Jump to content

Talk:Air France Flight 447: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 224: Line 224:
== Bermuda Triangle Connection ==
== Bermuda Triangle Connection ==


It's quite possible that there was a narrow supergravity force (circa 2g) which the aircraft had flown into and continued along it's path of influence. This would explain why the pilots didn't talk about the "bumpy ride" which an analyst says would have alerted the passengers to their impending doom. This is why Bonin was continually pulling back on the stick and the plane not responding. The airpocket and aircraft together would be similarly affected by the 2g force and so all instruments including the pilots would be fooled. They would have thought that the aircraft was flying normally and that it was *just* the instruments that had failed. [[Special:Contributions/195.59.118.104|195.59.118.104]] ([[User talk:195.59.118.104|talk]]) 10:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC) Alan Lowey
It's quite possible that there was a narrow supergravity force (circa 2g) which the aircraft had flown into and continued along it's path of influence. This would explain why the pilots didn't talk about the "bumpy ride" which an analyst says would have alerted the passengers to their impending doom. This is why Bonin was continually pulling back on the stick and the plane not responding. The airpocket and aircraft together would be similarly affected by the 2g force and so all instruments including the pilots would be fooled. They would have thought that the aircraft was flying normally and that it was *just* the instruments that had failed. The South Atlantic Anomaly is a likely contender which isn't even mentioned in the article. [[Special:Contributions/195.59.118.104|195.59.118.104]] ([[User talk:195.59.118.104|talk]]) 10:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC) Alan Lowey

Revision as of 10:18, 20 October 2012

Leaked Cockpit Voice Recorder edits July 2012

I removed the "color commentary" on the leaked cockpit voice recorder for several reasons:

  1. it's copyrighted by popular mechanics or a book so it doesn't belong to Wikipedia. It's a WP:CP violation
  2. the color commentary represents a POV of one author and not necessarily the findings of the investigation. It's a WP:NPOV violation
  3. the actual voice recorder data and recordings are not artistically created works and are not subject to copyright, as I best understand, so I left the actual transcript there in a hidden table requiring explicit open before reading - out of respect.

Please discuss here AND read WP:CP and WP:NPOV before reverting or changing. Let's make it better. Thank you. --Justanonymous (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are correct, although it makes it far less useful. A lot of the reported speech is, of course, quite meaningless without an interpretative commentary. But since the archived version of the original PM article is accessible, the infomation in it can be easily found. But some of the items removed may be borderline, e.g. pressing the control which calls the captain - that's just a recorded flightdeck event, like the voice history, and its timing may have been critical. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but even the mundane interpretations like, pushing a button to call the captain, was an interpretation of a sound on the transcript that only a professional pilot would know how to interpret - Wikipedia shouldn't just get that for free, it's a copyright violation if not a NPOV violation because Popular Mechanics expects to profit from that interpretation. The other color comments were a clear violation of NPOV so I think between NPOV and CP, we wind up with just the guts of the transcript. Justanonymous (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is the rest area call an audio or a visual, or both? Presumably the control press is logged by the FDR? Incidentally the STALL warning in an A330 is "CRICKET + “STALL” message (synthetic voice)", it is permanent (as long as condition persists) and it cannot be silenced. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the problem that the PM translation is not very good, e.g. they translate ".. le, le, le ..." literally as "... the, the, the ..." rather than as "... the, uhm, ..." which better conveys the sense of the words. Even omitting the "la" when translating to "I don't know" vice "That, I don't know" is a significant loss of the speaker's intent. Surely there must be a better translation available somewhere?LeadSongDog come howl! 17:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent. Why has a new section been opened for this? In particular, see my comment above at Talk:Air France Flight 447#Leaked_CVR_Transcript--Gautier lebon (talk) 07:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I created this new section after removing 3,000 characters of WP:CP and WP:NPOV content. I was bold. I suspected that my edit would generate a healthy amount of discussion and I wanted to explicitly make a section for us to discuss that large edit. No disrespect intended and I apologize for any confusion.Justanonymous (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I disagree with the NPOV assertion. The fact is that someone has written a well-publicised and notable book containing analysis that is based on a leaked transcript. It's not POV to report on that, whether or not we personally think that the analysis is "correct". The point is that we as editors are not in a position to judge, and to do so would be WP:SYNTH; indeed, to not say what this important source is saying, would be highly POV in my view. This scenario is no different from, say, reporting that the official findings of flight SA-295 are disputed (whether we agree with that or not), as the fact is that this is what's going on in the real world. We know that the official report will trump what we have today, but until then, Popular Mechanics is the only (English) source with respect to analysis of the transcript.
Socrates2008 - One person's analysis however expert is both POV content and in this case CP. If we're to include, we need to do it in a very special fashion by quotations or other mechanism that explicitly calls out to the reader that we are stating somebody else's opinions. The way the commentary was interjected into the transcript its both a WP:CP and WP:NPOV violation because we're presenting it as fact, when in reality it's opinion. We also cannot deprive Popular Mechanics' and a book author's rights to economically benefit from their copyright.Justanonymous (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the translation is concerned, this is the one put forward by the source, so we are not in a position to "tweak" it.
Socrates2008, agree and the french translation is there for French native speakers.Justanonymous (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lastly, on the subject of WP:CP, these issues can be fixed - please be more specific and we'll get to work. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Please don't take this the wrong way, but I note that you've come in with a very assertive tone, despite being a new editor; I hope you'll let some of the experienced editors here guide you through the relevant policies at play. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's discuss the topic material and not my number of edits on here. A senior editor would know to give a newbie advice on his talk page rather than to try to marginalize his contributions and boldness on an article page. Way to welcome me btw.Justanonymous (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Justanonymous - you don't edit like a newbie, so maybe you were here before? I think Socrates is being fair, so please don't take any offence. I think we need to address Gautier's point about the earlier thread. Maybe we should combine the two? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have about 10,000 edits over 10 years on here under anon IPs. Adept at contorting Wikipedia. only recently created formal pseudonym for the social and other technical benefits :-).Justanonymous (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Gautier's question, I went ahead and explained why I broke it off into another section. In my experience, sometimes these things go for arbitration when editors disagree and it's more convenient if all the discussion regarding that edit is in one place. If we all wind up being Kosher on this, we can combine the talk sections but I do have to stand firm that we can't violate WP:NPOV nor WP:CP.Justanonymous (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User 213.121.205.71 pointed us to the official transcript. I have read the official cvr transcript and the leaked transcript is materially different (shorter, summarized, verbiage left out, etc) so I've gone ahead and removed the leaked transcript from the page (based on my analysis its a POV laden summary) and I made reference to the official transcript in the section. Feel free to discuss.Justanonymous (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are the findings of the Final Report protected by copyright? or have they been paraphrased to avoid this? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, they're not artistic works of any kind and the BEA does not hope to profit from them. They just become part of the public record. The "full cvr tape data" does fall under the BEA and they can choose what to divulge to the public which they did in part with their release of their final report. So I think we can make use of the data provided that we give credit to the source and that we don't take anything out of context. I would say that it's likely very easy to misinterpret or take out of context something as incomplete and technical as a CVR. The CVR is quite long, 32 pages (10pages from them going to alternate law to the end of the recording) so it's somewhat unmanageable to put on the page.Justanonymous (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that a CVR transcript on its own is not very useful, even for an accident investigation team. It only really has value alongside an FDR record, which enables it to be interpreted (and vice versa). But would be surprised if there is no place here even for edited highlights. Maybe there is a way around the copyright problem for a series of smaller excerpts? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think we can definitely put as much or as little of the CVR transcript from BEA on the page as we want to, it's public record. It's free for us to use but we should be careful given the complexity of the situation. I did look at flight 1549 Wiki Page and it has excerpts of the CVR on the page but it's not a transcript.Justanonymous (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As another plus, the official transcript has quite a few annotations to stall and other alerts, communications which should be helpful.Justanonymous (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would the annotations mean using a ""colour commentary"? Perhaps you could re-add what you think is appropriate? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent. The annotations on the official transcript should be fine to use because they are what BEA determined the various sounds and clicks mean and as such would not be colour commentary because they are the official record (not the interpretations of a single individual with a possible agenda). The challenge in re-adding is in how to do it fairly. There are 10 pages of official transcript from the point alternate law kicked in to the end of the recording and these are words from the grave, in a very technical setting, that were part of a systemic fault that caused the loss of over 200 souls. I think the only fair thing to do, if we're to include the cvr at all, is to make available the whole transcript in a collapsing page like it was before but that's going to take me a bit to do. thoughts?Justanonymous (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the explanations above, I have no problems with moving the discussion to this web page. But I still have the same objection to including the transcript in the article, even as a collapsing page. Wikipedia is supposed to be based preferably on tertiary sources, if not availalbe on secondary, and only in the last resort on primary. In this case, the BEA report is the definitive summary of various investigations of the accident so we can consider it a secondary source. The transcript is obviously a primary source. The transcript has been analysed and summarized by BEA and we should report that (which we do, since we include the key elements of the BEA report). In my view, there is no value-added for Wikipedia to publish the transcript in the article. There is value-added to provide a reference to the transcript, but this has been done, because the BEA report includes the transcript. In my veiw, there is no value added at this time in publishing a summary of a leaked (and possibly inaccurate) version of the transcript, because we now have the authoritative BEA report on the matter. I would not object to mentioning/summarizing criticisms of the BEA report, but I haven't seen any, at least not yet.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with your comments above, Justanonymous, however since the official report is apparently released now, this discussion has just become moot so let's close it. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Socrates2008, since we have access to the official transcript, it's moot to discuss adding the leaked transcript. I'll open up a new section to talk about whether we add the official transcript.Thank you everyone. Justanonymous (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just happened by this article and had some difficulty understanding some things so stopped by the talk page. When I saw that this leaked transcript conversation, I was curious, and dug it up out of the archives. I have to say that it made things way way more clear to me.. far more clear than the confusing official transcript. I reccommend a timeline of some sort with commentary, similar to what was deleted. Cshay (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the July 2012 removal (here) of the coloured, annotated leaked cockpit voice record. It provided a clear picture of the circumstances of the accident, and without it the article is far more difficult to understand.
It was not a copyright violation. The transcript is not copyrightable. The commentary was brief, not creative, and a summary of the published source, found at http://www.webcitation.org/63mlsUX81 This reliable, secondary source in fact provides the justification for the inclusion of an annotated transcript.
While it contained very brief POV instances, they were sourced POVs, non-extraordinary and quite defendable, and in any case fixable.
The official transcript is relatively impenetrable on a first reading. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What content from the official cvr transcript, if any, should be in the wiki?

Recently, the BEA released the official cvr transcript from AF447. I'm opening this discussion to talk about what portion of the content, if any, we should add to the Wiki. Please add your vote and discuss your rationale if you want.

Official CVR Transcript


YES, WE SHOULD INCLUDE OFFICIAL CVR TRANSCRIPT

Yes votes here

NO, WE SHOULD NOT INCLUDE OFFICIAL CVR TRANSCRIPT

  1. Gautier lebon - expressed opinion in different thread (hope it's ok that I list you here Gautier). Yes, that is fine, confirms Gautier.
  2. Justanonymous - too much content in official transcript, very difficult to cherry pick from such difficult content.Justanonymous (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Socrates2008 - It's too long, and needs a narrative anyway to walk people through it - suggest that it's linked, and that relevant sections of interest are highlighted in the article, as the official report does in places. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Askedonty - It is too long and would need a narrative. It is publicized and can be accessed on the Internet as a primary source. Askedonty (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here

  1. Patelurology2 (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Can this transcript be posted here in a hide and seek mode for others to view?- an unofficial copy was posted in talk page before.[reply]
I've added the CVR Transcript link to the top of this section. It's in PDF format and 32 pages so very long to reformat readily. I hope linking to it is ok. It's also here. Justanonymous (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I have received a comment at my own Talk Page, from an anon ip editor at it.wiki, who says that the it. article uses a transcript: [1]. But I'm not sure that a three step translation would be a good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can read a bit of italian, it looks like the Italian wiki is using the same leaked transcript as Popular Mechanics translated from French to Italian. As an aside I love their table of the 24 ACARS messages.Justanonymous (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that the Popular Mechanics summary is fairly good and concise but there are issues that arise (I think because it's a very complex document), like a) they condemn Bonin for calling out TO/GA but some experienced pilots say there's a windshear TO/GA like protocol (all a family of protocols to reduce strain on the airframe and engines which in this case might have meant that the Bonin understood the throttles were at the full position but that the aircraft's computers were regulating the amount of thrust needed) and Bonin might have been talking about that (note that Robert doesn't jump on Bonin after that comment - he either ignored or they were in sync on that - analogy - if I tell my passenger I'm about to put my car on park while doing 200 on the autobahn, my passenger would object right away), they condemn Bonin for pulling up but at the very end of the official transcript (not really covered in the leak), we can hear the Captain saying Pull up along with Robert and the Stall warnings - everyone including the computer is saying Pull Up in the last minute of the transcript (but there might have been confusion over how to pull up - we don't know). Net net, the Popular Mechanics summary while good, goes go out of its way to paint only one picture and almost fix blame on one co-pilot and I'm not sure the Wiki should be a party to that given the very significant complexities of Airbus flight deck arrangement (this type of arrangement calls for a very pro-active and structured cockpit communication because one pilot cannot see what the other is doing and there is no direct immediate feedback on the condition of the aircraft - nose up/down, thrust, etc) , Air France training, Air France certification process (what was a 32yo doing at the controls of an aircraft with 200+ souls at night in the middle of a strong storm in the middle of the atlantic?? - If you give your 5yo child a gun would you then blame your 5 year old for shooting your neighbor??). Why was the captain taking a rest during the most complex part of the flight (overwater, over intertropical, strong storms, at night - is this standard procedure? That's when we'd expect the most seasoned pilot at the helm, no?)....Issues like this make it very difficult to just put one leaked transcript out because it's extremely easy for us to rewrite the narrative to fit one narrow view when in reality, Sullenberger is probably right - if we look at only the CVR (which is what lay people will do if we put the leaked summary up because the rest is too technical) then they're going to miss 2/3 of the very broad systems fault that occurred between the technology (Airbus), the pilots, Air France procedures, the special training for airbus cockpits, conflicting message, and indeed even the philosophy of the entire career path of pilots in the EU.Justanonymous (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just happened by this article and had some difficulty understanding some things so stopped by the talk page. When I saw that there was a leaked transcript conversation, I was curious, and dug it up out of the archives. I have to say that it made things way way more clear to me.. far more clear than the confusing official transcript. I reccommend a timeline of some sort with commentary, similar to what was deleted. Now I understand that Bonin was pulling back the whole time and that the other pilot didn't know what because the sticks were not physically linked. Cshay (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The leaked transcript was exactly the same transcript that was released in the end by french authorities. The leaked transcript was cleaned up and commentary was added by the author of a book and then reprinted by Popular Mechanics. The issue is that the cleaned up leaked transcript is POV laden. For example, there is a comment by second officer Bonin (pilot flying) verifying from his copilot Robert whether they were in TOGA. The Popular Mechanics writeup almost crucifies Bonin as incompetent for such statement. However, Bonin might just have been talking about whether "autothrust was set" which would empower him to just pull back on the stick and that the autothrust TOGA setting would automatically adjust the thrust because you can't tell in airbus because the thrust levers don't move. Bonin's comment might have been routine verification and first Officer Robert didn't jump on him right away for such a glaring mistake which leads us to conjecture that Bonin meant the latter and not the former in the cockpit.....but in the end, we as laypeople don't really know. What I'm saying is that any timeline that is drawn up, needs to be very careful that we don't jump to conclusions or unduly blames one party unduly. This was a supremely complex situation in the cockpit and represents a significant "system" failure between aircraft, people, processes etc. I think we should try to be fair here in describing the accident but we need to be careful that we don't delve into details that are irrelevant or that unduly colors the glasses of the average Wikipedia reader. The aviation student/expert is going to go look at the official documentation which we link to anyway.Justanonymous (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely right, Justanonymous. Different nations, different airlines and even different flight deck teams will have their own shorthand for different modes. If "TOGA" is easier for a French pilot to say (and remember) than "auto-thrust mode set", then that is the term that will be used. It is, in my view, utterly inconceiveable that Bonin could think the aircraft was in a classic "TOGA" situation. But the question itself speaks volumes about the the lack of clarity of FCS/ autopilot modes at this critical moment. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the copyright status of the BEA report (it doesn't claim any, and I can't see anything on the website). I'm interested to know if any of the photos can be used... Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Socrates2008, I did a bit of research (I looked at other air disaster investigations, specifically the Concorde disaster page 2) and the entire report falls under French Law No 78-753 of 17 July 1978 which is classified as "Administrative public sector information." This means we can reuse the work under the following conditions, "This information may be re-used, provided it is not altered, its meaning is not distorted, and mention is made of its sources and the date of its last update. Rights to the administrative public sector information are not transferred to the re-user. The re-user benefits from a personal and non-exclusive right to re-use the administrative public sector information." Based on that, I think we're free to reuse the pictures here and any content provided that we don't take the information out of context and credit BEA as the source. I hope this helps.Justanonymous (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Also section

I'm noticing that people are just adding unrelated air accidents to the see also section. There are a lot of aviation accidents and the See alsos seem random. It could become unmanageable. also I don't think the intent is to list out all accidents here but to refer the reader truly related articles.

Shouldn't the see also section be narrowed to more relevant information and maybe even grouped? Like

  1. Pitot tube failures
  2. Stall accidents
  3. Type accidents (a320)
  4. list of most catastrophic air accidents ( if it ranks)
  5. pitot tube
  6. aerodynamic stall

Etc

Thoughts?--Justanonymous (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overemphasis on the side stick controls ?

The potential issue with side stick controls (namely that is not easy to see the other pilot inputs) has been discussed in the news, and has its place on the "Media speculation and independent analysis" section. However, isn't a picture of the sidestick itself too much ? The sidestick is just briefly noted in the final BEA report among a lot of other factors (page 175 of the english translation):

It would also seem unlikely that the PNF could have determined the PF’s flight path stabilisation targets. It is worth noting that the inputs applied to a sidestick by one pilot cannot be observed easily by the other one and that the conditions of a night flight in IMC make it more difficult to monitor aeroplane attitudes (pitch attitude in particular). In addition, a short time after the autopilot disconnection, the PF’s statement that he had the controls and his reaction to the initial deviations observed (in particular in roll) may have led the PNF to change his action priorities. Identification of the failure appeared to become a priority over control and flight path monitoring. Consequently, he was unaware of the climb.

Wouldn't it better to have a picture of the flight directors, which are thought to have played a much more significant role in the crash, and have been the subject of two safety recommendations ? (page 211 of the english translation)

Consequently, the BEA recommends that: EASA require a review of the re-display and reconnection logic of the flight directors after their disappearance, in particular to review the conditions in which an action by the crew would be necessary to re-engage them; [Recommendation FRAN‑2012‑047]

Consequently, the BEA recommends that: €€EASA require a review of the functional or display logic of the flight director so that it disappears or presents appropriate orders when the stall warning is triggered. [Recommendation FRAN‑2012‑048]

Cochonfou (talk) 10:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article probably reflects that there has been a lot of media discussion and speculation regarding the flight controls of an Airbus vs Boeing and whether the captain could've more quickly ascertained the condition of the aircraft upon entering the cockpit and provided immediate corrective direction to the pilot flying. As it stands it seems from the audio that the captain and first officer recognized the condition they were in at the very last moments. Flight directors were another area that is noted but hasn't been reported as much, probably because the initial conjecture focused on the philosophical differences between Airbus and Boeing flight design. I'm not sure that Wikipedia is here to correct the history but just to put a factual representation of the Accident, the investigation, and also the popular debate. Because so much popular debate has centered on the flight instrument and layout, it's fair to cover that here - I think. But we should just report the facts vs getting into making judgements on whether Boeing vs Airbus flight deck layout is better or attempting to weigh Flight director faults. It seems to me that the aircraft degraded as designed and whether that design is the right way for the systems to degrade is beyond our capability to judge on Wikipedia - that's for guys like Sullenberger and seasoned pilots of the A330 to lock themselves in a room and figure that one out. I think we're ok the way we are and that the article is balanced based on the reporting. But, I'm just one voice. Justanonymous (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it is worth, I appreciated the photo of a sidestick in this article and do not feel it is overemphasis to include it. Over the years I have flown in several small aircraft (SeaBee, Goose, Beaver, Citation, MU2) cockpits' right hand seat as a passenger, and am familiar with control yokes but I did not have any idea what a sidestick looked like. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree not over-emphasis, especially in the location it is - far down in "The Telegraph" section (although not exclusively a "Telegraph issue"!) I have corrected the caption to make it clear that it's the right-hand control (that red button faces in for thumb operation, for both pilots). My only unease is that the image, with no scale, gives a slightly misleading idea of size. You'd need a hand next to it to show that it's only hand-sized! And, of course, the fact that its position is largely hidden by a hand is the issue here. Tracing back to the original Flickr image gives a better idea. But I also agree that, if possible, an illustration of the Flight Director symbols would be useful. But it's much more difficult to clearly show flight mode indications, and any accompanying audio(s), which are a vital part of any flight desk/ cockpit design. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The other item here regards how the joystick on an airbus works. My understanding is that it is used to "enter" commands. Ie a pilot can issue a left turn command and can then let go of the joystick and multitask to do something else while the aircraft settles into a left turn. It's an extremely sophisticated system that's designed to minimize pilot fatigue. I don't think it's the place of the article to educate the reader on how these things work/or don't work just that we describe correctly. Flying an airbus requires different communication processes between the pilot flying and pilot not flying. Just more canon fodder.Justanonymous (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that this is indeed the way the aircraft is typically flown, although it does depend on what FCS mode is selected. As with all fly-by-wire, the pilot is not really making the inputs to the control surfaces - he's just requesting that the FCS makes the required inputs. It's no good pushing harder, faster or further on the stick - the FCS will still limit the inputs to what it can cope with and how it "thinks" the aircraft should safely fly. Another factor with the airbus A330 is that pilot inputs from the two sticks are "averaged", so it's important for the pilots to be clear who is in control at any one time. This discipine may have broken down in the panic that this situation caused. But it may be difficult to determine, just from the FDR, whether the two pilots were ever unwittigly fighting against each other. You'd expect to see inputs coming from the left and right always at different times. I'm not sure that we know definitely if inputs were ever recorded coming from both left and right sticks simultaneously. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One note of caution. Ross's article says: "The case against the pilots looked even worse when a transcript of the voice recorder was leaked. It confirmed that one of the pilots had pulled the stick back and kept it there for almost the entirety of the emergency." But this is not an entirely valid statement. What the transcript revealed was: "02:13:40 (Bonin) But I’ve had the stick back the whole time!" - which may or not be an accurate report of what he had done. It's not entirely clear what Bonin meant by "the whole time". Only the FDR data would show categorically what outputs had been made from the controllers, if recorded. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is overly technical, vague, confusing, and doesn't get to the point early enough

I am a total layperson (non-pilot) and I was very frustrated by this article. I knew that the pitot tubes froze making airspeed unknown. This has been publicized extensively by the press. So what about the details of the pilot error? This article is no help for that. The transcript is essentially useless. I had to dig deep and finally find that popular mechanics transcript with commentary before I could make sense of anything. In the end it seems to boil down to this: "Bonin was pulling back the whole time and that the other pilot didn't know that because the sticks were not physically linked. When the other pilot realized this they were only seconds from crashing and it was too late." If this preceding statement is a true statement, I feel it should be in the very first section. If it is not completely true some variant should be used. The point is that the other pilot didn't know Bonin was doing that. The way the article reads, it sounds like both pilots deliberately chose to pull back, when that was not true at all. It was the one guy, Bonin. It took me an hour of researching other sources to get to the point where I understood why one pilot would be nosing up and the other pilot would not notice. The next question to be answered is "Aside from the sticks being physically linked, was there another error made - eg a verbal error - where one pilot told the other he was not pulling back when he was?" This I do not know the answer to but it should also be addressed in the first section since people want a summary of what the heck happened without digging through reams of docs. And finally has there been speculation as to why Bonin was pulling back that we can reference? Someone in another part of this talk page mentioned something about "auto thrust mode" automatically making the appropriate inputs and he may have assumed that would happen. If this (or any other hypothesis) has been published as a possible reason, we should include it. It should be in the first part of the article before the reader gets bogged down in the mass of details. Cshay (talk) 00:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The final report is too technical. There must be analysis elsewhere we can reference and cite that provides a more clear and concise summary. Telling people to read a report written for people who already know how to fly an airplane is not suffient. 50.0.136.137 (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is sufficiently technical. One cannot discuss complex subjects without precise technical language. The challenge for us as editors is to interpret that technical language for nontechnical readers without altering its meaning. That does not change the fact that the final report is the definitive document. The correct way to use interpretive sources is to first verify that they were able to interpret the definitive source accurately. A track record of prior such work in wp:RS publications is helpful. Much newspaper coverage of aviation subjects gets them wrong, so we don't trust them very much. Specialist publications such as Flight (magazine) and Aviation Week can be more helpful. For major events such as this, there are usually full-length books published which discuss the events in more accessible language. Meanwhile, there are many editors here who can read such reports and understand them. Nothing in wp:V says that all sources cited must be as easily accessible or comprehensible as a WP article. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you in the industry? If so, you may not be able to see how the report is too technical. I have never even flown a flight simimulator. That did not stop me from wanting to read this article to understand what happened. And I'm telling you the report is not for novice readers. That is the point of this - we need to reference other content. Cshay (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with LeadSongDog. It would be a big mistake to try and say in the first para "this accident was caused by x and y". Even the extreme summary under "Type" in info box looks a little too dense to be very useful. Aviation accidents rarely happen just for one solirary reason at one moment in time, and it is misguided to try and find one. They develop over time, usually with several contributory causes, and cannot be understood without a narrative. There are still many questions in this accident that can never be fully answered. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with LeadSongDog and Marinevans.--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cshay, I'm sad that the article didn't convey the information you were looking for in a succinct enough fashion for you. From reading the article, I can see that a ton of very hard work has gone into it by some great editors on here (myself excluded, I've made a few minor edits). In the defense of the editors of the article, the first sentence of the second paragraph very clearly denotes what the investigators thought was the reason for the crash. Unfortunately, you do need to understand terms like 'stall', 'nose-up inputs' and terms like that to make sense of the sentence....that is what the official investigators thought happened, I cross verified. We will perhaps never know the full extent of what went wrong onboard AF447 but that hasn't stopped interested parties from trying to sell books and inject their own meaning into what happened. That is not the job of Wikipedia. Your analysis that starts the thread is but only ONE interpretation of what happened. The official investigation is much more complex and it is by its very nature extremely technical. I urge you to exercise care if you go to the voice recorder transcripts, they are technical in the extreme. For example, the pilot flying, Officer Bonin asked at one point of his copilot whether they were in TOGA, potentially out of extreme confusion or simply to verify that autothrust was engaged, and with autothrust engaged, it's perfectly safe and reasonable to pull back on the stick to gain altitude but in alternate law it can be catastrophic. When autopilot disengaged, maybe officer Bonin didn't know they went to alternate law - it's a very little computer readout the size of an SMS message in small font and it just scrolls like text messages on one of their 15 or so screens and they had to digest all of these inputs (as they are trained to do) while being tossed about in the middle of a storm at 35,000 feet at night over the atlantic in what perhaps is one of the most complex workstations environments ever devised by humanity! These brave souls were being tossed about up there and they went from all calm to instant crisis and from initial crisis to everybody being dead in under 4 minutes - what can you do in 4 minutes? The only window we have are some electronic messages, wreckage at the bottom of the ocean, and a couple of tape recorders.....and a lot of conjecture over a report that took 3 years to complete and which mind you did not place direct blame on Officer Bonin. It's easy and cheap to simply blame and put this whole monumental tragedy on the shoulders of one poor young inexperienced officer and to simply address him by his last name on here but that would be callous and show extreme disregard for the monumental complexity of what was going on up there that caused the loss of all souls on that flight. I have to agree with my esteemed editors Martinevans, Gautier lebon and LeadSongDog. I applaud their hard work here to provide a fact based article that is based on the investigation and not subjective points-point-of-view laden interpretations swirling around in the media. To their credit, they also provide numerous media sources for readers to go read points of view on tragedy. I'll also try to show some respect towards the flight crew, Officer Bonin's first name was Cedric, he had a loving family, and his tormented bones are laying at the bottom of the atlantic along with his crewmates and the innocent passengers....from the tapes, they fought very hard to the very end. A lot of mistakes were made that night and a lot of mistakes were made years before at manufacturing plants, pilot training designers, cockpit design tables etc. There is a ton to learn from this and it's going to take us decades to do that learning and most of it is going to be done by guys like Sullenberger and not the likes of me.Justanonymous (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note, I am quite a way down the list of contributors: [2] But I'm sure we have all had much the same aim. And I wholly concur with Justanon, that we would never expect to see the word "blame" in an article such as this, unless (as here) in reporting an external source. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem that the fear and hypersensitivity to place blame on anyone, along with an obsession with technical accuracy has completely ruined this article. I am not a particularly sensitive person, so I guess I really don't care if Bonin is dead nor that you spent a lot of hard work on this article. I'm just providing you some feedback - which is that the article needs a lot of tightening up. (Perhaps fear of blame is a Euro thing? I noticed they called out a Euro regulation in the Final report that basically said that "blame is not allowed". We don't roll that way here in America of course. Blame is perfectly acceptable here.) Cshay (talk) 07:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apportioning blame can be very convenient. The nebulous and all-encompasiing term of "Pilot errro" can be used to justify the claim that no system or HMI improvements are warranted to make the system safer. And, of course, the one who has been blamed can't really speak up in his own defence. Speaking personally blame is abouit as useful in accident investigation as the concepts of "divine intervention" or "heresy". But yes, there may well be cultrual differences at work. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a great point! There are likely systems & HMI opportunities here.Justanonymous (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback Cshay. I disagree with Cshay's assessment, the article is fact based and very balanced given the enormity and complexity of the tragedy. This is one of Wikipedia's best articles. The investigation found several contributing factors and the article reflects these in as clear and concise a fashion as it can in a very neutral manner. If there is a criminal trial, and I'm sure there will be, I'm certain that we'll cover the findings of that here with WP:NPOV firmly in mind. I am also not a very sentimental person but I do care that Officer Cedric Bonin and 229 others died that night. My heart goes to the families of crew, passengers, and to the people who work our touch these planes because they will forever wonder if they should've double or triple checked something. And, I think a lot of people care out there care as evidenced by a three year investigation and time freely given by editors here to chronicle this tragedy. And, I think many of us find it paramount that the findings from the investigation are incorporated into future training and airplane design so that it can be safer.174.49.84.214 (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully Cshay, I think you're looking for an easy answer that bundles up this tragedy into one neat tidy little package. Sadly, in this situation there is no straightforward answer here - plenty of conjecture but no easy answers. Blame will be apportioned by the courts at some point, maybe. I think the article is good enough that it should be nominated for featured article - it's that good. I side with Sullenberger that we have to look at this from a whole systems approach and that's what I think the investigators concluded and what the editors on here modtly think. It's going to take a long time to digest the entirety of this. I do care about the lives lost - all of them.Justanonymous (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with any of the esteemed editors above, however there's always room for improvement around readbility, without loosing any of the facts. In particular, the all important "Final report" section does not flow with all its bullet points; "Inappropriate control inputs" is a highly suggestive statement that offers no explanation of what the pilots actually did wrong. Is it time for some fresh eyes? Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. A very good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Worldwide, accident investigators such as the BEA or the NTSB deliberately avoid assigning blame for one reason: it interferes with their primary mission of improving safety. Investigations are about finding and recommending potential safety improvements. If involved parties have to fear the legal consequences of being blamed by the investigation their participation might be, shall we say, less than enthusiastic. Further, in most jurisdictions, imposing the evidentiary standards for a criminal investigation will slow the handling of evidence or even deliver the investigation into the control of a police agency with entirely different goals, potentially delaying or even preventing an important safety finding. It used to be fairly common for investigations to assign a single cause, but more recent investigations look for all factors that can be improved. The old dismissive "pilot error" now looks more like a list of implementable improvements to documentation, training, certification practicies, human-machine interface design, crew resource management standards, etc. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree and I think that's also a great point to take into consideration Cshay. The factual investigation quoted on here deals with safety and where things might have broken: people, process, technology. There are pending court cases. When those cases are resolved, I think it would be appropriate to document the outcomes and findings of the courts without Wikipedia making any value judgement on those. Maybe that will provide some of the clarity you seek. At this point though the court cases are pending as fas as I am aware.Justanonymous (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent. Many thanks to Justanonymous for the kind words and good analysis. I fully agree with that analysis. As stated by Martinevans and others, there is no single cause for this kind of tragedy. There are a series of errors (each of which would not cause a disaster) that cumulate in an unforeseen way to cause the disaster. As implied by LeadSongDog, it is counter-productive to assign blame to one or two of the errors. What has improved airline safety is precisely the recognition that it is important to identify each of the component errors that lead to the disaster and to correct each and every one of them. Having said that, I do agree with Socrates that the article should be streamlined. It is on my to-do list, but not until January at the earliest. And I do agree that fresh eyes would be most welcome.--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can start by calling out specific pilot errors that contributed to the crash. Put them all in one place, near the top of the article instead of being so vague. Just like the pitot probes are mentioned early on as a mechanical failure, people want to know the specific human errors that were made. From my reading elsewhere I can suggest a few: The captain not giving the proper pilot command, Bonin pulling up when he should not have been, the other pilot not listening to what Bonin said and not noticing that he was pulling up, the captain not sitting down and taking the controls when he returned. My opinion stands that a pervasive fear to place any blame is the reason these specifics are not being called out prominantly in this article, and that is a shame. The fact is, I learned everything I know from outside reading, not from this article and that is damning to this article. Cshay (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No "pervasive fear" as far as I know, just a reluctance to lump together all the (supposed) "pilot errors" without any explanation of their individual significance, order or context. With all due respect, if you have now built up a very clear picture of what you personally think was "to blame" for this accident, using whatever sources you personally find most accessible, that does not necessarily make that picture any more accurate a representation of "the truth" than the less clear picture here. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, lump them in one place with an explanation if you want. Just don't bury them like is currently the case. People should not have to do external reading to figure out what they were, nor should they have to find them piecemeal scattered across the article. Cshay (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, not fine. I'm suggesting that lumping them all together is likely to produce a "clearer" but very unbalanced picture. Tabloid newspaper headlines are generally pretty clear, aren't they? But that doesn't really make them more accurate than a fine narrative analysis, does it? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not fine by me either. I agree with you Martinevans123. We're going to wind up generating original research and we're going to wind up jumping to conclusions and make the article biased towards potentially an erroneous point of view. This is not about blame or "hesitation to blame," we just don't have the reliable source ascertaining blame and the only reliable sources for that are convictions by the court systems. Absent the courts, convictions are mob convictions and we should avoid that here. Regardless of how much we're tempted or muscled. Justanonymous (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agr3ee with Martinevans and Justanonymous. If you list the pilot errors in sequence, you miss the context and you exaggerate them. For example, the captain did not take over the controls when he came back because he didn't have time to do so: the plane crashed before the captain had any idea of what was going on. Only a chronological recounting of the various events (mechanical failures, ergonomic issues, pilot actions, etc.) can faithfully represent what happened. Individuals are then free to conclude that it was mostly "bad ergonimic design" or mostly "mechanical failure" or mostly "pilot error" or whatever, but, as the official report points out, in reality all those contributed to the disaster.--Gautier lebon (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why should only the pilot errors be listed? Why not pitot tube failures, flight director issues? The cabin layout? Why the laser focus on pilot errors and only pilot errors? I strongly urge us from succumbing here to sensationalism. We are in no position to be judges, juries, and executioners here. No courts have placed blame nor convicted anyone. There are already plenty of links to outside points of view in the article. If the courts find the crew at fault of something, then I think we document that here. That has not happened. Cshay wants us to convict the crew on here prematurely but hat is not what Wikipedia is for. I say, let the courts do their work and we reflect their findings here with verifiable sources when he courts release their findings.Justanonymous (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fully concurr with Justanonymous.--Gautier lebon (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I don't see any reason to change the emphasis on pilot errors vs other contributory factors, but that does not mean that where pilot error is mentioned, that it should be implied rather than simply stated. Back to the example of "inappropriate control inputs" - unless you've really done your homework, you'd have no idea what that statement actually meant. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. As I said before, I do agree that the article should be rewritten, but I won't have time to work on that until January at the earliest.--Gautier lebon (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. When I read "inappropriate control inputs" and realized that this was all the article was going to say on the matter, I groaned audibly and then started a one hour google search before I found the Popular Mechanics article. Using those three words only makes a mockery of the reader. Cshay (talk) 09:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If court cases are in progress, or even pending, to what extent should the content of Wikipedia articles be considered sub judice? Or is this a quaint old-fashioned British concept that's of no relevance to the law courts of USA or (especially) France? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever is in the official report is fair game, surely? What's your specific concern, and how does it relate to this discussion? Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My concern was that a jury member, who felt out of their depth in jury discussions, might be tempted to read the summary at the top of this article to help them decide who or what was to blame. If it was perfectly well balanced and accurate, then I suppose it would make no difference? All source material is, of course, in the public domain anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous. Lets just focus on creating a clear and easy to read article and let lawyers and police worry about laws. We are not breaking any laws by referencing other materials that happen to describe pilot mistakes. Cshay (talk) 09:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not ridiculous. It's perfectly feasible. Judges often have to tell juries to "try to put from their minds" any speculation they may have seen or read in the press about a case. Often new material facts come to light only during the course of legal proceedings. If you have ever been part of a jury in a criminal case you will know that jury members, who are not technical experts (and may even be incredibly dim - there's no intelligence check!), say things like "I don't know anyting about this sort of thing" and "I'll need to try and find out what that means". But I am not suggesting that we are doing anything illegal. I am suggesting that a summary which gave undue weight to "pilot mistakes" might give an unbalanced view of why this accident happened. That would be wrong regardless of any on-going legal process. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it IS ridculous because you are apparently allowing a court case to control what is published in a wikipedia document. That's insane. Cshay (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree. The issues involved are highly technical and very nuanced. If we simplify matters we run the risk of shifting the blame, even ever so slightly, toward living people. This would be unfair and would also violate WP:BLP. And "Inappropriate Control inputs" may not necessarily be equivalent to "pilot error". Not by a country mile. Not if those pilots were not properly trained to account for alternate law operation. These pilots would then be victims of bad or incomplete training. There is a good reason the report is being cautious with its terminology and does not start painting the pilots as responsible. We should not be doing this either. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. K makes a very important point. It is an objective fact that the accident was caused by inappropriate control inputs. What is less obvious is whether those were due to "pilot error" or "poor ergonomics" or "inadequate training" or whatever. That is why the offical report is nuanced and why the Wikipedia article has to be nuanced. Of course any reader is free to draw their own conclusions, but Wikipedia should provide unbiased information, not a particular conclusion.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You write: "There is a good reason the report is being cautious with its terminology and does not start painting the pilots as responsible. We should not be doing this either." Actually, if you read the report they specifically call out a European law in place that says they are not allowed to place blame in this report. So this report is, by law, stifled from pointing any fingers. We here are not stifled by any such law. If we find a reference that blames Bonin, there is no reason why it cannot be in the first section of the article. Cshay (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Court or no court directive makes no difference. As I have already explained in my reply that "Inappropriate control inputs" cannot fairly be attributed to pilots because these "Inappropriate control inputs" may be a direct consequence of poor training or software glitches. Per WP:BLP controversial or ambiguous statements of that kind should never be attempted. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The people being written about are dead. And your comments sound like original research. Theres been articles by Popular Mechanics and the Daily Telegraph that we can reference in the introductory section. Cshay (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No they are not original research, but thanks for trying. Recently deceased people have living relatives who could be affected by WP:BLP. Check this out. Finally, non-specialist publications like PM and newspaper articles do not overrule official investigations, especially in highly technical investigations with great BLP implications. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong of course, but you have about 3 or 4 other editors who agree with you, that we should pander to the pilots families and the Euro courts, so this article is doomed to be content-free on the subject of pilot errors. And anyone who balks about this will simply be told to read a massive, highly techincal report inaccessable to lay people which is, by the way, forbidden to place blame by Euro law, even if they privately came to the conclusion that blame should be placed. Disgusting. Cshay (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of a WP article is not to right wp:GREATWRONGS. We do not read between the lines of sources. We do not base content on low-quality sources overriding high quality sources. Long established editors should realize this. When or if an expert author publishes a source which contradicts the official BEA report, we will have something to discuss here. In the meanwhile, it is by far the best source we have. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Round and round we go. Now back to the original point - very simply, the findings in the article are poorly written and presented, and therefore ineffective at communicating what happened. How do we address this problem using the information available in the official report, as I don't accept that it's not possible to convey the findings in a more readable form without changing or distorting the underlying facts? I have difficulty with vague terminology like "inappropriate control inputs", that doesn't even make it clear if it was a human or the autopilot that made these inputs!
PS: The French WP article lists the actions of the PF and PNF Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Para 2 of the lede clearly says who made the inputs. Not everything goes into infoboxen. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was refering to the Final report section.Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LeadSongdog, the report itself states that it is not allowed by Euro law to assign blame (even if it came to such conclusion). Therefore it is not an authority on the matter of pilot error. We necesarily need to look at other (less official) sources for analysis of pilot errors, for example Popular Mechanics. Cshay (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I said earlier that investigation agencies should not assign blame, because it is counterproductive. Their job is to find out how to improve safety, and assigning blame gets in the way of that. The article asserts that the pilots made inappropriate control inputs, which is supported by the final report. Pop Mechanics has no way of knowing why they did that, which would be essential to assigning responsibility (let alone blame). It could have been because of improper or incomplete training, it could have been because they were properly trained to follow an improper procedure, or many other things beyond their control. If you can't bother to devote the necessary effort to understand the final report, that's your prerogative, but that does not mean that we should substitute an inferior source. If we believed Pop Mechanics, we'd all have had flying cars in our garages decades ago. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've got my private pilot ticket, and this article is very clear to me because I'm familiar with the terminology. (It reads like a horror movie where you want to shout things to the pilots.) But without pilot training, a lot of the implications are lost, and I agree some explanatory phrases and sentences could clarify things. As a small example, the article points out that at one point the pilot stopped pulling back on the control, and because that caused the flight information to become valid, the stall warning began to sound... then was silenced again when the pilot pulled back again (because the flight data became invalid again). A non-pilot might not realize what a warped situation that pilot was in trying to understand what's going on in a dark, stormy night with unreliable instruments and a stall warning that turns off when you pull back! (And of course the Captain is not going to immediately take control-- his first officer is an experienced pilot who is appraised of the full situation, while he just came in.) Anyway, further editing should try to take into account that readers might not be familiar with pilot terms, lingo, or equipment and make a better attempt to explain the situation instead of regurgitating the facts. --Sam (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with LeadSongDog. With so many technical, pilot-training-related and software-related things gone wrong it would be unjustified, unjustifiable, unjust and simplistic to assign blame exclusively to the pilots for "inappropriate control inputs". Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with LeadSongDog. I do find merit with Socrates2008 and Samkassl, with respect to always trying to improve the article and at some point rewriting it. However, I don't agree that we should just start slathering blame. I think the points the numerous editors make are extremely strong on why fixing blame is improper here.. I don't understand why Cshay is so focused on blaming pilot error. Cshay, the popular mechanics and telegraph articles paint a compelling narrative, I agree but it's only one interpretation of the facts as others have noted on here. I don't want you to think we're some cabal on here resisting. It's just that the known facts don't support one compelling narrative. Unlike you, i read the popular mechanics and telegraph articles first and felt the same way you do.....but after reading the Wikipedia article, i came to appreciate the complexity of the multitude of things that caused this calamity. Many things went wrong that night. It's the broad view presented in the article that makes the article so strong.. I again applaud the editors. Let not dilute this fine article. Cshay I encourage you to invest yourself in the article for a bit. A heart surgeon can't explain what happened during a critical surgery without being a bit technical. Same thing here, if you truly seek to understand you need to invest yourself. If you don't have time to invest, the article presents the actual view into the complexity. -Justanonymous (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your well-made points Justanonymous. By the way, the only cabal I think I belong to is the cabal of logical and fair analysis of the available facts. In that sense, welcome to the cabal. :) Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bermuda Triangle Connection

It's quite possible that there was a narrow supergravity force (circa 2g) which the aircraft had flown into and continued along it's path of influence. This would explain why the pilots didn't talk about the "bumpy ride" which an analyst says would have alerted the passengers to their impending doom. This is why Bonin was continually pulling back on the stick and the plane not responding. The airpocket and aircraft together would be similarly affected by the 2g force and so all instruments including the pilots would be fooled. They would have thought that the aircraft was flying normally and that it was *just* the instruments that had failed. The South Atlantic Anomaly is a likely contender which isn't even mentioned in the article. 195.59.118.104 (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC) Alan Lowey[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Air_France_Flight_447&oldid=518851790"