updated analysis by the same pilot. Victor Engel (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Correct. That account says that the computer might have malfunctioned, whereas we now know that the computer was disconnected and it was manual inputs that caused the stall and crash.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a little over-simplifying to say "the computer was disconnected". Do you mean "the Autopiot was disengaged"? But even without AP, doesn't this aircraft employ other protection measures as part of its basic flight control system? That seems to be what that pilot was saying in that wired.com article. Thanks. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Both the autopilot and all the protection measures were disabled. The plane was in full manual flight mode. That is, the pilot's inputs were directly transmitted to the control surfaces without any filtering by the computer, just like for a normal mechanically-controlled plane. You are correct that the computer was still working, the plane is fly-by-wire, so it would have been uncontrollable if the computer had actually disconnected. The correct statement is "all the protection measures were disconnected".--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Dead references

19 references in the article seem to be dead. Could someone check them and replace them with live links? Thanks in advance, HeyMid (contribs) 17:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Now that you have spotted the dead references, could you tell us how to spot these and could they be marked as dead so that someone can work on these ad-lib? If no marking system is available, can you take the 'cause' for further development say at the Village pump?

Patelurology2 (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

They are marked with [dead link] in the References. I've fixed one, #30 using the Wayback Machine. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Consistent Time

Please consider using Universal Coordinated Time throughout the article. The use of a nominally defined time, e.g. 'absolute time' doesn't add any real meaning to the article. If you need to define the relative position of an UTC time in terms of the flight duration, then add a suitable comment. Kiwi Kousin (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Deep stall

In spite of various uninformed speculation I have seen too, this design of plane is not susceptible to a deep stall, not being a T-tail. --John (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments from 199.47.199.27

This user recently added some comments to the article. They were reverted, but are worthy of consideration here.

/* Automated messages */ One of the two final messages transmitted at 02:14 UTC was a warning referring to the air data reference system, the other ADVISORY (Code 213100206) was a "cabin vertical speed warning", indicating that the plane was descending at a high rate.

• (This is FALSE - it only means the CABIN altitude was changing, not necessarily the actual aircraft altitude! This is a Pressurization message! See Pilot Training 101. I really wish people would not write about subjects that they have no understanding about!)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_France_Flight_447&action=historysubmit&diff=442991748&oldid=442897205

/* Weather conditions */ Generally, when storms of this type are encountered at night, pilots use onboard radar to navigate around them.

• (Actually real professional airline pilots use the onboard Weather Radar ALL THE TIME! Obviously written by some clueless person!
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_France_Flight_447&action=historysubmit&diff=442992221&oldid=442991790

/* Airspeed inconsistency */

• It's not that confusing! When you have a discrepancy in the Airspeed data a professional pilot would a) immediately refer to the Standby Instruments which use independent basic data sources and b) call for the "Flight with Unreliable Airspeed" QRH checklist. This is covered in basic conversion training by any airline of any integrity! Flight in either Alternate Law and/or Direct Law is also an integral part of conversion training on the Airbus types.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_France_Flight_447&action=historysubmit&diff=442993029&oldid=442992221

/* BEA safety analysis */ He added that pilots no longer fly manually at altitudes higher than 24,500 feet (7,500 m), meaning they don't know how an aircraft is manually handled at that altitude.

• 24,500 feet - yeah right! Where do these people get this garbage from? This is pure fiction. Why not say above 26, 321.673 ft? As a professional pilot I have flown for a few airlines and ALL conversions and regular training is given in manual "Upset Recovery" in manual flight! Where does this person get this arbitrary figure from? Makes me wonder about the rest of his comments!

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_France_Flight_447&action=historysubmit&diff=442994268&oldid=442993854

82.1.57.194 (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Above is noteworthy of spotting appropriate contributions even from unregistered users, though recognizing that the said primary contributor's interest in topic of unrelated article page on logic ( related to neural network ) and recognizing several aviation contribution of the observer of above, the above may further be explained by a take on AF447 disaster by an Airbus captain at here indicating complexities of controls with the limitations of the system and human interfacing.

Patelurology2 (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Patelurology2 (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Updates

The data recorder transcripts have been published in their entirety, in the original French as well as English. They reveal serious CRM shortcomings on the AF447 flight deck and issues with the Airbus cockpit flight controls design. The crew literally flew a 100% capable aircraft into the ocean. The history of this article indicates knowledgeable editors have been updating this article, and it needs such attention now. Chest-thumping such as exhibited on this discussion page only hinders the process.--Reedmalloy (talk) 05:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Media speculation and independent analysis?

I have twice now removed criticism by a Boeing consultant because his analysis is by definition not independent. Unless the current section title changes from the current: Media speculation and independent analysis to Media speculation and COI analysis there is no room for analysis of the Airbus design by a Boeing employee. Boeing being a direct competitor of Airbus. See also Competition between Airbus and Boeing. Also his credentials are and quote from his bio: "Mr. Thompson holds doctoral and masters degrees in government from Georgetown University and a bachelor of science degree in political science from Northeastern University." How is this criticism relevant coming from a non-expert?

And there is more: Quote from the Lexington Institute article:

The Lexington Institute has been called the "defense industry's pay-to-play ad agency", reflecting the fact that it receives substantial funding from military contractors and issues a steady stream of reports, usually favorable, about the performance and status of key weapons programs.

This criticism coming from the Lexington Institute blog is obviously not independent criticism. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 08:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I share your concerns about COI, particularly as the statement in question was extremely vague and poorly disguised jab against Airbus. Let's try to keep this article clear of manufacturer disputes and rivalry and stick to the facts. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Socrates. To your comment about sticking to the facts I would add: Let's also stick to truly independent analysis. The commentary in the Lexington blog has unfavourable comparisons of Airbus to Boeing embedded in their criticism. It feels more like an Airbus-Boeing comparative analysis before a final product sale rather than an air-accident criticism. I don't blame the Lexington people. They are doing their jobs. I am sure that Airbus is engaged is similar activities. I also agree with your comment: "Let's try to keep this article clear of manufacturer disputes and rivalry.." by adding: Let's do this for all articles. Criticism from the competition, for any company, is not independent analysis. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not share your concerns about COI. WP:COI clearly does not apply. I do have concerns about twice deleting the same reference added by two different editors. It is to me clearly censorship by Dr.K. of this reference and article. He doesn't like it, therefore he will prevent Wikipedia readers from seeing it. I found the reference had valid information. Simply deleting the reference is uncalled for and deprives readers of the information in the article. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Got any kind of credible evidence that this blog is to be considered a wp:RS with a decent history of fact checking? Any sign of independent competent publications citing it, for instance? Say Flight International or even Aviation Week? Is it ever quoted by accident investigators? LeadSongDog come howl! 22:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3857 -- 244 media citations in 2008 Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not what LeadSongDog asked you. The blog may be cited but how many cites does it get from expert aviation publications and particularly on the alleged Airbus design flaws. This is the issue. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you LeadSongDog. You make some great points. Darrell Greenwood has not addressed any of my arguments above and instead relies on innuendo, personal attacks and heavy-handed propaganda about censorship as a means to debate. Not advancing any intelligent arguments speaks for itself. So before we proceed any further I repeat one more time: In addition to the COI, the connections to Boeing etc. Mr Thompson is not an aviation expert. So I ask: Why do we want to insert comments from a non-expert with COI into the "independent analysis" section of the article? What kind of analysis would that be? By non-experts? Obviously this kind of analysis is useless. Add to that the COI and the picture becomes even worse. Also as LeadSongDog quite properly mentioned there is no indication that this criticism is cited or shared by any other reputable technical publication in the industry. And there is nothing "arbitrary" about my deletion. I opened a talkpage discussion and my arguments are supported by the majority of the editors who have participated so far on this debate. So before you make any other heavy-handed accusations get your facts straight first. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Please read WP:COI. Mr Thompson cannot have a WP:COI, he is not a Wikipedia editor.

2. An edit conflict did not allow me to add this previously. I will now. [Google search "Lexington Institute"] -- 44 current news citations. I find it ironic that the NYTimes can quote Mr. Thompson (5th item down currently --, "Iran Shows Video It Says Is of US Drone New York Times - 4 days ago … the Iranian air defenses can't see it,” Loren Thompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institute...") but I and two other editors can't on Wikipedia because of an irrelevant COI claim by you.

3. This reminds me of a child's game, where they make up the rules as the game goes on. I'm sorry, you are doing the same thing to me and two other editors. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you are trying to skirt the issue. You have not addressed any of my concerns that Mr. Thompson is not an expert and yet you want to include his analysis on a very technical issue as if he were an expert. This is simply misleading to the reader. As far as COI please don't play games. You know very well that a Boeing consultant cannot possibly be an objective NPOV critic even if he were an aviation expert, which he clearly is not. News citations are not expert publications. This is a very technical aviation matter. Leave the analysis to the experts not to speculating non-experts. If Mr. Thompson's points have any merit the investigation will verify them. Leave this job to the real experts please. As far as your point #3, it is frankly nonsense. Socrates and LeadSongDog are the only other editors here, other than me or you, who so far participated in this discussion. They both agree with me, not with you. Therefore the consensus on this talkpage is clear. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. I asked some questions, I do not assume what the answer will be. The FAIR link, however, is not useful. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought the concurrence of our arguments meant that we agreed. You said that there is no indication that the Thompson criticism was cited in expert aviation sources and I agreed. The logical conclusion after no credible evidence to the contrary was provided was that we agreed that the Lexington source should not be included. Drawing a conclusion in good faith is not putting words in anyone's mouth. It is also unfair accusing someone of that. If you did not agree with my conclusion you could have phrased your criticism in a fairer way. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 10:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I think you've neglected the temporal issue. It remains possible that someone will find the requested evidence that the source is usable: wp:NODEADLINE pertains. For now, however, I see no such evidence presented, just the link to FAIR.org which is in no way convincing. Until such eventuality arises however, the source doesn't cut it. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the FAIR link doesn't cut it and I have said so above. So I take it, at least for now, that we agree about not including the link. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• I too agree with Dr K. --John (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The text and reference that Dr K opposes for inclusion is:

Boeing consultant Loren B. Thompson argues that the design of the aircraft's controls contributed to the crash.

<ref>Thompson, Loren B. [http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/2009-air-france-crash-raises-doubts-about-airbus-design-decisions?a=1&c=1171 "2009 Air France Crash Raises Doubts About Airbus Design Decisions."] ''[[Lexington Institute]]'', December 12, 2011.</ref>

Points from Dr K’s rationale:

• his analysis is not independent. criticism coming from the Lexington Institute blog is not independent criticism

• OK, but this is not a sufficient reason to not include it. Is it a prominent analysis? Is a more reliable and independent analysis available? Is the analysis contested? Is the source not reputable? To the extent that the analysis may be biased due to conflict of interest, the possible bias should be pointed out?

• the current section title changes from the current: Media speculation and independent analysis to Media speculation and COI analysis

• Good point. Change the section title to "Published speculation and analysis". Every assertion of independence is not sufficiently demonstrated

• there is no room for analysis of the Airbus design by a Boeing employee. Boeing being a direct competitor of Airbus.

• Yes, there is room. However, the potential conflict or bias should be highlighted.

• Let's also stick to truly independent analysis

• No, this is not what we do. We cover what others cover. Do others discuss such analysis? Yes, I do believe. Is it a reliable secondary source - yes. Also, you are on poorly defined ground with “to truly independent”. Better to be clear about non-independencies than to misapply WP:COI as a standard per se for inclusion.

I think the information should be included because it is directed to the cause of the crash, which is an obvious reason for coming to the article, and because simply-put explanations are few, and because it is a reasonable, uncontested explanation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"Uncontested" can also mean "ignored". Is there any evidence that the Thompson Airbus analysis has been carried by any other reliable sources? I am also not convinced that this is a reliable secondary source since the criticism carried in the Thompson blog aims at establishing the superiority of the Boeing design as compared to that of Airbus and thus it is little more than a sales job from a non-expert. Whatever we call this section I don't think we should include anti-Airbus propaganda. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 10:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, I side with DrK. Here's why. A blog is not a reliable source, especially for contentious material. For it to be worth even mentioning on this article, we would need multiple mainstream discussion in reliable sources. --John (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you John. I agree with you. But this is not the only problem. Even if we forget about the COI and the reliability of the source the opinion piece is written in such a way so as to not only make an analysis of the Airbus design but at the same time it juxtaposes the features of the Boeing design and finds them better. So this is not mere analysis of the Airbus design and control systems. It is also an opinion piece which is obviously partisan and attempts to suggest that the Boeing design is superior. This is called advertising. It has other synonyms too but I will not mention them. Wikipedia should not be the carrier of such obvious advertising. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The troubling thing is that someone could say exactly the same thing as Thompson tomorrow in a reliable source because it is correct. The disadvantage of unlinked control designs is that they permit confusion between PF and PNF as to what the other is telling the aircraft to do. Guidelines Coming For Stall Training&storyID=news/awst/2011/11/28/AW_11_28_2011_p44-397089.xml This article from Aviation Week sheds some light on the confusion too. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The way you've just stated that is actually much clearer than a vague, wide-sweeping statement like "Boeings are designed better than Airbus", which is the gist of the edit that triggered this discussion. The problem lies not only with the reliability/impartiality of the the source, but the way the information was presented, with no rationale or specific context about control columns - so that's just political point scoring on the back of this incident. In any event, this need not be a Boeing-Airbus discussion at all, because I suspect every other aircraft manufacturer has linked controls. Also, aircraft have many different design features in many different subcomponents that may be better or inferior to competition - I suspect that aircraft customers look at the bigger picture rather than make judgements based on any one of them. Once the official report is published, there will be plenty of reliable sources that will be able to tell us to what extent, if any, aynchronous controls were a factor, and if anything should be done to change this design. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The asymmetrical (unlinked) controls must have some advantages otherwise I cannot see why they would have been implemented in the Airbus instead of the tandem configuration. If this design is so gravely flawed and causes confusion between pilot and copilot, and in addition if it does not have any other mitigating value, we should be able to find independent RS which will point this fact out. Similarly there are claims in the Lexington blog about the stall warning system which disabled itself when the stall limit was exceeded and therefore caused the pilots to think that the stall condition had been rectified. All these scenarios, if plausible, should be verifiable from alternate sources. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, no hurry. There will eventually be RS analysis available, we can wait. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no deadline, right? --John (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you both. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I googled the terms in the suggested text, and similar, and I see what you mean by "anti-Airbus propaganda". The source discussed here is relatively mild, but yes, is vested critical commentary, not so much critical of the data, but carrying a biased POV aimed at devaluing airbus. I take the point.

I liked the source because it appeared to offer simple explanations that I believe the readers are looking for. It would be nice if the article contained referenced statements approaching the simplicity of "The plane crashed due to poor design causing poor communication in a confusing situation." or "The plane crashed due to events outside pilot training." The blog is still new. If its content recurs in other sources, it may yet be judged suitable for inclusion, as criticism from competators. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that if there are any fundamental design flaws, such as mentioned previously on the thread, they will be picked up by other aviation sources and hopefully even the accident investigation report and in this case they can be incorporated into the article. Or, as you mentioned, if more reliable sources mention this analysis it can be included as criticism from the competition. Lastly let me finish this by thanking you for being a fair and open-minded editor. Best regards. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• The pilots' confusion appears to have been aided by a couple of quirks in the Airbus design.
• The issue of whether the automation paradox came into play in the crash seems to be under investigation. BEA in September announced that it had formed a "Human Factors" working group:

It looks like a lot of different people are raising questions about the airbus design. Hcobb (talk) 10:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

First all three articles refer to the Popular Mechanics article, so they are all related. Second one of the "quirks" mentioned in the Business Insider article is the same as the IEEE article's mention of the "automation paradox" which refers to the effect of increased automation on making the pilots vulnerable when the computers "decide" that they can no longer handle the situation. But this is endemic to all modern aircraft design not confined to Airbus alone. Quotes from the IEEE article: The Popular Mechanics story in its conclusion also raises the specter of the automation paradox that I wrote about a few years ago for Spectrum magazine being present without specifically calling it out... and But the crash raises the disturbing possibility that aviation may well long be plagued by a subtler menace, one that ironically springs from the never-ending quest to make flying safer. Over the decades, airliners have been built with increasingly automated flight control functions... Further all mention that the stall warning sounded 75 times which is described as "impossible to ignore" and yet there was no mention of it in the conversation between the pilots. Even the asynchronous controls are not mentioned in the IEEE article and the Popular Mechanics article does not directly blame the asynchronous controls for the crash but instead it mentions that the crew failed to engage in "crew resource management" i.e. they failed to cooperate. It does not appear to me that anyone has come up with directly blaming the Airbus design. The problem seems to be that the pilots did not realise that the airplane automated controls could unilaterally change from "normal law" mode where computers safeguard the plane from stalling to "alternate law" mode where the computer gives more leeway to the pilots, closer to a "manual" mode, and in the "alternate law" mode stalling is possible. The pilots then appeared to ignore the stall warnings because they did not believe that the computer would allow the plane to stall. It appears, as explained in the Pop. Mech. article, that crews in general have no experience flying in "alternate law" mode. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

My understanding of the reports (which includes having read the French originals of the BEA reports) is exactly the same as that of Dr.K. In my view, there would be fewer accidents if there were no human pilots at all, but I realize that this is an extreme view. Clearly further work is required in training pilots on how to cope when the automated systems prevalent in modern aircraft fail or shut down. I think that the US Air Force faced similar issues when they first introduced fly-by-wire systems. For what concerns the article, I support Dr.K's suggestion: wait for the final BEA report before adding anything on this issue.--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)