Talk:Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907

CENIPA and NTSB final reports

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

FA effort

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

Joe Sharkey's blog

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

Sources and FAC

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

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

Comments by User:Fvasconcellos

(copied from talk page)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I agree and have toned down the language.

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

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

Relevant omissions in this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NTSB says about pre-flight preparation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These sources from mainstream highly respected publications interpert the NTSB and CENIPA reports (which are highly reliable primary sources), and clearly tell us there was significant disagreement between those reports on whether the Embraer pilots had any blame in the accident. While CENIPA says they had at least partial blame, NTSB tells us they acted properly, "(NTSB) strongly disagreed with the Brazilian conclusions regarding the Legacy pilots' actions as a causal factor, noting, 'The crew flew the route precisely as cleared and complied with all ATC instructions,' as did the GOL airlines crew."[1]

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

:Let’s read your “reliable sources”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warning: Read before you cite!

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Crums, Wikipedia says in “Conflicting Conclusions”:

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

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

I think that editors here should follow Reliable sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post-FAC suggestions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issues not answered

Please, there are some fundamental issues not explained in this article, and could be better written in order to a non expert person, like me, understand it.

• It says: "At 16:02, seven minutes after crossing the Brasilia VOR, secondary radar contact was lost with the Embraer, thus stopping the display of the Embraer's reported altitude (Mode C) on the controller's radar screen". Well, Brasilia is the Brazil's capital; it is not in the middle of Amazon and it is a very large city. How ATC lost radar contact when Legacy was over Brazil's capital? This is hard to believe and should be better explained. And then it is said: "At 16:59:50, about three minutes after the collision, Amazonic Center started to receive the Embraer's secondary radar reply, with its correct altitude and last assigned code". This is crazy! In Brasilia they lost radar contact, and then in the middle of Amazon, after the accident, they recover radar contact? I just don't understand.
• NTSB says "The evidence collected during this investigation strongly supports the conclusion that this accident was caused by N600XL and GOL1907 following ATC clearances which directed them to operate in opposite directions on the same airway at the same altitude resulting in a midair collision". How ATC directed them (Legacy) at the same altitude if there was not radar contact? How ATC can direct an aircraft without knowing where it is flying? What I can understand is that ATC lost control of aircraft and not that they "direct them to operate in directions on the same airway at the same altitude". This seems different issues to me. ATC direct them in blind? As far as I can understand, ATC sees two aircrafts approaching in their radar screen and then separate them. If they don't see one of them, how can they separate them? Guessing?

I think that those issues must be better explained here. Only experts can understand this article. Lmc9 (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Lmc9 was confirmed to be a sockpuppet of User:Sdruvss
Crum375 (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Lmc, you are welcome to read the CENIPA and NTSB reports, which are very detailed, and contain answers to all your questions. Regarding your first question, you have to separate primary radar from secondary radar contact. Primary radar is a direct physical echo reflected from a target back to the radar antenna, and is generally less accurate and sensitive than secondary radar. Secondary radar is an indirect "echo" emitted by the aircraft's transponder when it detects an "interrogation" signal emitted from the ground. In the case of the Embraer aircraft, its secondary signal was lost over Brasilia, in all likelihood because the on-board transponder stopped working. CENIPA hypothesizes this was because the Embraer pilots apparently (most likely accidentally) switched off their transponder, and didn't notice this until after the collision. NTSB also believes the Embraer transponder was most likely switched off, but does not provide a definitive hypothesis as to how or why. After the collision, the transponder started emitting its signal again, which made it appear on ATC's radar screen. Distance from the ground radar facility was apparently not a factor. As far as NTSB's conclusion that the two aircraft were sent on a collision course by ATC, you seem to believe that ATC can only direct aircraft when they are visible on radar, but this is often not the case. For example, over oceans and other areas with poor or no radar coverage ATC routinely directs aircraft to fly in specific directions and altitudes without seeing them on radar. This is done by ATC "clearing" blocks of airspace at given locations, times and altitudes for individual aircraft, and it works as long as both ATC and the flight crews do their jobs properly. Nowadays, on-board collision detection and avoidance systems help in reducing collision risk even when one side drops the ball. Crum375 (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Crum375, thank you very much for your explanations, but it seems to me that you are an “expert” reader of those huge reports, and by your high quality comments, you do not even need Wikipedia to understand this accident. It’s impossible to us (me), that just travel by planes understand those technical reports. I think that Wikipedia, as an online encyclopedia, should use a language and explanations that an “average” reader can understand it, something like “Gol flight 1907 collision for dummies”. I think, just an opinion for the guys that write here, that they should read your comments posted here and them complete the article, explaining those issues. But one thing I don’t understand in what you said (don’t think I am too stupid, but I’m not an “aircraft expert”). You said “This is done by ATC "clearing" blocks of airspace at given locations, times and altitudes for individual aircraft”. How ATC clears blocks of airspace for individual aircraft if they don’t see them in radar screen? It is said here it “disappeared completely from the radar screen”. How can they separate them without seeing them in radar screen? How ATC knows where is aircraft? How they know that the aircraft have not crashed? How they know that another aircraft that has just departed is not crossing its way? How they know that an aircraft is not in the wrong way by an instrument failure? I’ve read somewhere that ATC amends aircraft altitude all the time, asking them to climb and descend, due to winds, weather and other aircrafts that crosses their way. How they can amend altitude without knowing where is aircraft? What for radar is used? How ATC can do their work without radar? All these issues are not answered in this article. Thank you again, but I think that this article misses a lot of thinks. We read it and keep not understanding why this tragedy happened. Lmc9 (talk) 11:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Lmc9, WP articles try to focus on the specific topic they are covering, without going into great detail about the generic underlying topics. If we did go into such detail, it would make the article much harder to read for most people who are only interested in the specific article topic. This is why we refer readers of articles to other articles, both on and off WP, for further reading and more in-depth information. In this case, we have links to air traffic control and air traffic controller. If you read these articles, as well as the sources which are linked to them, you'll have a better understanding of the underlying technologies and methods of ATC traffic separation and control. The bulk of your questions seem to be focused on how ATC operates, with and without radar, and are not specific to this article. As I noted above, ATC relies on flight crews (and vice-versa), and aircraft cross the world's oceans and other remote areas every day without radar coverage (although nowadays collision prevention systems are also helpful as backup). Historically, close radar control, as we have today in the busier areas, came into use after many years where aircraft were separated without radar at all, often with very limited radio communication (and with no collision prevention instrumentation), especially enroute. Crum375 (talk) 12:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Crum375. Now I see that you have a lot of comments here, and it is easy to you to understand all those issues. My comment was just a feedback to people who writes Wikipedia, and it is not mandatory that volunteer people who writes articles here uses an approach that I can understand. This is my problem and not theirs. I can’t understand the radar role in this accident. I’ve ever thought that radar coverture played an important role and this was the debate in the media all this years, but the way is written here, it is not important. I will search in those sources why it is not. Thank you again. Lmc9 (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Lmc9, if your search turns up something that you feel needs to be added to (or changed in) this article, please provide your sources and we can discuss it. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Crum375, what I didn’t understand in the article, you explained me here in discussion. Perhaps it could be written in the article: 1) Legacy was out of radar because transponder was turned off and not because there was a “black hole” in Brasilia; 2) It is not necessary radar to control aircrafts as I thought. Aircrafts cross the world's oceans and other remote areas without radar coverage. Lmc9 (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Both CENIPA and NTSB, as stated in the article, agreed on the basic facts, and specifically that seven minutes after it crossed Brasilia, the Embraer's transponder stopped functioning and sending a secondary signal to the ground. The Embraer's primary radar signal continued to show up on the controller's radar screen for twenty four more minutes. These points are addressed in footnotes 12 and 13 in Embraer flight and communication sequence. We cannot put this directly in the article without violating WP:NOR (unless a proper secondary source is found), but as I see it, the lack of radar coverage over the Amazon was not an issue or a contributor in this accident. We do have this indirectly in the article, as neither CENIPA nor NTSB cite lack of radar coverage (or other equipment deficiency) as an important contributor to this accident. Crum375 (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Crum, you said that ATC relies on flight crews (and vice-versa). I don’t want to create a debate around this, here is not the place, but it is not completely true. Nobody relies upon anybody ;-) ATC relies on their radar screen. It is the main instrument that verifies that the crew is following the clearance. It doesn’t matter what crew understood and what someone said before, what matters is if they are following what they want. If they are not following due to misunderstandings, they call the aircraft and repeat instructions or amend the clearance. Without radar, ATC cannot do their job and it becomes a guessing game. Controllers have an eye at radar screen and the other at the flight strip. Ocean crossing is another issue. Herbmartin (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Herbmartin was confirmed to be a sockpuppet of User:Sdruvss
Crum375 (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You say "ocean crossing is another issue", but actually ocean crossing is similar to many routine situations around the world on dry land, where planes are outside radar coverage and are still operating under air traffic control (ATC). In other words, although radar is an important tool, it is not absolutely required for air traffic control, and both ATC personnel and pilots are trained to operate in a radar-less environment. Without radar, controllers do rely on the pilots, and the pilots (on instrument flight plans) always rely on ATC. BTW, even in a radar environment, sometimes the altitude readouts (Mode C), or the secondary signal (Mode A or Mode C), are not received by controllers, in which case they still need to rely on pilots to be at the proper altitude. Crum375 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You said "similar"...

"Air Traffic Control and Radar"

"Every day tens of thousands of people board airplanes to travel from one place to another. These flights, thousands of which take off and land daily, are among the safest forms of travel. Although airplane crashes are tragic and headline grabbing, the fact is the sky is a very safe place to be. But how, with so many airplanes in the air, does air travel maintain such a good safety record? The answer is, in large part, air traffic control, the complex system of directing planes and telling them how high or low to fly, and when and where to land safely. Air traffic control systems rely heavily on radar. [...] The use of transponders increases the detection range of the radar, eliminates clutter interference from other reflectors, and provides a means of aircraft identification and altitude reporting. In the early 1960s the U.S Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published a national standard for air traffic control interrogators and transponders. By the end of the decade over 200 ground-based interrogators were in use in the U. S and the FAA made it mandatory to equip aircraft with transponders before they could operate in positive controlled airspace at high altitudes and near major airports". ATC relies on Radar and they on transponders and both are fundamental to ATC do their job. Herbmartin (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt that radar is an important tool which greatly contributes to safety and efficiency of air travel. But that does not mean that there are no areas around the world, including some in the most developed countries (e.g. in remote regions, lower altitudes and/or near mountainous areas) where there is no radar coverage, and ATC functions just fine. It's like the automobile: it is very useful for transportation, but there are other ways of getting from A to B. Crum375 (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, HerbMartin. The link between transponder and radar screen becomes understandable and why ATC guessed that Legacy was following their flight plan. Lmc9 (talk) 11:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Lmc9 and Herbmartin were confirmed to be sockpuppets of User:Sdruvss
Crum375 (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Crum, there are more fundamental issues not explained in this article:

• Any pilot knows that aircrafts don't flight towards northwest at odd levels for long distances. As an aircraft fan, a see at FlightAware that there is not a single aircraft crossing America southeast to northwest stabilized at an odd level. The pilots didn't know it?
• Why the Legacy flight plan have a first small leg at 37,000 feet and then a few minutes latter a planned descent to 36.000 feet and then a few minutes later a climb to 38.000 feet? This article should explain these ups and downs. Is this usual? I don't see something like that at FlightAware.
• Then, why ATC changed this flight plan to a single altitude?
• Why the pilots didn't see that transponder was turned off for almost one hour? As far as I know its status is displayed in the aircraft control panel. What the pilots were doing for almost one hour without watching control panel?

Regards, Lmc9 (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Lmc9, don't expect that Crum is here to explain anything. He only select what should be written, and this is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines. Herbmartin (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Lmc9 and Herbmartin were confirmed to be sockpuppets of User:Sdruvss
Crum375 (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Herbmartin, I don't expect that Crum explain me here. I think that this article is incomprehensible. If all the answers are in CENIPA and NTSB reports, it would be enough to put a link to them. The article could have only one line: read the report moron. It is impossible to me to understand all this huge report and understand it. I'm just suggesting that this article includes what reports and other articles say about these issues. If it is not possible, ok, I will read the entire report. Thanks, anyway. Lmc9 (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Lmc9, for flight above FL290 (approx. 29,000 ft), up to about 10 years ago, and in some parts of the world until more recently, aircraft had to maintain 2,000 ft of vertical separation, cruising at "odd" altitudes only. In recent years, Reduced Vertical Separation Minima were implemented, allowing cruise flight at "even" altitudes for properly certified aircraft and crews. Flying at odd altitudes westbound is unusual, but does happen periodically, due to traffic or weather conditions. ATC has the final say about altitudes and routes, and when they clear a flight for a given altitude, the most recent ATC clearance overrides any previous clearances or plans, unless radio contact is lost, in which case special radio loss rules apply. In this particular case, the Embraer crew used a commercial flight planning service to create and file their flight plan for them, and apparently it was that company which created the "strange" proposed flight altitudes. When the Embraer crew got their IFR clearance from ATC before takeoff, they were apparently (and mistakenly, as it turned out) cleared to climb to FL370, with no mention of any subsequent altitude change (which is typically done by adding the words "then as filed"). This error was further compounded when the Embraer crew communicated with ATC near Brasilia, confirming their altitude at FL370, with no mention of any change in clearance by ATC. Since the accident involves living persons — the Embraer flight crew and ATC — we can't speculate about the reasons for ATC's actions, beyond the general statements made by CENIPA and NTSB in their conclusions. Regarding the Embraer crew not noticing their transponder being off, apparently there was no special blinking annunciator light alerting them to the transponder being off. As I understand it, the transponder function on the Embraer is combined and integrated with many other flight instruments (navigation and communication), without a dedicated permanent display, as in older equipment. This makes the transponder's ON/OFF status harder or less obvious to notice, as mentioned in the CENIPA and NTSB reports. This is also the case with the collision prevention system, which relies on the transponder. Under normal conditions, if the transponder is off or malfunctioning, ATC would notice it and request the flight crew to recycle the transponder or switch to a backup unit, but in this case this did not happen, with tragic results. Crum375 (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Crum, thank you, but I think that your explanations could be integrated in the article. It's not my intent to make here a forum, as Herbmanrtin said. But you didn't answer my questions. 1) As I said, even I, as an airplane fan, know that planes don't cross a continent going northwest in an odd level. I observed at FightAware, thousands of flights, and I didn't observe just one. If it happens periodically, it is once in a life. The question was if crew was aware of this issue. 2) The second question was also not answered; it was why that company created the "strange" proposed flight altitudes, with so many climbs and descents. As I said, I also don't observe just one flight plan at FlightAware with planned climbs and descents. 3) If I understood what you said, ATC didn't change their flight plan, did they just omit the three magical words "then as filed" at departure? 4) Why the transponder's ON/OFF status is harder or less obvious to notice? Why, immediately after collision they noticed that it was OFF and not before? Lmc9 (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Crum, if you allow me, I can help you. 1) Crew awareness - CENIPA says that "(...) according to the interviews, the flight crew showed a lack of attention to the flight plan and was not able to interpret the routes and flight level changes prescribed in item 18 of their ICAO flight plan form". According "to the CVR data, the pilots did not make any comments concerning the flight management, such as, for example, the thirty-degree heading change to the left (from 006º to 336º) at the vertical of BRS VOR [Brasilia]. There were no comments about the joining of the new airway, or the possibility of a flight level change. The left turn was made automatically by the autopilot, and the CVR did not record any supervising action by the crew at that moment". And follows "When, at an interview, the crew was asked about having entered a wrong flight level for the heading they were flying, they said it is not uncommon to receive non-standard levels from the air traffic control [indeed, it is very, very uncommon as you can check by yourself, monitoring flights online]. According to them, they were flying en route, under radar contact, and did not receive any instruction from the control unit whose frequency they were monitoring. They were in accordance with the last instructions received". So, apparently they were not aware. 2) Flight plan - The file plan profile had been produced by the software of an American commercial flight planning service program considering the winds aloft available at the several WIND ALOFT charts for the FL300, FL340 and FL390. This is a long story, but making it short, CENIPA says that the navigation presented to crew was rather "unusual". Nobody is able to explain it, because those charts are valid for 12 hours, and they asked the flight plan a few days before departure. 3) Clearance - Yes, it was an ordinary clearance issued by airport towers, but has omitted "then as filed" or also could be said "limit Brasilia". 4) Transponder status not observed - Since the beginning of the recording of the Legacy CVR, the PIC and SIC were together using a notebook to calculate and obtain data of the landing and takeoff performance relative to Manaus. The crew was learning how to use it in the calculation of the aircraft weight and balance. There was a distraction from the focus of the routines relative to the monitoring of the flight progress, which made the crew direct their attention to the search and analysis of the available data relative to the remaining fuel, as well as the information contained in the software of the notebook, during a long time, possibly longer than the one that was recorded in the CVR. Between 19:00:01.5 UTC and 19:01:44.3 UTC occurs the interruption of the transponder transmission. The pilots confirmed that, at this moment, the SIC was with the laptop and worked on it alone during the two minutes; he neither passed it to the PIC, nor placed it next to the panel. The PIC, who had declared in his last interview not recalling exactly what he had been doing during this period of silence, may have been still focused on their calculation of the fuel for the departure from Manaus (seemingly) to check the current fuel status of the N600XL. The subject of the drawing of the attention of the crew to it was only solved (closing of the notebook), approximately 11 minutes after the transponder had stopped transmitting. There was a distraction from the focus of the routines relative to the monitoring of the flight progress, which made the crew direct their attention to the search and analysis of the available data relative to the remaining fuel, as well as the information contained in the software of the notebook, during a long time, possibly longer than the one that was recorded in the CVR. They didn't observed the instruments, because during this long period of time, they were working with a notebook in the cockpit, which is prohibited by many commercial airlines and even led to FAA revoke the pilots certificates in the recent incident of Northwest Airlines Flight 188. Herbmartin (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Herbmarting, Why NTSB disagrees with these evidences? Lmc9 (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Lmc9, NTSB doesn't disagree with these evidences. They argue that these events are only contributor factors, and not the accident cause. These events didn't change the conduction of the flight; they didn't change the trajectory of the aircraft, and NTSB is totally right. What NTSB says is that "The evidence collected during this investigation strongly supports the conclusion that this accident was caused by N600XL and GOL1907 following ATC clearances which directed them to operate in opposite directions on the same airway at the same altitude resulting in a midair collision". In other words, they can assure that the cause of accident was because the aircrafts collided. This is the cause. This is not in dispute, it is simple logic: ATC directs aircrafts; if they collide, the cause is that ATC made a mistake. As NTSB says, they failed in their mission to separate them. Investigation reports consist of findings (factual) and conclusions to reach a probable cause. Conclusions in aircraft accident investigation are not supported by scientific procedures and are just opinions. As an example, if A causes B and B causes C, NTSB argues that the cause was B and CENIPA argues that cause was A. Herbmartin (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Lmc9 and Herbmartin were confirmed to be sockpuppets of User:Sdruvss
Crum375 (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

This article should be better written

These are my comments about this article, and if editors allow me, I would like to edit it.

Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907

This article says:

“The accident was investigated by both the Brazilian Air Force Centro de Investigação e Prevenção de Acidentes Aeronáuticos (CENIPA) and the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), with a final report issued on December 10, 2008. CENIPA concluded that the accident was caused by errors committed both by air traffic controllers and by the Embraer's pilots, while the NTSB determined that all pilots acted properly and were placed on a collision course by a variety of "individual and institutional" air traffic control errors”.[1][2][6][7]

The sentence “NTSB determined that all pilots acted properly” is nonspecific, cannot be verified, and was extracted of its context. Indeed, what NTSB says is that “there was no evidence of regulatory violations”. This does not mean that “pilots acted properly”. NTSB even recognizes some crew mistakes, as for instance, “[...] they did have a long term opportunity to note a nonstandard situation and request clarification or confirmation from ATC. For about 1 hour the significance of the long time period spent at a nonstandard cruise altitude for the flight direction by N600XL was not recognized”, and “Without question, N600XL proceeded for an inordinately long time without two-way communication”.

Therefore, the sentence should be corrected to:

The accident was investigated by both the Brazilian Air Force Centro de Investigação e Prevenção de Acidentes Aeronáuticos (CENIPA) and the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), with a final report issued on December 10, 2008. CENIPA concluded that the accident was caused by many errors committed both by air traffic controllers and by the Embraer's pilots and doesn’t point a single cause. Whereas NTSB argues that none of the errors committed by Embraer’s pilots pointed by CENIPA are evidences of regulatory violations, and they flew the route precisely as cleared and complied with all ATC instructions. NTSB concludes that accident probable cause was that aircrafts were placed on a collision course by a variety of "individual and institutional" air traffic control errors. [1][2][6][7].

Embraer aircraft and crew

The topic omits an important issue and should be amended with:

CENIPA says that Embraer’s crew had little experience of the N600XL, and had never flown together as part of the same crew. The experience of the pilot-in-command in the installed avionics of the Embraer airplane was restricted to the hours spent in the simulator, plus the 5 hours and 35 minutes of flight time prior to the accident. Even though the second-in-command was already certified in a similar Embraer model, with a total of 368 hours flown, the company decided to send him for a complete training program. [1]

Embraer flight and communication sequence

“At 16:02, seven minutes after crossing the Brasilia VOR, secondary radar contact was lost with the Embraer, thus stopping the display of the Embraer's reported altitude (Mode C) on the controller's radar screen.[note 12].”

This sentence leads the reader to understand that there was a radar failure. It is not explained that secondary radar relies on transponder signal. These are the crucial moments, fundamental to accident comprehension. It should be more detailed. I would redact the topic this way:

At 16:02, seven minutes after crossing the Brasilia VOR, secondary radar contact was lost with the Embraer, thus stopping the display of the Embraer's reported altitude (Mode C) on the controller's radar screen. According to the information available, the loss of the Transponder signal indicates that the STANDBY feature of the transponder had probably been selected.

CENIPA says that “the analysis of the CVR showed that the atmosphere in the cockpit was rather relaxed, with the pilots working with a notebook. According to the CVR data, the pilots did not make any comments concerning the flight management, such as, for example, the thirty-degree heading change to the left (from 006º to 336º) at the vertical of BRS VOR. There were no comments about the joining of the new airway, or the possibility of a flight level change. The left turn was made automatically by the autopilot, and the CVR did not record any supervising action by the crew at that moment. The pilots were busy, making use of a laptop in the cockpit, for calculations and for obtaining data relative to the landing at and takeoff from Manaus, in the software provided by Embraer for performance and weight and balance calculations. The change to “STANDBY” occurred at the end of the period of crew silence, when the second-in-command suddenly informed the pilot-in-command, who was probably working with the RMU (Radio Management Unit), that he had finally obtained in his notebook the information which would allow them to depart from Manaus airport on the following day. The Transponder / TCAS system of the Legacy is operated through two Radio Management Units (RMU), both located on the frontal instrument panel in the cockpit.

CENIPA findings show that at 19:38, the primary radar contact was lost, and Embraer aircraft was completely out of radar screen. They say that if the transponder had been transmitting, the secondary radar coverage would have been available to the controllers. From the moment that the Transponder entered standby mode, the altitude information relative to that aircraft was being obtained by 3D primary radar equipment and not from the Transponder mode C any longer. The secondary radars are utilized by the ATC for the provision of vertical separation, and the 3D radar does not have a documentation approved by the ICAO concerning its use for traffic separation. The Brazilian ATC system does not use the 3D radar for the provision of vertical separation. It is used only for air defense purposes. When the mode C was lost, the real altitude field in radar screen started showing variable altitudes at values around 360, although the information in the data block was clearly warning that the information was coming from a 3D radar, requiring immediate actions to be taken by the controller. According to CENIPA the controller failed to act probably caused by a lack of perception or a mistaken perception of the information conveyed by the data block displayed in his radar screen.

NTSB Safety Recommendation

This topic should be amended with the final report findings, that are:

CENIPA argues in final report that it was observed that the pilots dedicated themselves to the investigation of the weight and balance software that had been inserted in the Captain’s laptop, an aspect that distracted them from the prescribed tasks of aircraft monitoring. The N600XL crew remained distracted and work while keeping their heads down for a long time.

Conflicting CENIPA and NTSB conclusions

“[...] whereas the NTSB focuses on the controllers and the ATC system, concluding that both flight crews acted properly [...] [2][6][7][47][48][49]”

The sentence is not verifiable in NTSB report and in any of the references (2,6,7,47,48,49). NTSB’s comments say that “there was no evidence of regulatory violations” which is different. The sentence should be changed to:

“[...] whereas the NTSB focuses on the controllers and the ATC system, concluding that Embraer airplane was placed on a collision course by the air traffic controllers, and that there was no evidence of regulatory violations by the crewmembers. [2][6][7][47][48][49]”

“According to Aviation Week, [...]”. That is a signed article, and then it should be written: “According to Jim Swickard in Aviation Week, [...]”.

“Aviation Week adds that "the Brazilian military operates that country's air traffic control system, conducted the investigation and authored the report.". This sentence inside “Conflicting Conclusions” must be excluded or should be in another place. It induces readers that there is a conspiracy theory of the report produced by CENIPA.
Sdruvss (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Sdruvss was confirmed to be the sockmaster of Herbmartin, Lmc9 and Wiki2wk who have all posted on this talk page. See: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sdruvss
Crum375 (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This article has been reviewed by the community and was promoted to featured article status. If you'd like to make substantive changes, you should gain consensus on the talk page. At the moment, it seems you are adding your own WP:OR instead of relying on reliable secondary sources. Crum375 (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm asking to you turn this article reliable analyzing these comments and editing it, not me. All information provided in my comments are from the same sources as you use. If you don't want, I and community will understand. I didn't expected that you would allow it. Your comment was expected. Regards. Sdruvss (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone; I have no more right to edit it than anyone else, and you don't need anyone's permission to edit. Having said that, this article has undergone close scrutiny by the community and achieved featured article status. Therefore, if you'd like to make substantive changes, you should gain consensus for them on the talk page. As I noted above, your suggested changes, which interpret and select specific pieces from primary sources, seem like original research to me. Crum375 (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Crum, this is a old comment (not mine) in Portuguese Wikipedia page of Gol flight 1907:

“The English page is very different from Portuguese. It misses data on the flight plan. There is excessive focus on journalist Joe Sharkey (who gave interviews critical of aviation in Brazil), while there is little or zero references to Brazilian news, such as those conducted by Globo and Folha de Sao Paulo. Some times, the article in English seems a bit biased in favor of the occupants and/or crew of the Legacy. On the English page there were attempts to add data on the flight plan and references to facts of the investigation officially communicated to the Brazilian press, but one astute user and critical (Crum375) undid almost all of these items on behalf of the Wikipedia rules. It seems to me that he is someone who does not usually travel by air in Brazil, don't read Brazilian press reports, while reading him one will have an incorrect impression about aviation in Brazil and perhaps on the jet manufactured by Embraer. I suggest that someone who is fluent in English read that article and the discussion (Talk page) and if so cunning as the User Crum375, perform the necessary contributions and adjustments to make it fair and/or complete the article in English”. Regards, Sdruvss (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: Everybody can see that there isn't a single sentence that interprets primary source. The sources are the same as yours. Sdruvss (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I read that old comment on pt-wp a long time ago, and it is as wrong now as it was when it was written. If you think that Brazilian sources aren't used in this article, please check the reference list and count. I actually added a special translation feature to Wikipedia's citation templates so the translated titles (in any language) would look nice and consistent. I also translated myself many of the titles from Portuguese. You are welcome to check them, perhaps you can improve on them. As far as "the sources are the same as yours", you are correct. It's the way you use the sources, specifically primary ones, which is the problem. If you take a long, detailed primary source in a contentious case and pick out a selected subset from it, or otherwise interpret or analyze it, you are engaging in original research. This is why we need secondary sources to analyze, summarize and interpret primary sources. Crum375 (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Crum, one of your reliable sources is Richard Pedicini, who wrote your reference NTSB, Cenipa at Odds over Midair Accident Report. Joe Sharkey, describes him as “my correspondent in Sao Paulo” and this is how Globo describes Pedicini “The American Pedicini Richard [...] was on Friday (8) to the headquarters of the Superintendent of the Federal Police of São Paulo, [...], to assist pilots Joe Lepore and Jan Paladino. He attended the Federal Police in a suit, tie and panama hat and a mustache similar to Santos Dumont. "What better time to do a tribute to Santos Dumont?" he suggested. You need Santos Dummont spirit to analyze, summarize and interpret primary source? (NTSB as an organization is not primary source, NTSB team is). Sdruvss (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is how Richard Pedicini describes himself. He is apparently a freelance writer, and in our own case his byline is on the AIN reference. When we use a published source, it is normally the publisher which lends credibility to the source, because the publisher does the vetting, and the publisher accepts legal responsibility for the content. A reliable source is often without byline, i.e. anonymous, and it is perfectly acceptable for Wikipedia as long as the publisher is reputable, as is Aviation International News. And Santos Dumont was a great aviator and instructor; his spirit could certainly help analyze primary sources, if the analysis were published by a reliable secondary source. Crum375 (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This is your reliable source? Is NTSB organizationa primary source? And NTSB team of investigators? A primary source that produces a report 2 years after the event and was not present at the event being analyzed? And what are the documents gathered in the investigations? And controllers and pilots? Are news secondary sources? Sdruvss (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The NTSB documents are primary as the NTSB wrote it

Newspapers are secondary sources

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

WhisperToMe, according to WP policies WP:OR, officially published NTSB reports are clearly secondary source. They are not close to the event; they did not participate of the accident. Original documents, testimonies, declarations from investigation team and other material used by NTSB team to produce their reports are primary sources. Signed news are unreliable secondary sources, and in this case, primary sources are their authors (reporters). They shouldn't be used in any scientific paper or encyclopedia, unless be declared as author's opinion and be relevant to the subject. News not signed, that use secondary sources (as NTSB reports) are tertiary sources. Scientific papers or encyclopedias shouldn't use tertiary sources. News that cites primary sources only should be used in original research by a primary source (researcher) as information or data. The sentences that I want to include, and are censored by Crum, is synthesis of published material that does not advance a position. I do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. By other side, Crum is omitting sentences, combining them from different frameworks, and changing words from NTSB and CENIPA to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of them. As everybody knows, one may write a poem with words gathered in a computer manual. As Crum clearly admitted, he doesn't obey WP policies, he makes his own consensus. He and his sockpuppets (himself is a sockpuppet that gained admin status) are the consensus. I suggest you to read WP policies. Sdruvss (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Crum, you are compromising the small credibility that Wikipedia have. Your strategy is demoralizing yourself. Sharkey becomes discredited when he choose to be supported by Pedicini. Now, you choose to be support by Pedicini. You choose your way. I thought you were smarter. You reveled the true story behind this article. Sdruvss (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it my support for Dumont that causes me to lose the last bit of credibility? Crum375 (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Crum, it is much more. At first I thought that you were making fun of me, but no, you are making fun of 154 families that lost their parents, their relatives, their suns and daughters. You are trying to hide them the answers they are searching for. You are censoring information to people who are not able to understand technical reports. You are omitting the most important findings they reveal and distorting their meaning using interpretations of unreliable and partisan sources. You interpret WP policies completely wrong, using them to build a selected distorted version of the facts. You are using WP to achieve unethical and immoral results. I've never imagine to find a person as low as you being a WP administrator. You should be ashamed of yourself and WP should be ashamed of having you as an editor. Sdruvss (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sdruvss, there is no way to undo the damage and pain to the 154 victims and their families, but if we do a good job with this article, there is a chance we can prevent future disasters to other families, including yours and mine. The best way to do that is to present the information in a neutral way, based on the most reliable sources, following Wikipedia's content and BLP policies. This is what I try to do not just in this article, but in every one of the many accident articles I have worked on, which you are welcome to review. As an interesting and apt (perhaps eerie) note, here is the mission statement from the Cachimbo Air Base website which I posted on this talk page more than 3 years ago (translation mine, feel free to improve):

Seção de Prevenção de Acidentes Aeronáuticos

DEFINIÇÃO
Prevenção de Acidentes Aeronáuticos, de Incidentes Aeronáuticos e Ocorrência de Solo é o conjunto de atividades destinadas a impedir essas ocorrências, evitando assim custos adicionais desnecessários à operação através da preservação dos recursos humanos e materiais. Os elementos que constituem a base e o objeto de toda a atividade de Prevenção de Acidentes Aeronáuticos são definidos no trinômio “homem-meio-máquina”.
PRINCÍPIOS BÁSICOS DO SIPAER
a) “Todo acidente aeronáutico pode e deve ser evitado”;

• All aviation accidents can be prevented

b) “Todo acidente aeronáutico resulta de uma seqüência de eventos, e nunca de uma causa isolada”;

• All aviation accidents result from a chain of events; never from a single isolated cause

c) “Todo acidente aeronáutico tem um precedente”;

• All aviation accidents have a precedent

d) “Prevenção de acidentes aeronáuticos é uma tarefa que requer mobilização geral”;
e) “O propósito da Prevenção de Acidentes Aeronáuticos não é restringir a atividade aérea, mas estimular o seu desenvolvimento com segurança”;
f) “Os Comandantes, Diretores e Chefes são os principais responsáveis pelas medidas de segurança”;
g) “Em prevenção de acidentes aeronáuticos não há segredos nem bandeiras”;

• There are no secrets nor borders (flags) in the prevention of aviation accidents

h) “Acusações e punições agem contra os interesses da Prevenção de Acidentes Aeronáuticos”.

• Accusations and punishments do not serve the interests of preventing aviation accidents
  

(From Cachimbo Air Base website, SPAA)

Crum375 (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Crum, you are doing a very bad job with this article, making large use of partisan unreliable sources, not obeying WP content and BLB policies, intentionally messing up what primary and secondary sources are. Acting this way, covering up important issues in this accident, you collaborate to further disasters that will hurt other families. Since you speak Portuguese, it seems to me that you are one of Pedicini's sockpuppets, and then it would be clear your job here. I have these questions for you:
1. Why do you prohibit me to write in the article that FL370 in UZ6 is unusual (according to NTSB, and thousands of other sources)?
2. Why do you prohibit me to write that according to final report (and thousands of other sources) crew was distracted using a notebook when transponder turned to standby and was used in the cockpit for almost one hour?
3. Why do you prohibit me to write that according to all sources (primary, secondary, tertiary, whichever) turning off transponder makes an aircraft not being identifiable in radar screen? That is what "squawk ident" means.
4. Why do you prohibit me to write in the article that according to NTSB, the crew "acted according to appliable rules" instead of which was written here, that "they acted properly"? Which has a different meaning.
Sdruvss (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sdruvss, please focus on the article, not on me. You may want to read WP:CIVIL, for example. Now regarding your points, I don't "prohibit" you from writing anything; this is a free and open encyclopedia. But if you write things which violate our content policy, they will be removed or changed, by me or by other editors. Specifically, if you pick and choose pieces from a primary source, like the detailed CENIPA report, you'd be engaging in original research. This is why we must focus on high quality secondary sources, which analyze, interpret and summarize the primary sources for us. This article involves living persons (controllers and Embraer crew), and we must be extra careful not to write anything which may be perceived as critical of their actions, unless it is clearly supported by high quality secondary sources. Crum375 (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Crum, Please, facing WP policies (WP:NOR), justify why NTSB or CENIPA reports are primary source.
PS: I counted 7 times you cite Final Report without other references. Sdruvss (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Citing CENIPA or NTSB (or any primary source) directly for non-contentious issues (e.g. the flight origins and destinations) is fine. The problem is when it is done to promote a contentious point of view. In that case we need to be careful, and rely on secondary sources only. Why are CENIPA and NTSB reports primary sources? Because they are "close to the investigation", because they were written by the people in charge of the investigation, because they include a large amount of raw "findings" or evidence, and because they are equivalent to a scientist investigating a specific phenomenon, collecting a lot of raw evidence and writing a report about it. To emphasize, these are highly reliable sources, but to interpret them properly, esp. the contentious parts, we need high-quality secondary sources. Crum375 (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Crum, I apologyse by my words. As you well said: "of the investigation". The subject of this article is the accident and not the "investigation". NTSB is not close to the accident, they are one step away, they are close to its investigation, what is completely different. As WP says "A secondary source contrasts with a primary source, which is an original source of the information being discussed. They are not an original source of the information of the accident. As you well said "they are equivalent to a scientist investigating a specific phenomenon", and all WP articles are based in reliable scientific research. And as WP says "Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information". This is clearly what CENIPA and NTSB do. A primary source has information and provide raw material to be analyzed. Who wants to analyze raw material? Not me, for sure, but CENIPA and NTSB do. With your good explanation about the job of CENIPA and NTSB, we both agree that facing WP policies they are secondary source. But you said "...but to interpret them properly". Who wants to interpret them? Not me. Every time I comment I quote them. I use their phrases, expressions and words. Do we have a consensus that I am not interpreting a primary source, but as a matter of fact, I am citing a reliable secondary source? We need to go deeper in this debate or it is enough? Regards, Sdruvss (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sdruvss, this article is about the accident, which includes the history of the flight, the accident itself, the investigation, and the aftermath. Specifically, the investigation is an important (perhaps key) part of this article, and the CENIPA and NTSB reports are the primary sources describing that investigation. Again, CENIPA and NTSB are close to the investigation since they are in charge of it, and their reports are full of raw bits of information. To avoid original research, we need high quality secondary sources to help us analyze, interpret and summarize the highlights of those reports, as well as compare them to each other. Crum375 (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me add, in case it's not clear to you, that selective quoting from a primary source is part of the "summarizing" process, and when done by a Wikipedian to advance a particular position, would be considered original research. Crum375 (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Crums, following your grounds, you should exclude all direct citations to CENIPA or NTSB without “secondary sources” that support them, turning your article not understandable. I count 7 of them. Are you going to exclude them or do you want that others do it? I would like that you justify your rationale facing WP policies because you didn’t. Your affirmative are not verifiable in WP policies. The subject of the article is not the investigation as you said. The subject is the accident. The investigation is a secondary source about the accident. As WP policies prescribes, and everybody knows, an article in an encyclopedia has just a single subject, just a single “event” to be described. On the contrary, it would be a book. If you think that the investigation is a different subject, you must separate in two articles. If one wants to interpret or analyze the reports from CENIPA or NTSB according to several sources, which I don’t want, one should use another midia and not WP because this would be original research. You should follow WP policies. Do we have a consensus here?

Let me add, in case it's not clear to you, you should justify that a specific selective quoting from a “primary source” intent to advance a particular position. Which position are you talking about? Is there positions? This a neutral point of view article.

Regards. Sdruvss (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sdruvss, you are again missing the point. We are allowed to use reliable primary sources, such as the CENIPA or NTSB reports, but must do so very carefully, to avoid "advancing a position", which means not to use it to promote or support a particular point of view in a contentious situation. For example, we may use the CENIPA report to support the statement that the Embraer's destination was Manaus, but we can't selectively pick one of the many details it includes, if that could be seen as supporting one side in a dispute or creating a new interpretation. We may also not interpret or analyze parts from primary sources if they are not otherwise covered by high quality secondary sources. You are correct that there are many citations in the article to the CENIPA and NTSB reports; if you find any of them which are contentious, i.e. in dispute, or create a new interpretation, please let me know. Crum375 (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Crum, which of these four following comments you believe is "advancing a position" and why?

1) FL370 + UZ6 to Manaus = NTSB says it is “unusual”;

2) Crew distracted using a notebook for about 1 hour;

3) transponder in standby = aircraft out of radar screen;

4) “acted properly” is different of “acted according to appliable rules”.

Best Regards. Sdruvss (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sdruvss, all of these are contentious issues, and may not be analyzed or interpreted unless attributed to highly reliable secondary sources. The point, again, is not just the interpretation per se, in each case, but the very fact that it is plucked out of many other details inside the investigative reports (which are primary sources), because just mentioning a contentious issue is effectively promoting it. So if something is important, it will be picked up by a secondary source and if that source is highly reliable, as required in a contentious WP:BLP case, we can then use it. Crum375 (talk) 14:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Crum, I insist that you be specific with your arguments. You must be grounded in some reasoning. We must be rational when we disagree.

1) Why those issues are contentious? They are simple facts not in dispute by anyone. Justify why they are contentious, explaining what is the contentiousness of each one. For instance, why the link between transponder signal and secondary radar is contentious?

2) You are not being coherent. As I said, you have used 7 direct citations to CENIPA/NTSB without other references. It is easy to find then, just search for [1] not combined with other references. Why do you disobey what you deem to be WP policies?

Best Regards, Sdruvss (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me add a technical correction to your point 3 above. Although what exactly happened to the Embraer's transponder and why is unknown and open to speculation, what you say is technically incorrect. As mentioned in the article, the first event was that the transponder's "secondary signal", including the aircraft's altitude (Mode C), stopped being received by ATC. This means that ATC's radar screen reverted to displaying a "primary" target (unrelated to Wikipedia's primary source concept), which normally (in civilian radars) does not include an altitude readout. In the case of the Embraer, however, according to CENIPA and NTSB reports, ATC radar kept displaying both the primary target as well as an altitude value, apparently because the radar facility was a military installation. Some military radars (which are intended for air defense) can also display altitude for aircraft along with their position, even if their transponders are off, while civilian radars will only display the position (and speed) for no-transponder aircraft. The altitude display in such cases is of limited accuracy, since it is derived from a calculation based on the target's distance and angle above the horizon. This is mentioned in current footnote 12. Crum375 (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Crum, I'm not going to discuss this issue with anyone, my comments are grounded in technical knowledge, and all I can say is that you are completely wrong and confused. You did not even understand CENIPA report, just as NTSB team in charge of investigation that doesn't have the technical knowledge to understand most of the IT issues involved in the accident. NTSB comments are grounded in the reading of CENIPA report and shallow knowledge of the computer system. But here is not the place to debate it. I'm not even debate IT issues in blogs, forums and WP, because discussion with unskilled people let me bored. I prefer to write scientific papers that are submitted to experts blind review. Here, I just want that germane facts and evidences be not deliberately mislaid, turning this article biased, partisan and incomprehensible to most people.

Best Regards, Sdruvss (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: You don't need to go too far to understand transponder, primary radar and secondary radar issues. Just consult wikipedia article Transponder (aviation). Sdruvss (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

PS2: I saw that you included links to transponder WP article. So you know how it works, I don't need to explain it. Sdruvss (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Good, so hopefully you now understand why this statement is wrong: "3) transponder in standby = aircraft out of radar screen" Crum375 (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Crum, you are always joking and gambling with words, but life should not be a lottery. In your reference of transponders: “In aviation, aircraft have transponders to assist in identifying them on radar. [...] not all primary radars can estimate the altitude of an aircraft. Secondary radar overcomes these limitations but it depends on a transponder in the aircraft to respond to interrogations from the ground station to make the aircraft more visible and to report the aircraft's altitude”. What “identifying on radar”, and “make the aircraft more visible” means? And I couldn’t find any reference that primary radar are for “military use” as you said. Help me, please. You said that this is a contentious subject. Why? Best regards. Sdruvss (talk) 10:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

HowStuffWorks - How Air Traffic Control Works] can help people to understand how ATC works around the world. Even Crum is able to understand: “Once your plane takes off, your pilot activates a transponder device inside the aircraft. The transponder detects incoming radar signals and broadcasts an amplified, encoded radio signal in the direction of the detected radar wave. The transponder signal provides the controller with your aircraft's flight number, altitude, airspeed and destination. A blip representing the airplane appears on the controller's radar screen with this information beside it. The controller can now follow your plane”. But this is a contentious issue, we know it. Sdruvss (talk) 12:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sdruvss, a secondary signal from an aircraft's onboard transponder helps ATC identify the aircraft (which target on my screen is which aircraft?) and increases the maximum range (distance from radar antenna) at which it can be seen. A modern transponder also includes Mode C, which provides an altitude readout. If there is no secondary signal, for example if the transponder is turned off, in standby, or malfunctioning, there will be a "primary target" visible on the radar screen while the aircraft is "in range", which for high altitudes can be well over 100 miles from the radar antenna (and there are multiple antennas). So aircraft do not automatically become "invisible", or disappear from radar screens if their transponders stop functioning; their display reverts to a primary target, normally an icon displayed on the controller's screen without an associated altitude. Except, in this particular case, because Brasilia ATC was a military facility, it had radar equipment designed for air defense purposes, which kept displaying an altitude value for the Embraer's primary target icon, even after its transponder signal was lost. This altitude value was less accurate and reliable than the Mode C derived altitude, and may have contributed to the controllers' confusion about the Embraer's altitude, and perhaps caused ATC to think that the target was still a secondary target, when in fact it became primary.
You ask why this is contentious? Because living people are involved and there are accusations of negligence and incompetence, with 154 people dead. We therefore must strictly follow our BLP and other content policies, to maintain the highest possible quality and avoid original research. Crum375 (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

1. As I said I don’t like to debate technical issues with unskilled people in blogs, forums, WP. But I just can say that you are completely wrong, and you know it well. Without transponder signal, a “target” becomes unassociated (the flight becomes unidentified) in radar screen as soon it leaves the coverage area of a specific set of radar’s antennas. In the moment that Legacy turned transponder to standby, there were 5 antennas covering it. The coverage of the last one was lost at 19:38, causing it to disappear from radar screen (as an associated target). CINDACTA I (what you call Brasilia ATC) - Centro Integrado de Defesa Aérea e Controle de Tráfego Aéreo - was not just designed for air defense purposes, it is the link between the Sistema de Controle do Espaço Aéreo (SISCEAB) e do Comando de Defesa Aeroespacial Brasileiro (COMDABRA). It counts with 17 radars. For defense purposes there is a different team and different set of equipments and facilities. What was said in final report is that many primary radars in the world (it doesn’t matter if civilian or military) has the capacity to estimate altitude, but it is not reliable, and this information is used only in defense purposes in any country and not to separate aircrafts, because enemies aircrafts don’t use transponders as you know. But all over the world, when an aircraft turns off transponder, ATC need informations that are available. One of them is primary radar readout, another is the flight plan.

2. You said that this issue is contentious because living people are involved. This logic does not transform an issue of how a transponder, secondary radar, primary radar works into a contentious issue. You are trying to confound readers, making them believe that there was an ATC radar malfunction or because it is a military operated facility that this circumstances contributed to accident, when neither NTSB say that. NTSB focused in computer system (which, by the way, analysis is completely wrong), and not in primary, secondary radar or military issues. What they said, is that when there is not transponder signal, the computer system shouldn’t display in radar screen the primary radar's readout or flight plan's altitude. Instead, they should display the last clearance issued to the aircraft. This is a very contentious issue, and again here is not the place to dispute it (but they are wrong too).

Regards. Sdruvss (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sdruvss, it seems that you do agree with me that the issue is contentious, and it involves living people. This means we need to be extra careful in anything we say, and attribute everything to the most reliable secondary sources, wherever possible. Hopefully you also understand now that when an aircraft's transponder is not functioning, it can still be seen on the radar screen and is not "invisible". In the case of the Embraer, it was visible on the screen for 36 minutes after loss of the secondary signal. One contentious issue is why ATC did not ask the Embraer to recycle its transponder, which would be the normal response to a loss of secondary signal. The speculation in this case is that ATC didn't do that because they were confused by the altitude display and were not aware that they had lost the secondary signal. But this is speculation only, and in the case of BLP we need harder evidence or better sources, so we can't delve into this issue at this time. Crum375 (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Crum, I don’t want to debate or even suggest changing anything in the article that is not written in any official document. There are many things in this article that are not verifiable whichever source you choose, and I will further tell, but not now. But the first point I want to correct in the article is: the way it is written, it seems that the ATC lost altitude control of the Legacy because there was a malfunction in its radar infrastructure. So it must be clear in the article that when transponder turned to standby, radar system didn’t have altitude information anymore. This is a fact not in dispute by anyone: it was the lack of transponder signal that made ATC loses control of the actual altitude of Legacy. This is what happened, this is proved by any source, primary, second or tertiary source. When secondary radar doesn’t receive information of transponder, computer system that supports radar screen displays primary radar altitude readout, which is unreliable in any system of the world. This is not in dispute, and this should be clearly written in the article. People that don’t know how ATC works, reading your article understand that there was a black hole in radar system over Brasilia. At 19:02 transponder turned to standby, thereafter radar screen began to display an unreliable altitude coming from primary radar and an indication that secondary radar was not receiving transponder signal. At 19:30 occurs the first lost of aircraft identification, due to the lack of transponder signal, and then, at 19:38 occurs the completely missing of Legacy flight in radar screen. These are not disputed facts by any one. What is in dispute, and I don’t want to enter here in this debate, and it is contentious, is what should be done by ATC or by his computer system, or by crew when facing these events. Regards. Sdruvss (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sdruvss, I am not aware of any report of any malfunction in the ATC "radar infrastructure." Could you please tell me (please quote) where in the article it currently says or implies that? Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Crum, I said that the article induces that conclusion.

From "At 16:02, seven minutes after..." until "...in the blind" I would change to:

At 16:02, seven minutes after crossing the Brasilia VOR, Embraer's transponder stopped transmitting causing ATC secondary radar to lose contact with the aircraft. Without current altitude readout from secondary radar, ATC computer system started to display primary radar unreliable altitude readout, and a symbol in the flight label that it was not working with secondary radar. At the same time, radar screen data block started displaying that the Embraer's flight plan foresaw a descent from FL370 to FL360 when passing Brasilia. It's not clear what exactly happened among ATC controllers, but investigations concluded that they were confounded by these data. Evidences gathered in the investigations demonstrated that controllers believed that Embraer was flying at FL360 after passing Brasilia, although Embraer's crew had never received any instructions to change levels.

No attempt was made by either the Embraer or Brasilia Center to contact each other from 15:51 until 16:26 when, 24 minutes after the loss of secondary radar contact, Brasilia Center called the Embraer and received no reply. During investigations, it was verified that the radio frequency provided by ATC to the crew didn't reach the point where aircraft was flying, and a suitable frequency was not commnicated to the crew, as would be expected to.

From 16:02 until 16:30 Embraer's altitude in radar screen changed very much. Starting 16:30 the Embraer's primary radar target, a label which indentify the flight in radar screen, became intermittent, and the identification disappeared completely from the radar screen by 16:38, eight minutes later. The flight became an unidentified target.

Brasilia Center unsuccessfully attempted to effect a handoff of the Embraer to Amazonic Center at 16:53, by calling the Embraer in the blind.[note 14]

I think that notes 12 and 13 are unnecessary and are wrong.

Regards. Sdruvss (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sdruvss, perhaps you missed my above question, so I'll ask it again. You said that the article says or implies that there was a "malfunction" in the "radar infrastructure". I am not aware of any report which says that. Can you please show me (please quote) where in the current article it says or implies that? Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Crum, perhaps you missed my above answer: "(...) the way it is written, it seems that the ATC lost altitude control of the Legacy because there was a malfunction in its radar infrastructure". "The way it is written" means omitting fundamental information to understand how accident happened. This article makes large use of selecting subsets of information to advance a particular point of view. For instance, the link between transponder and secondary radar deserves just the small note 13. Do we reach a consensus that I can change the text from "At 16:02, seven minutes after..." until "...in the blind" with the above text? Do you agree with the text above? If you don't, what is wrong? Regards, Sdruvss (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sdruvss, I am sorry for possibly being dense, but you say "the way it is written, it seems that the ATC lost altitude control of the Legacy because there was a malfunction in its radar infrastructure." (emphasis added) I asked you to please quote specific words which say or imply there was any kind of malfunction with the radar. If you have quoted such words which say or imply there was a malfunction, I can't find them. If you'd like to have a meaningful discussion, we need to progress step by step. If you say the current version says or implies a malfunction, you need to be able to quote the words that say or imply it. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Crum, Forget what I said. You are trying to make a word game here, and I am not interested. Please, answer: Do you agree with the text above? What is wrong with it? Sdruvss (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sdruvss, I am not playing any game. You are criticizing the current version by saying it says or implies there was a malfunction in the radar. I can't find where it says or implies it. I ask you to please quote the specific words which say or imply the radar malfunction. If you don't provide such a quote, I can't understand or address your criticism, and we can't progress unless I understand you. Crum375 (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Crum, I clearly answered that the article turns the link between transponder and secondary radar in a tiny footnote. The way is written it is not clear why radar system stopped receiving altitude readout. It could be any cause for those people who don't read footnotes, even a malfunction. Do you agree with the text above? What is wrong with it? Sdruvss (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry again, but I am still not following. You said above, "the way it is written, it seems that the ATC lost altitude control of the Legacy because there was a malfunction in its radar infrastructure." (emphasis added) I asked you to please show me where it says that there was a "radar malfunction", and to please quote the specific words which say or imply there was a radar malfunction. Can you please do that? If there is a problem with the wording, we need to fix it, but we first need to understand the problem, and the first step is to quote the words in the current version which you believe say or imply "there was a malfunction in its radar infrastructure." Can you understand that without explaining yourself by presenting an exact quote, we can't proceed? Crum375 (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Crum, as I said, many times, I would like to change this text:

ATC maintained normal two-way radio contact with the Embraer up until 15:51, when the last successful radio exchange with the Embraer was made on VHF frequency 125.05 MHz with Brasilia Center.[note 10] At that point the Embraer was just approaching the Brasilia VOR.[note 11] The Embraer overflew the Brasilia VOR at 15:55, four minutes later, and proceeded northwest-bound along UZ6. At 16:02, seven minutes after crossing the Brasilia VOR, secondary radar contact was lost with the Embraer, thus stopping the display of the Embraer's reported altitude (Mode C) on the controller's radar screen.[note 12]

No attempt was made by either the Embraer or Brasilia Center to contact each other from 15:51 until 16:26 when, 24 minutes after the loss of secondary radar contact,[note 13] Brasilia Center called the Embraer and received no reply.

Brasilia Center then unsuccessfully attempted to contact the Embraer six more times, between 16:30 and 16:34. At 16:30 the Embraer's primary radar target became intermittent, and disappeared completely from the radar screen by 16:38, eight minutes later. Brasilia Center unsuccessfully attempted to effect a handoff of the Embraer to Amazonic Center at 16:53, by calling the Embraer in the blind.[note 14]

To this text:

ATC maintained normal two-way radio contact with the Embraer up until 15:51, when the last successful radio exchange with the Embraer was made on VHF frequency 125.05 MHz with Brasilia Center.[note 10] At that point the Embraer was just approaching the Brasilia VOR.[note 11] The Embraer overflew the Brasilia VOR at 15:55, four minutes later, and proceeded northwest-bound along UZ6.

At 16:02, seven minutes after crossing the Brasilia VOR, Embraer's transponder stopped transmitting causing ATC secondary radar to lose contact with the aircraft. Without current altitude readout from secondary radar, ATC computer system started to display primary radar unreliable altitude readout, and a symbol in the flight label that it was not working with secondary radar. At the same time, radar screen data block started displaying that the Embraer's flight plan foresaw a descent from FL370 to FL360 when passing Brasilia. It's not clear what exactly happened among ATC controllers, but investigations concluded that they were confounded by these data. Evidences gathered in the investigations demonstrated that controllers believed that Embraer was flying at FL360 after passing Brasilia, although Embraer's crew had never received any instructions to change levels.

No attempt was made by either the Embraer or Brasilia Center to contact each other from 15:51 until 16:26 when, 24 minutes after the loss of secondary radar contact, Brasilia Center called the Embraer and received no reply. During investigations, it was verified that the radio frequency provided by ATC to the crew didn't reach the point where aircraft was flying, and a suitable frequency was not commnicated to the crew, as would be expected to.

From 16:02 until 16:30 Embraer's altitude in radar screen changed very much. Starting 16:30 the Embraer's primary radar target, a label which indentify the flight in radar screen, became intermittent, and the identification disappeared completely from the radar screen by 16:38, eight minutes later. The flight became an unidentified target.

Brasilia Center unsuccessfully attempted to effect a handoff of the Embraer to Amazonic Center at 16:53, by calling the Embraer in the blind.[note 14]

Is this clear? Do you agree? Regards. Sdruvss (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sdruvss, the text you want to change has been reviewed and scrutinized by many people, as part of the promotion of the article to a featured article. This doesn't mean it's perfect, but it also means we need to be extra careful when changing it, so as not to lose the FA status. Specifically, you are asking to make changes, without explaining what's wrong with the current version. For example, you said that the current version says or implies that there was a "radar malfunction," but although I have asked you many times for an exact quote showing where the article says or implies this, you have yet to do so. In summary, this is a featured article, involving living persons and contentious issues. We can't make changes unless, at the very minimum, we understand why the changes are needed. Crum375 (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason was explained many times and must be stated here why this article is biased: this article omits intentionally in the body of the text that the current altitude of Embraer was lost in radar system because transponder was turned to standby, turning this information into a footnote. Sdruvss (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sdruvss, even if the transponder were turned to "standby", which is a contentious speculation (and mentioned in the footnote), it still doesn't mean there was a radar malfunction anywhere. You said the "the way [the article] is written, it seems that the ATC lost altitude control of the Legacy because there was a malfunction in its radar infrastructure." I asked you to quote where in the article it says or implies that radar malfunction, and I am still waiting for that quote. Crum375 (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Crum, I said many times, and you don't read: you didn't explicitly write it. I would have to quote the intire article. I said that you omit the reasons why secondary radar data was lost. As you don't explain it, people reading the article could understand that it was a probable radar malfunction. Why do you refuse to include this little neutral piece of information into the body of the text? It seems that this is a big issue to you, is it? Sdruvss (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sdruvss, now you say "you didn't explicitly write it", but that still means you think it implies there was a malfunction, and I don't see where we even imply that. The only statement we make is that "secondary radar contact was lost with the Embraer, thus stopping the display of the Embraer's reported altitude (Mode C) on the controller's radar screen." This point is "factual" (i.e. asserted or agreed by all sources), and there is then explanation in the footnote that CENIPA hypothesizes that at this point the Embraer crew switched off the transponder or put it in standby, which the crew denies. No reasonable person reading this would "understand that it was a probable radar malfunction," because we don't say or imply that. All we say is that ATC stopped receiving the transponder's signal, with the footnote for extra detail. The entire "Embraer flight and communication sequence" section is "factual", i.e. a description of events which all reliable sources assert or agree to, with some related details from the CENIPA and NTSB reports in footnotes. If you feel something specific is wrong or needs improvement, feel free to mention it and we can then focus on it, but to take an entire section and replace it wholesale is not a good way to achieve results. Crum375 (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Crum, The problem is that the entire section is full of omissions, and that is why it should be rewritten. This is the point here. It omits that secondary radar has as source of altitude information the transponder signal, It omits that controller was confounded by the lack of current altitude of Embraer. It omits that crew use a notebook in cockpit by almost one hour, and they were using the notebook when transponder was turned off. Those issues are fundamental to understand the accident, are factual and not disputed by anyone.

You systematically refuse to include this neutral factual information playing all sorts of games. You make large use of selectively quoting investigation report and unreliable tertiary sources, blocking other people that want to improve this text. You became the owner of this article and use puppets to create a "community" that supports you. You make this article biased, partisan and unreliable.

But I think it is enough. It is obvious that you won't include these important factual omissions, and will run over all resources you have in your hands to achieve your goal. It has became clear your purpose with this article. Don't mind, there is lot of very interesting material here to write about WP unreliability and manipulation. This article is one more to include in your list of manipulated articles in WP. Congratulations Crum, you are becoming famous, I've read a lot about you in internet, and predictably all are verifiable. Regards Sdruvss (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Sdruvss was confirmed to be the sockmaster of Herbmartin, Lmc9 and Wiki2wk who have all posted on this talk page. See: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sdruvss
Crum375 (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sdruvss, I ask you again to please focus on the article, not on me. If you feel there is a specific issue you'd like to address, let me know, and we'll focus on one item at a time. This is a featured article, which has been reviewed and scrutinized by many people before being promoted, and which also involves contentious WP:BLP issues. Therefore, we should not make wholesale modifications to it without thinking carefully about every small change. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

My contributions:

• "while the NTSB determined that all pilots acted properly".

No one of the references says that "pilots acted properly". Affirmative not verifiable.

• "Former Justice Minister Jose Carlos Dias, who was acting as a lawyer for the Embraer's crew, criticized the charges against them as being "biased" and "discriminatory".

Allegations of the defendants made by their attorney are partisan. This is a subjective perspective.

• "The Embraer's crew asserted in their depositions and subsequent interviews that they were cleared by air traffic control (ATC) to FL370 for the entire trip, all the way to Manaus" and the following sentence.

Selectively quote of a primary source.

• "The Embraer's flight plan consisted of flying at FL370 up to Brasilia,[note 7] on airway UW2, followed by a planned descent at Brasilia to FL360, proceeding outbound from Brasilia northwest-bound along airway UZ6 to the Teres fix,[note 8] an aeronautical waypoint located 282 nm (324 mi, 522 km) northwest of Brasilia, where a climb to FL380 was planned".

This sentence would be clearer if it had included headings of airways:

"The Embraer's flight plan consisted of flying heading 006º at FL370 up to Brasilia,[note 7] on airway UW2, followed by a planned descent at Brasilia to FL360, proceeding outbound from Brasilia northwest-bound along airway UZ6 heading 336º to the Teres fix,[note 8] an aeronautical waypoint located 282 nm (324 mi, 522 km) northwest of Brasilia, where a climb to FL380 was planned".

• "At 16:02, seven minutes after crossing the Brasilia VOR, secondary radar contact was lost with the Embraer, thus stopping the display of the Embraer's reported altitude (Mode C) on the controller's radar screen.[note 12]"

Sequence of events omitted. It would be better if written: "At 16:02 Embraer transponder stopped transmitting causing secondary radar to lost contact with the aircraft, thus stopping the display of the Embraer's reported altitude (Mode C) on the controller's radar screen.[note 12]".

I hope they help. Regards Sdruvss (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Sdruvss was confirmed to be the sockmaster of Herbmartin, Lmc9 and Wiki2wk who have all posted on this talk page. See: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sdruvss
Crum375 (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Facts you won't read in this article

Crum375 don't allow these factual issues to be included in this article:

Unusual flight level from Brasilia to Manaus

Flight Level article explains standards of airspace. These rules are not "laws" to be followed, but just how airspace is organized. For instance, it's not prohibited to flight heading northwest in an even level when aircraft was cleared by Air Traffic Control. NTSB says that "The implication that a crew should somehow observe hemispherical altitudes while being positively controlled by an ATC facility is incorrect. Informal use of the term 'wrong way' by pilots and controllers is merely a shorthand way of acknowledging that an assigned or requested altitude is not the one normally used for that direction of flight". In other words, it is not "wrong" to fly FL370 from Brasilia to Manaus, it is just "unusual". But NTSB recognizes that "For about 1 hour the significance of the long time period spent at a nonstandard cruise altitude for the flight direction by N600XL was not recognized".

Why ATC didn't request Legacy to descend when passed over Brasilia

Secondary surveillance radar article explains how Air Traffic Control obtains the altitude of an aircraft. Secondary radar relies on Transponder signal. When transponder fails, ATC estimates aircraft altitude using primary radar readout, or consult their registers of flight progress. The Embraer fight foresaw a descent from FL370 to FL360. When Embraer passed over Brasilia, radar screen started signaling to controller to amend the clearance to aircraft change level, but at these moments controller was not paying attention to Embraer flight because there wasn't traffic in its route, and he was dealing with other aircrafts. A few minutes after the aircraft passed over Brasilia, its transponder stopped transmitting. According to NTSB, without transponder signal, current altitude of aircraft started varying because it was primary radar readout. This confounded the controller; he wrongly assumed that aircraft was flying FL360, although Embraer's crew had never received any instruction to change levels.

Why crew didn't note that transponder was in standby mode

NTSB says that it can not be determined exactly how the crew commanded the transponder to standby, but was confirmed that, at this moment, the second-in-command was making use of a notebook. CENIPA says "As observed from the transcripts of the CVR, during this period of time, when the recordings indicate the use of the notebook, the crew focused on the calculation of the performance, without any conversation or comments that might suggest that the pilot-in-command was checking the information of the flight instruments at intervals". The CVR recording indicated that the laptop was only put away at 16:13, 11 minutes after transponder being turned to standby. In the period recorded, it meant at least 40 minutes of use, without considering that it may have been used in the 42 minutes of flight prior to the beginning of the recording. At 16:55, 1 minute before collision, the pilot-in-command came back to the cockpit after 16 minutes of he being out of cockpit, and took over the command, saying: “Sorry”, apparently apologizing for being away so long. CENIPA says that the pilot-in-command would have the opportunity to make a verification of the instruments as prescribed and expected from a captain, after coming back to the cockpit. Either this action was not taken, or he did not notice that the Transponder was not transmitting and, thus, the TCAS was not available.

All these factual information may be verified in Accident Final Report

Sdruvss (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Sdruvss was confirmed to be the sockmaster of Herbmartin, Lmc9 and Wiki2wk who have all posted on this talk page. See: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sdruvss
Crum375 (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

First, this is Wikipedia, which everyone can edit, and I don't control it more than anyone else. Having said that, we do have content rules, which become even more critical in a contentious WP:BLP case such as this one, and this is a featured article, which means it has undergone extensive scrutiny by many editors before being promoted. The analysis you provide above is based on primary sources, which are in this case the raw investigative reports of CENIPA and NTSB, written by the investigators themselves. To analyze, interpret or summarize them we need high quality secondary sources, and we may not extract some pieces from the primary reports to promote our POV. The way the article is written is by describing the actual events which are asserted by all sources, with certain issues described in footnotes. For example, for the issue of the transponder signal loss, we assert that at a specific point in time there was a loss of the Embraer's transponder signal, stopping the display of its reported altitude on the controller's radar screen. The dispute in this case is described in the footnote: CENIPA hypothesizes this occurred because the captain inadvertently disabled the transponder at this point, while the captain adamantly denies it. Nobody really knows for sure what happened; there are speculations and hypotheses, and if/when this case comes to a jury, they will have to decide and reach a verdict. All we can do here is report what the reliable secondary sources are saying, and we do. Since this is a BLP issue, we need to be extra cautious before accusing either the controllers or pilots of any wrongdoing, directly or indirectly.

So in summary, this is a contentious BLP case and a featured article. We need to rely on high quality secondary sources to interpret, analyze or summarize the primary sources, which the current article does. If there are new high quality secondary sources with more information, they would be welcome. Crum375 (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

1. You are WP admin;

• Which means I perhaps have some more experience than you, and perhaps know our policies a bit better, but I have no more right to edit than you. Crum375 (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• You know what I mean, and community too. Sdruvss (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I can guarantee you that if a brand new editor came up with a good, relevant secondary source and an admin (or anyone else) tried to prevent it from being included, the "community" would support the new editor. We are source-oriented here, nobody has more clout than a good source. Crum375 (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• OK, I agree with you. Sdruvss (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

2. According to WP policies CENIPA and NTSB are secondary sources;

• Can you show me where it says that? As far as I know, both are investigative reports written by the investigators, which contain lots of raw data. That makes them primary sources due to their proximity to the investigation, and we need high-quality secondary sources (which are distanced from the investigation) to interpret and analyze their results for us. Crum375 (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• We've already talked about that. I've pointed many times. I'm not going to repeat myself to enter in your game. Sdruvss (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I am not playing games. If you make a statement, as you just did here, you need to be able to support it with evidence. Crum375 (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• OK, I agree with you. Sdruvss (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

3. NTSB says that it can not be determined exactly how the crew commanded the transponder to standby. The contentiousness is "how the crew commanded", and not that "Nobody really knows for sure what happened; there are speculations and hypotheses". There isn't a video camera in the cockpit to determine exactly how.

• NTSB says (Finding #5): "The collision avoidance technology aboard the aircraft did not function, likely due to inadvertant inactivation of the transponder on N600XL." There is no finding which says that the crew inactivated the transponder. The captain, who was there, strongly denies it. Crum375 (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• This is funny: The captain who was there, strongly denies it. Sdruvss (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • What's funny about it? Crum375 (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Nothing. Can I exclude my observation? I agree with you, it is not funny. Sdruvss (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• What I wanted to mean is that NTSB says "likely due to inadvertant inactivation" and the captain "strongly denies it". What he denies? That it was not inadvertently or that it was not inactivated? Sdruvss (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

4. We are not accusing either the controllers or pilots of any wrongdoing, directly or indirectly. My text is descriptive, grounded in CENIPA/NTSB report.

• By saying or implying that the crew acted in any way which could have contributed to the accident, you'd be accusing them of wrongdoing. Because of BLP concerns, we'd need a high quality secondary source, possibly several, to support such accusations. Crum375 (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Saying how the crew acted we are not saying they contributed to the accident. I'am not accusing them of wrongdoing. Where do I say that they did something wrong? I just said that FL370 in UZ6 is "unusual", as NTSB said; I said that without transponder signal, a aircraft becames a not indentified target in radar screen, and this is what NTSB says that confounded controllers; and I said what CENIPA believes is the reason why the crew didn't see that transponder was in standby mode. Did this events contribute to the accident? I don't think so. Sdruvss (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• WP:BLP clearly says "We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2]" - BLP is a matter about being correct about anything involving living people. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• OK WhisperToMe, tell me the sentence, and I exclude it immediatly. Sdruvss (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

5. This is not contentious BLP case, but many are trying to hide evidences to transform it in a contentious BLP case, using WP as an instrument.

• Please read WP:BLP carefully. The Embraer pilots and the ATC controllers are living persons, accused of possible crimes. BLP applies to information about living persons anywhere on WP. Crum375 (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not saying nothing that contradicts WP:BLP, but you are, please read them carefully. Sdruvss (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Any original analysis of a report that concerns living persons can be a violation of BLP. One has to be careful in any case involving living persons. Because of the nature of this case one has to be especially careful here. I let the noticeboard Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Talk:Gol_Transportes_A.C3.A9reos_Flight_1907 - If there is "original research" involving the pilots of the Embraer on this talk page, may will have to go. Talk pages, like the articles themselves, have to follow BLP. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• WhisperToMe, you are totally right, I expect that I have not involved the pilots in any controversial issue. If I wrote something that implies it, I will excluded it. Can you point it? Sdruvss (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Sdruvss, any criticism of the pilots or ATC by primary sources such as NTSB or CENIPA report must be backed up by a high quality secondary source, or else it's in violation of BLP. Crum375 (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• OK Crum, tell me the sentence and I will exclude it. Sdruvss (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I would be happy if you could read my above message, understand it, and conform to it. Crum375 (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• OK, Crum. I understand perfectly. Do you want that I exclude all this topic? But I would delete your comments too. Can I? Sdruvss (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Sdruvss, if you seriously want to help improve this article, please try to find more high quality secondary sources. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Going over the above, it all appears to be based on the misapprehension that the published final report is a primary document. This strains any definition of "primary" beyond the breaking point. These reports on major investigations are the product of a collaboration of national (and usually international) experts examining many earlier test reports, logs, and analyses on pertinent details. They have undergone board review before publication that compares well with any academic peer review process. Then they undergo external expert review. In this case, the US NTSB comments beginning at page 237 are themselves a subsequent external independent review of the CENIPA final report.

Further, the final report is deliberately excluded as evidence in any criminal or civil proceding expressly because use for such purpose would impede the comprehensive collection of evidence for the purpose of safety improvements. This is made quite clear on page 2 of the report. Any subsequent reports will almost inevitably be less authoritative. LeadSongDog come howl 20:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The difference between primary and secondary sources is their distance from the event or data being collected and/or analyzed. In this case, we have investigative reports written by the people who were in charge of the investigation, which makes them very close to the data they collected. Also, although the NTSB report includes, as always, a "probable cause" statement, which we normally quote on WP (and here) as a summary of the investigative results, the CENIPA report does not have such a summary statement. It does have a 'conclusions' section, but that goes in great detail into individual items, without a single overall summary of a 'probable cause' statement, which means that for us to create such a statement for them, would be playing the role of an investigation board and violate WP:NOR. Also, the NTSB and CENIPA reports, although in agreement about most direct findings, are at odds over what actually caused this accident and why it happened. I believe that for Wikipedia editors to analyze this difference without relying on secondary sources would violate NOR. So as bottom line, because this article is a very contentious BLP case (there are various criminal and civil litigations in process), we need to be extra careful with our sources and the way we use them. Relying on high quality secondary sources to interpret the primary ones is the correct and safest way to proceed. Crum375 (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Crum, I just want to make the article clearer. I've never wanted to reach a 'probable cause'. Why we can't write that FL370 in UZ6 to Manaus is "unusual" as NTSB said? Why we can't write in the body of the text that it was the transponder inactivation that made secondary radar lost contact with aircraft as both reports said? Why we can't say that pilot-in-command was out of cockpit for 16 minutes while transponder was in standby as CENIPA said? Why we can't say that second-in-command made use for more then 40 minutes of a notebook in the cockpit as CENIPA said? Do these facts change anyhow the "probable cause". Sure not. Sdruvss (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)All of WP:NOR simply amounts to "don't create content". It doesn't mean we should ignore the best available sources because they disagree. We can simply state "CENIPA's final report listed these things but did not state a primaryprobable cause." [ref] "On the other hand the US NTSB review of that report concluded that this was the primaryprobable cause."[ref] We don't insert judgements as to which was right, but neither do we ignore that, of the best sources available, one was silent and the other was not. We're just editors here.LeadSongDog come howl 21:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Original "content" can also be selecting or highlighting one piece out of many, while downplaying others, to promote a particular point of view. This is why, when we have a detailed primary source, we need to be extremely careful not to selectively pick out pieces in a way that could be advancing a position, esp. in a contentious BLP case. In the case of the NTSB report, if we stick with the probable cause statement (as we normally do in accident articles) we'd be OK, but in the CENIPA report we don't have such luxury, since it has lots of items even in the Conclusions section, and we can't practically quote them all. So to help us analyze, interpret, contrast, and summarize this material (as well as help explain the disagreement between the two reports) we need to rely on secondary sources, which are reliable sources sitting at some distance (like the NYT) and reporting on the primary government reports. Crum375 (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly synth to select all the items from the CENIPA report that are reasonably pertinent to whatever the NTSB concluded was the probable cause. Whether or not it advances a position depends on what CENIPA said in those relevant points. But none of that makes it reasonable to label either report as primary when they are fundamentally analytical in nature, and certainly it is no BLP violation to quote that such-and-such an official report on the public record said "whatever".LeadSongDog come howl 22:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

LSD, the fact that there is analysis in those investigative reports is no indication of their primary vs. secondary status. The main differentiator between primary and secondary sources is distance from the information being reported. So if a scientist collects data and reports on his results, it would generally be a primary source for those results because he is very close to them. If some other publication describes that experiment and puts it in perspective, it would be secondary. The closer you are to what you are describing, the more "primary" you are. In the case of NTSB reports, the 'probable cause' is a good way for us to report it, because it gives us a summary of the entire body of the report. So even if it's primary, by giving us a self-standing summary, we can say the government said "X". In the case of the CENIPA report, the nearest thing to a 'probable cause' statement is the Conclusions section, which is too detailed to include in its entirety, and requires a distillation process. Since the reports are chock-full of allegations of wrongdoing by living persons (the controllers and the Embraer pilots), for us to pick-and-choose which pieces to highlight and which to downplay would violate WP:OR, since all these issues are in litigation and are highly contentious. Also, the two reports are in sharp conflict: NTSB seems to focus on the controllers, while CENIPA seems to attribute the cause of the accident more evenly between ATC and the Embraer crew. Again because of the BLP issues, we can't analyze the contrasting reports ourselves, but must use high quality reliable secondary sources to do so for us. Crum375 (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Crum, it has become obvious that you lack scientific methodology background. Primary sources are original documents used in scientific research, testimonies, speeches, interviews, experiments. Those primary sources are analyzed and synthesized by researchers. Then these researches are submitted to journals or organizations that validate the methodology used in the research. Usually they pass by a peer review. Peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. When the research is published, the research becomes a secondary source. An accident report follows the same stages. Primary sources are documents gathered in the investigation process. The investigation team submits their research to their organization (NTSB), there is a kind of peer review and when approved to be published becomes a secondary source of information. That is why they are a reliable source. A magazines and newspapers, anyone, are not reliable sources because they are not submitted to a peer review. They are just opinions of their authors. Unless be used in a research as primary sources of facts, events or primary data. Sdruvss (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sdruvss, as I tried to explain to you several times in the past, on Wikipedia we consider a primary source to be one which was written by someone close to the event or data being described. A secondary source has a broader perspective by being written by someone farther from the original report. Thus, an investigative report with data collected by the investigators would be primary, while its description in a major news publication would be secondary. In our case here, the government's accident investigation report, written by the accident investigators, is a primary source, because it contains many details and much raw data, and it's very close to the information being collected and described. The reviews and analyses of these government reports by major news media are secondary sources. Crum375 (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Crum, Who is "we consider"? Are you "we" now? Since when the scientific "world" must be submitted to you. You make the rules of WP?. Sdruvss (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"We" is the majority of Wikipedians who edit this site and its policies. You are welcome to ask others if you are unsure. Crum375 (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed the part where the investigators were involved in the accident. Can you point to that? Otherwise, WP:PSTS is clear. In order to be of any value, investigators must, and normally do, remain independent of the events they investigate to preserve their objectivity. They produce reports which are secondary sources. LeadSongDog come howl 05:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

LSD, the investigators were not involved in the accident itself of course, but they were the ones in charge of carrying out the investigation process, which is a big part of what this article is about. They collected raw data, evaluated it and reported it. This would be the same as a police investigator reporting from a traffic accident site. She would not be involved in the accident itself, but she would be right at the scene, gathering information, interviewing witnesses, perhaps taking photos, and reporting on it. If she helped in collecting actual physical evidence it would make her even more involved. This type of report would be primary, because of the closeness to the event being reported and the involvement of the reporter in the process. Again, not because the reporter is part of the accident itself, but because she is at the scene, collecting raw data, and evaluating it. Note also that in our case, there are two separate sets of investigators, from two different countries, who had a sharp disagreement about the end results, and to analyze, compare and contrast the two reports and their results, you need a secondary source, or else violate WP:NOR. Since this is a contentious BLP case, the secondary source requirement is even more critical. Crum375 (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me add another analogy: a court case. If there is a contentious legal case, the actual court transcripts and reports would be primary, while the news media reporting on them would be secondary. In contentious BLP cases, we would normally be required to use the secondary sources to analyze and interpret the court verdicts, and we can't pick and choose items from within them. Crum375 (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

By that line of reasoning, every author produces primary work and thus there are no secondary sources. I suggest raising the question at WP:RSN since we seem not to be getting anywhere.LeadSongDog come howl 14:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No, if you report on what someone else has written or concluded, that would normally be a secondary source (or possibly tertiary). Crum375 (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, the primary sources in this case are highly reliable, and we do use them in the article, but very carefully. Crum375 (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

LSD, Crum is threating me using WP policies to block me. If you support my reasoning he will begin threating you too. He is going to make people think you are my sockpuppet. It's impossible to confront him without been hurt. Anyone can see that his interpretation of primary source and secondary source is biased. And remember that the "huge" debate here is just to improve the redaction he gave to some extracts of the article; just minor improvements. He says I want to compare reports or that I am interpreting them, what is totally false. He refuses even which I've written in "My contributions".Sdruvss (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That is off topic here. I've responded on Sdruvss' talk page. LeadSongDog come howl 15:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I wish we not lose the focus of the debate. My claim is not a primary or secondary source issue. There are several sources to be verified and they just describe the accident:

• Aircraft transponder stopped transmitting (no matters how). This event made secondary radar losing contact with aircraft, and its current altitude. This is written in the article in a footnote, and I believe should be included in the body of the text and it helps readers to understand the accident;
• UW2 has a heading of 006º, UZ6 to Manaus has a heading of 336º. It is "unusual", as said by NTSC, an aircraft fly FL370 in a 336º heading. This helps the readers to understand the accidente;
• Crew was making use of a notebook in the cockpit since the beginning of CVR recordings until 11 minutes after transponder stopped transmitting. This helps the reader to understand why the crew didn't notice transponder was in standby;
• Pilot-in-command was out of cockpit for 16 minutes while transponder was in standby. This helps the reader to understand why the crew didn't notice transponder was in standby;

Sdruvss (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sdruvss, you are taking investigative reports which are primary sources that include a large number of "findings", and focusing on a small subset to advance a position. Since this is a contested BLP case, currently in litigation, we may not pick and choose individual bits of data out of the long list, esp. when they appear to be critical of the actions of living persons. We need high quality secondary sources to analyze, summarize, interpret and compare these reports for us, among other reasons because they disagree in their bottom-line conclusions. This is why we use The New York Times and Aviation Week, among other secondary sources, to help us distill the large amount of evidence and many findings into top-level summaries. To use our own analysis and interpretation, or to highlight selected items from these detailed reports, would be in violation of WP:NOR. Crum375 (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Crum, sorry, but I don't understand your reasoning. You say that they "advance a position". How the fact of secondary radar relies on aircraft transponder (you said that) advances a position? Why saying that UZ6 has a heading of 336º (we can see in the map) advances a position? Why the fact of the crew using a notebook for 40 minutes advances a position? Why the PIC out of cockpit advances a position? These are descriptive not contentions facts! Regards, Sdruvss (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sdruvss, any time you pick out one detail out of a collection of many (such as a detailed investigative report), and the detail seems to be critical of the action of a living person, you are effectively criticizing the person by highlighting that one point. To avoid violating WP:NOR and WP:BLP, we need to let a high quality secondary source, ideally even more than one, highlight or interpret anything which criticizes living persons. We are not allowed to do so ourselves. Crum375 (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Crum, as I said, I account that you did what you are describing 7 times in the article. Just search for [1] references without other references. Regards Sdruvss (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Sdruvss was confirmed to be the sockmaster of Herbmartin, Lmc9 and Wiki2wk who have all posted on this talk page. See: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sdruvss
Crum375 (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP questions

If you can find where we are criticizing a living person in the article by relying on a primary source, please let me know. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Crum, Just a few of them:

• " The first officer had 3,981 total flight hours, with 3,081 in Boeing 737 aircraft".

Selective quoting of "primary source" (by your definition) to highlight only pilots capabilities instead of their lack of experience with the aircraft and its avionics.

• There is no criticism here that I can see of any living person. All flight crews were experienced and legally qualified to fly their aircraft. Every accident report includes the flight hours of the pilots involved, and this is no different. We are allowed to use high quality primary sources for basic non controversial facts. Crum375 (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Both pilots were legally qualified to fly the Embraer Legacy as captain".

Selective quoting of "primary source" (by your definition) to highlight only pilots capabilities.

• Again, there is no criticism here of any living person, and these are asserted facts to describe the qualifications of the flight crews. We are allowed to use high quality primary sources for basic non controversial facts. Crum375 (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Fllowing this reasoning, would you agree to include this report extract in the article:

"The experience of the pilot-in-command in the installed avionics of the Embraer airplane was restricted to the hours spent in the simulator, plus the 5 hours and 35 minutes of flight time prior to the accident. Even though the second-in-command was already certified in a similar Embraer model, with a total of 368 hours flown, the company decided to send him for a complete training program"? Sdruvss (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• No, this is going into great detail in one specific point from a primary source, in a controversial BLP case. You would need a high quality secondary source to highlight and analyze this issue to avoid NOR and BLP violation. Crum375 (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't you think that this shows clearly that pilots were well trained to use aircraft avionics? Why this is a criticism? Sdruvss (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I think that highlighting the Embraer crew's avionics training, could be seen to imply it was insufficient, or contributed to the accident. Since this is a contentious issue (currently in litigation), we can't selectively focus on details picked out of a primary source unless this is done for us by a high quality secondary source, per WP:BLP, WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE. Crum375 (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• "The Embraer's crew asserted in their depositions and subsequent interviews that they were cleared by air traffic control (ATC) to FL370 for the entire trip, all the way to Manaus." and all following sentences until the end of the topic.

Selective quoting of "primary source" (by your definition) to highlight pilots defense. It references even CVR recordings, which is clearly more the primary sources in your definition.

• We are allowed to use high quality primary sources to report the basic facts of the case. Primary sources can become a problem when we use them to criticize living persons, but there is no criticism here. Crum375 (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• This is a crew declaration. Don't you think that it becomes a biased article if you publish only the pilot's side, and you don't allow anything that is considered "criticism". It turns the article into crew's defense. Is that the mission of this WP article? Sdruvss (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • We say elsewhere that some victim families claim that the pilots were at the "wrong altitude", so it is important to explain that the pilots testified they were following their clearance. This does not introduce any bias, and is agreed in both the CENIPA and NTSB reports, which are in conflict on other issues, but not this one. In any case, this is not a criticism. Crum375 (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• "There were no known attempts by ATC to warn Flight 1907 of the conflicting traffic".

Selective quoting of "primary source" (by your definition) to blame ATC.

• No criticism here of any living person. There is no evidence that ATC was required to warn Flight 1907 of the conflicting traffic (which was not on their radar screen), so this is not a criticism. We are allowed to use high quality primary sources for basic non-controversial facts. Crum375 (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• You say that there is not criticism here, but it seems to me that there is a strong criticism concerning a BLP issue. Sdruvss (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • What is the criticism, and which specific person is being criticized? You'd have to be more specific. Crum375 (talk) 13:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Many have poor English skills, limiting their ability to communicate with foreign pilots, which played a role in crash of Flight 1907"

Selective quoting of "primary source" (by your definition) to blame ATC.

• The poor English skills are mentioned by many sources, including secondary ones. In this case, the point is generic, applying to the entire ATC force, so it is not a BLP issue where there is a specific individual being criticized. Crum375 (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• You said: "applying to the entire ATC force". This is generalized criticism. This would be generalization to induce blame to the whole organization. Since we don't mention the individuals, is it allowed? Sdruvss (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, as far as I know, an entire organization doesn't fall under BLP unless specific individuals are targeted. But in this case, we have a high quality secondary source making this point, so it's not really an issue. Crum375 (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • WP defines "Hasty generalization" as "a logical fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence. It commonly involves basing a broad conclusion upon the statistics of a survey of a small group that fails to sufficiently represent the whole population". What you say is a kind of inverted hasty generalization. Is it a way of blaming individual controllers by a generalization of the whole organization? Sdruvss (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Again, WP:BLP does not apply to criticism of an entire organization, and in any case, we have a high quality secondary source making this statement, so it's not an issue of Wikipedia editors interpreting a primary source. Crum375 (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• You said: "We are allowed to use high quality primary sources to report the basic facts of the case. Primary sources can become a problem when we use them to criticize living persons, but there is no criticism here". Is there individual criticism when one says:

• If transponder stops transmitting, secondary radar doesn't have aircraft altitude and ends losing its identification in radar screen?
  • Not a direct criticism per se, but the issue is that there was still an altitude readout in the Embraer's datablock, despite the loss of its Mode C altitude. This value was less reliable, but the controller had no obvious indication of the Mode C loss (specifically, one character changed, from '=' to 'z' inside the Embraer's datablock, and the aircraft position symbol on the screen changed from '+' inside a circle to a + with no circle). This is controversial, because it could imply that the controller should have noticed the reversion from Mode C to the so-called "3D" mode, whereas the controller would presumably argue that the display for the 3D mode was too similar to Mode C for him to notice. This could be an issue in the controller's criminal trial, and for us to start expounding on and analyzing it in the article, based on a primary source, beyond what is currently in the footnote, would violate WP:OR. Crum375 (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I think you didn't understand. The objective of the comment is not what you are explaining. It was just to explain that secondary radar relies on transponder signal. This is not even a specific issue of this accident. Since you use a lot of technical names, it must be explained in a facile way. It is just to explain that aircraft identification and current actual altitude in radar screen relies on secondary radar, and secondary radar relies on transponder signal. It is the same as explaining how planes use their wings to fly. As I said, this is not specific to the accident. It is just to make easier to readers understand how stuff works. Sdruvss (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Your explanation is technically wrong. In this case the transponder's signal loss did not cause the loss of "aircraft identification and current actual altitude", but only a degradation in the quality of the displayed altitude value. In other words, despite the loss of Mode C signal, the radar screen display remained almost the same, with a very small change (370=360 changed to 370z360, and the first number started fluctuating, plus the circle around the + icon disappeared). This small change is not a loss of "aircraft identification", and the loss of altitude accuracy is described in the footnote. Again, this is a contentious issue, and the controllers have been accused of criminal negligence, so we need high quality secondary sources to make these interpretations for us. Crum375 (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Just to don't let you without answer, these were the events:

Time - Radar Data Block Display - Notes

15:52 - 370=370 - current altitude (transponder readout): 370, authorized plan level: 370

15:53 - 370=360 - current altitude (transponder readout): 370, 360 blinking signaling to controller to amend clearance. Controller was dealing with other aircrafts, he didn't see this indication because there wasn't traffic in Embraer route.

15:55 - 370=360 - current altitude (transponder readout): 370, authorized plan level (clearance not issued to the crew): 360

16:01 - 370Z360 - transponder turned to standby, current altitude (3D radar readout): 370, current altitude starts varying.

16:08 - 333Z360 - current altitude with great variation (3D radar readout): 333. Controller believes that aircraft was at 360. It was not possible to determinate why.

16:17 - Controllers turn shift. First controller says to second controller that aircraft is at 360.

16:21 - 396Z360 - current altitude with great variation (3D radar readout): 396

16:29 - 331Z360 - current altitude with great variation (3D radar readout): 331

16:30 - aircraft not identified in radar screen.

16:57 - collision

XX Sdruvss 21:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I think all sources agree about this. So as bottom line, again, as I noted above, after the Embraer's Mode C transponder signal was lost, ATC's display continued to show its datablock and aircraft icon, except the icon changed from circle around a '+' to '+' with no circle, the '=' changed to 'Z', and the altitude number started fluctuating from about 390 to 330 (i.e. became less accurate and stable). This was due to the radar reverting from Mode C to "3D", which was a special mode used for military or air defense purposes. The gist of this is in the current footnote. Crum375 (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The facts and events talk by themselves. When we say that an altitude is used for military or air defense (most radar in the world have this feature) means, as you know, that enemies don't turn on their transponder. It is just that. XX Sdruvss 16:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Controllers were confounded by the lack of current aircraft altitude?
  • "Confounded" may be a case of problematic translation. What was the original pt text? Does it mean "confused" or "rendered unable to do anything"? Confounded has both meanings in English.LeadSongDog come howl 18:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• This is a word I used to describe the events above. No one used this word. But NTSB highlighs the events above as the main cause of the accident because they say that system behavior has a "latent error". XX Sdruvss 21:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Sdruvss, can you show me (please quote the actual words) where NTSB calls the lack of current (or more precisely in this case, reliable) altitude "the main cause" of the accident? Crum375 (talk) 01:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• NTSB didn't make comments about that. As you know, their comments are very short. But CENIPA dedicated dozens of pages describing it, and concluded that transponder issue was a strong contributor factor. CENIPA doesn't say "main cause" because, as everybody knows, a accident doesn't has "main cause" but a set of contributor factors. They refuse to identify a "main cause" because ICAO Annex 13 says “The sole objective of the investigation of an accident or incident shall be the prevention of accidents and incidents. It is not the purpose of this activity to apportion blame or liability”. So, it doesn't make sense to indentify which of the contributor factors is the "main". XX Sdruvss 16:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• UZ6 to Manaus has a heading of 336º?
• FL370 in UZ6 to Manaus is "unusual"?
  • You would need a high quality secondary source highlighting and analyzing these issues. For us to pull each out of all the other details in the reports would violate OR and possibly violate BLP, e.g. by criticizing the controllers as being "confounded". Crum375 (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Do you think that geographic data and elementary airspace organization (how airways works) deserve to be analyzed? As other issues, the objective of this comment is only to describe the accident framework to readers. As every sources said, these issues have not played any role to the accident. Or do you think that they did? Sdruvss (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
    • We supply an instrument navigation chart for readers who are keen to know the exact coordinates of each point, or the exact compass courses, and we also link to the detailed CENIPA and NTSB reports, if the issue is related to general knowledge. If the issue is related to criticism of the Embraer's crew or ATC controllers, then it falls under BLP and requires high quality secondary sources making that analysis for us. Crum375 (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Regards. Sdruvss (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Sdruvss was confirmed to be the sockmaster of Herbmartin, Lmc9 and Wiki2wk who have all posted on this talk page. See: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sdruvss
Crum375 (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Brazilian news that summarize final reports

Dear Crum, I've made the search you ask me to in the three most reliable Brazilian newspapers during final report disclosure: Estado de São Paulo, Folha de São Paulo and Globo. There are more, but they are recurring. Although NTSB report is an annex to CENIPA reports, and even there is a link to download the report (with annex), no one of these news have any mention to NTSB disagreement. It is hard to find "disagreements" as no one of these sources found them. But all of then summarize accident causes. I would not like to use them because there are a lot of mistakes, as other magazines and newspapers that are your sources. I consider these sources unreliable tertiary sources to describe the accident, as you know. But if you say that we should use them... I guess you consider all of them "reliable", because you do a lot of selectively quoting of them. I apologyse for my poor translantion, but I am sure you can do it better.

Estado, in Relatório do Cenipa aponta erros de pilotos e militares, says that "Report does not input blame, but points to crew carelessness as a factor that contributed to the accident". And adds "[...] among the factors that contributed to the disaster, the inattention of the American Legacy's pilots, Joe Lepore and Jan Paladino, their ignorance of the flight plan, and mistakes of air traffic controllers". It adds: "[...] During the investigation, it was found that the behavior of inattentive crew contributed to the disaster. Lepore and Paladino were almost an hour without realizing that the transponder was turned off". About the radar coverage, it is said: "The Air Force noted that all equipment and radars that cover the path worked perfectly. The data recorded in the Cindacta [ATC] showed that all the planes that traveled that area could be seen in radar screen. [...] There were no design or integration errors in communications equipment, transponder and TCAS (collision avoidance) of the Legacy".

In Estado Aeronáutica culpa pilotos e controladores por acidente da Gol we read "Brazilian Air Force (FAB) blamed on Wednesday the two American pilots of an Embraer Legacy, air traffic controllers and communication failures for the accident of the Gol Boeing that made the 1907 flight [...]. The transponder was inadvertently placed in the standby position, [...] There is nothing to prove the intention to do so. [...] For Cenipa, the Legacy pilots have not prepared properly for the flight, had no experience to fly in Brazil and had never flown together".

Estado FAB expõe falhas de pilotos e do controle starts stating "Americans were confused by fuel panel and transponder. The inadvertent shutdown of the transponder (anti-collision equipment), by one of the pilots of the Legacy, was a major cause of the accident with the Gol Boeing. [...] When they tried to check the fuel in the plane, American pilots were confused and turned off the transponder, putting it in standby mode. [...] The two procedures are performed on the same equipment on board. Distracted in making calculations for landing on a runway shorter than expected to find in Manaus, and no familiarity with the aircraft, the pilots did not realize, for 59 minutes, the warning signal that the transponder was not working. The Air Force's investigators concluded that pilots turned off the transponder inadvertently during familiarization or operation of the RMU, which is the radio management unit. In the process of completion, the Cenipa ruled out several hypotheses. One is that there was no intention to turn it off because nobody gives up deliberately an anti-collision equipment, for security reasons and if this had been done, the pilots would request the control to change altitude and increase the distance vertical in relation to other aircraft. Without citing names, the report notes that those who put the equipment on stand-by was Joe Lepore, the pilot who was sitting in the left of the aircraft, after leaving the equipment in standby, after having pressed the transponder twice in less than 20 seconds when activated the on-screen display, without being aware of this action, leaving it without transmitting signal for 59 minutes. The military stressed that the Legacy pilots "were in a hurry" to take off because they were pressured by passengers, had a flight plan inadequate - prepared by an employee of Embraer [this is wrong, it is not what is said in report], the aircraft manufacturer - and had low awareness about the situation flight, as did the traditional briefing prior to takeoff, it regarded it as "routine". It also became clear that they did not dominate the technology and the two Legacy pilots did not know and had never worked together, which led to the decision-making alone or in moments of flight". But more then pointing crew failures, this article summarizes clearly the accident report:

CAUSES

• 1. Failure to carry out an appropriate flight planning by Legacy's pilots.
• 2. Hurry to take off and pressure of the passengers of the Legacy, preventing sufficient knowledge of the flight plan for pilots.
• 3. Inadvertent shutdown of the transponder, possibly by the limited experience of the [Legacy's] pilots .
• 4. Lack of communication between pilots and controllers.
• 5. Lack of integration between the Legacy pilots and little experience in piloting this type of aircraft.
• 6. The air traffic control in Sao Jose dos Campos, Brasilia and Manaus, although providing surveillance radar, did not correct the flight level of the Legacy or conducted procedures for certification of altitude when they started not to receive information from the transponder.
• 7. The controllers did not transfer correctly traffic from Brasilia to Manaus.
• 8. Flight controllers did not provide the predicted frequency for the Legacy to communicate adequately in the Amazon region.
• 9. The lack of involvement of supervisors of controllers, letting that decisions and actions over the Legacy flight were taken individually, without monitoring, advice and guidance provided for the air traffic control.

Estado, in Pilotos desligaram transponder inadvertidamente, diz Cenipa, says " One of the problems identified was that the pilots had no knowledge of the equipment nor the flight plan. The Cenipa requested FAA - which regulates civil aviation in the United States - to guide the pilots flying out of the country on the international rules".

Folha, one of the most reliable newspaper in Brazil, have the same point of view in Cenipa apresenta relatório final do acidente aéreo da Gol; leia o relatório: "[...] the final report points out that the Legacy jet's transponder - which had a mid-ari collision with the Gol Boeing - was handled incorrectly by the pilots and entered into standby inadvertently. However, on Wednesday, Cenipa Brigadier Jorge Kersul, said the pilots of the Legacy should have turned off the transponder without intention". Folha, in Relatório sobre acidente da Gol aponta erros dos controladores e pilotos do Legacy, says about the pilots: "CENIPA report points out several Legacy's pilots errors, among them unsuitable flight planning, hurry to take off, lack of experience of pilots with the aircraft and insufficient preparation for the flight".

Globo, in Relatório aponta erro de operação em acidente de avião da Gol, says "An error in equipment operation of the Legacy may have turned off the anti-collision system of the aircraft that crashed into the Gol Boeing. This is one of the conclusions of the final report submitted by the Air Force". And repeats all other news: "Among other factors, the Air Force also listed the lack of experience of pilots in the handling of the Legacy. The most likely hypothesis for the shutdown of the transponder, according to the Air Force, is that, during an operation to calculate aircraft performance, the pilot would have put the equipment on standby". And adds: "According to Brigadier Jorge Kersul Filho, chief of the Center for Research and Prevention of Aeronautical Accidents (CENIPA), one can not prove that this was done intentionally. We discarded the hypothesis that either the laptop or the foot of one of the pilots has pushed the button to turn off the transponder. For the transponder being turned off, one must press a button twice in a span of twenty seconds".

Globo, in Deficiências no preparo dos controladores e dos pilotos do Legacy contribuíram para o acidente da Gol, diz relatório do Cenipa, sumaryzes the report as: "Air Force concluded that deficiencies in the training of Brazilian controllers and ExcelAire American Legacy's pilots were factors that contributed to the collision". They also highlight that contributed to accident the "lack of familiarity of American pilots Joseph Lepore and Jan Paladino with cabin equipment".

I hope this helps writting a better, clearer, unbiased and reliable article. Regards Sdruvss (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Sdruvss was confirmed to be the sockmaster of Herbmartin, Lmc9 and Wiki2wk who have all posted on this talk page. See: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sdruvss
Crum375 (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sdruvss, the article already says that CENIPA found the accident was caused both by the ATC controllers and the Embraer crew, while NTSB focused on ATC failures and concluded that the Embraer crew "flew the route precisely as cleared and complied with all ATC instructions." If you'd like to add to this language or modify it in some way, we can't just include a long list of quotations from newspapers, and you yourself say above that you "would not like to use them because there are a lot of mistakes." What is needed is a distillation of the NTSB and CENIPA reports, which are very detailed, into a brief summary supported by high quality sources. This should also include a comparison and explanation of the conflicts between the two government reports, which Aviation Week analyzed in an article titled "Brazil Air Force, NTSB Spar on Midair Causes". If you have a high level source which takes a top view of these reports and gives us a concise summary, please supply the link as well as your proposed modification to the article, and we can evaluate it. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Crum, The article Brazil Air Force, NTSB Spar on Midair Causes you suggested is published by the same publisher of Bussinnes & Commercial Aviation magazine (they are even hosted in the same site), which as you know is the magazine that Joe Sharkey publishes his articles, and has sponsered his trip to Brazil. The referenced article is written by Jim Swickard, who declared recently to have visited Embraer to write a new article to the same magazine of Sharkey. He has accepted Embraer invitation, as Joe Sharkey when he came to Brasil. Are they more reliable then Folha, Estado, Globo and all Brazilian sources to summarize reports? I believe, in my humble opinion, that Estado (references above) provides us a brief summary and is supported by the most high quality source one can find. Regards, Sdruvss (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There are two final reports, one each by CENIPA and NTSB, and there is then the issue of the comparison or contrast between them. The way the "Final reports" section is currently structured, is that it has one subsection dedicated to each of these three topics. If you have a high quality reliable source which you believe can influence the text in one of these subsections, please provide the suggested new wording and the supporting source, for the specific subsection. Bear in mind that in these three subsections, we can't focus on a single source, but we need to form a combined text reflecting the best sources, with appropriate weighting if there are conflicting secondary sources, per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Crum375 (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

There aren't two final reports. There is just one. CENIPA(266 pages), NTSB Appendix 1 to CENIPA final report (U.S. Summary Comments on the Draft Final Report, 4 pages) and NTSB Appendix 2 to CENIPA final report (U.S. Detailed Comments on Draft Final Report, 10 pages), which means that NTSB made comments to the CENIPA final report and not another final report. It doesn't make sense to compare a report with its comments. It is not necessary to compare a subject with the comments to the subject. I think this is why no one Brazilian "secondary source" compared them. It doesn't make sense. XX Sdruvss 15:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

There is one final report prepared and written by CENIPA, and one by NTSB. The NTSB report was published separately, and also appended to the CENIPA report, verbatim. The NTSB report is characterized by reliable mainstream secondary sources to be in conflict with the CENIPA report: "Brazil Air Force, NTSB Spar on Midair Causes", e.g. "Notably, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) strongly disagreed with the Brazilian conclusions regarding the Legacy pilots' actions as a causal factor" (emphasis added). The New York Times writes: "Brazil Lays Some Blame on U.S. Pilots in Collision", e.g. "But a dissenting report by the United States National Transportation Safety Board on Wednesday put the main responsibility on the Brazilian air traffic control system" (empahsis added). The "Dissenting report" is obviously not CENIPA, it is the NTSB report, which per mainstream reliable secondary sources strongly disagrees with the CENIPA report and needs to be analyzed, evaluated and summarized separately by reliable mainstream secondary sources, as does the conflict between the two reports. Crum375 (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about of the article from the magazine of the publisher of Joe Sharkey articles, and the newspaper where Joe Sharkey also publishes his articles? Why do you think that not just a sole Brazilian source made any comment about a "dissenting report"? Many of them even provide a link to download it (a single download of CENIPA report and NTSB Appendix 1 and 2, e.g. Cenipa apresenta relatório final do acidente aéreo da Gol; leia o relatório). CENIPA has never issued a final report separated from NTSB comments. NTSB published them separated because they were comments to "draft report", before final report being published. XX Sdruvss 17:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

As I replied to you elsewhere, Aviation Week and The New York Times are among the most reputable and respectable mainstream reliable secondary sources. This was also confirmed by other editors on the Reliable sources noticeboard. That a journalist maintains a personal blog is not unusual, and does not taint such sources as unacceptable or unreliable. As I also noted above, The New York Times, a reliable secondary source, refers to the dissenting report by the NTSB. On WP we follow reliable sources, and the NYT is one of the best we have. Crum375 (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I gave you dozens above. Why Folha, Globo, Estado and all Brazilian sources are not realiable sources? Estado even has a excelent summary, it is a shame that no one mentioned NTSB "disagreement" as it is desirable. The title of NTSB document is "Comments on Draft Final Report". It seems to me different of Dissending "Final Report" as said by the publisher of Joe Sharkey. Where is this report? XX Sdruvss 17:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, Joe Sharkey is not at issue here, since we don't use him as a source for interpreting reports. As I mentioned to you elsewhere, if you can supply a new high quality secondary source to analyze the NTSB report or to contrast it with the CENIPA report, it would be most useful. The sources you do mention seem to be focused on the CENIPA report only, and we already cite several such sources in the article. To analyze and contrast the CENIPA and NTSB reports to each other, we need to rely on top level secondary sources which do this for us (such as Aviation Week or The New York Times), or else we'd be engaging in original research. Crum375 (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do you want "to analyze the NTSB report or to contrast it with the CENIPA report" instead of just summarizing them? No one of Brazilian sources did it although disclosure of CENIPA report and NTSB comments were done at same time. I've suggested many times to use Folha, Globo and Estadao. But you insist to compare them, analyze them, and interpret them using the article of Sharkey's publisher. Do you want to make original research or use Joe Sharkey's publisher original research? XX Sdruvss 18:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, Sharkey is irrelevant to this issue, since we don't use him to interpret any reports, so no need to mention him. You ask why we need to analyze the NTSB report and compare it to CENIPA? Because we have high quality reliable secondary sources, such as Aviation Week and The New York Times, telling us that the NTSB and CENIPA reports are "sparring" and "dissenting" respectively, and explain this disagreement in some detail. On WP, we follow reliable sources, not our own research. And again, the sources you do mention seem to be focused on the CENIPA report only, and we already cite several such sources in the article. If you can find more sources for this analysis and comparison, it would be very helpful. Crum375 (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, we should not use a "secondary sources" that makes statements about a "primary source" that is not verifiable. The sources you use say "that both flight crews acted properly". We cannot verify this statement in NTSB comments. Instead we find that they say specifically about “Planning – a contributor - We do not agree that the analysis is sufficient to support any deficiency in the conduct of the flight, which can be related to planning". NTSB has never said "that both flight crews acted properly" as Sharkey's publisher said. XX Sdruvss 19:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Which source is "not verifiable"? All the sources we use, both primary and secondary, are verifiable, and if you find any that aren't, please point them out. You say "NTSB has never said...": again, what is important for WP articles is not what we, as anonymous WP editors, say or think, but what high quality secondary sources such as Aviation Week and The New York Times, which interpret, compare and contrast the primary sources (i.e. the NTSB and CENIPA reports), tell us. Crum375 (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Quote NTSB where they say "that both flight crews acted properly". How can we rely on sources that clearly make statements not verifiable? XX Sdruvss 19:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

In a contentious WP:BLP situation, we need to rely on secondary sources to interpret the primary sources (such as NTSB report in this case), so as not to violate WP:NOR. This and this is what the NTSB actually say in their report. We use high quality secondary sources to analyze these reports, e.g.: "The crew of the business jet was “not in violation of any regulations,” the American report said. The Americans said that they agreed that “safety lessons in these areas can be determined to better prepare flight crews for international operations.”"[2]. Or: "Notably, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) strongly disagreed with the Brazilian conclusions regarding the Legacy pilots' actions as a causal factor, noting, "The crew flew the route precisely as cleared and complied with all ATC instructions," as did the GOL airlines crew."[3]. For the lead, this boils down to, "acted properly". We then expand on this brief summary in the body of the article, in the Final report section, where we quote the NTSB's probable cause statement, and also add and quote its secondary source interpretation. Crum375 (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Crum, as I said, the sentence "The crew flew the route precisely as cleared and complied with all ATC instructions" is completely different from "both flight crews acted properly". NTSB recognizes that "Without question, N600XL proceeded for an inordinately long time without two-way communication", they not disagree that the crew inadvertently shutdown of the transponder; they not disagree that crew was distracted. Does anyone could agree with Sharkey's publisher that both flight crews acted properly? None of Brazilian sources has commented NTSB "disagreement". NTSB comments has 10 pages, anyone can read it in 10 minutes and prove that those Sharkey's publisher "analyses" are biased and partisan. NTSB only highlight a few issues described in details in CENIPA report, especially safety issues of ATC. Why do you insist with such intensity that CENIPA and NTSB disagree? Don't you think that there is something not explained why none of Brazilians sources say one word about NTSB comments, and only Sharkey's publisher?XX Sdruvss 20:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You are engaging in original research by providing your own personal interpretation of the NTSB report. We have high quality secondary sources, such as Aviation Week and The New York Times, which interpret it for us, and also compare and contrast it to the CENIPA report. You ask why I "insist with such intensity that CENIPA and NTSB disagree?" — Because the high quality reputable mainstream secondary sources tell us that the NTSB and CENIPA reports are "sparring" and "dissenting" with each other, and explain this disagreement in some detail. WP must be based on reliable sources, not on our own ideas or original research. Crum375 (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think that there is something not explained why none of Brazilians sources say one word about NTSB comments, and only Sharkey's publisher? Are all Brazilians sources low quality secondary sources because they don't mention this "disagreement"? XX Sdruvss 20:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can provide us with a high quality reputable secondary source which analyzes the NTSB report, and/or compares it to the CENIPA report, it would be most welcome, regardless of its nationality or language. Crum375 (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You gave me a impossible mission. No one high quality reputable secondary source analyzed the NTSB comments to CENIPA report. First, it doesn't make sense to compare a comment with the subject been commented. This is nonsense. You are asking that some high quality reputable secondary source makes something that everybody knows that doesn't make sense. Only unreliable sources do that, as Sharkey's publisher. XX Sdruvss 20:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

"Only unreliable sources do that, as Sharkey's publisher": Translation for those who don't speak Sdruvss-ese: "Sharkey's publisher" == The New York Times. I wish all Wikipedia's sources were as "unreliable" as that publication. Crum375 (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that mainstream newspapers don't make mistakes? They trust in their journalists, even when they shouldn't. XX Sdruvss 21:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Sdruvss, everybody makes mistakes, even mainstream newspapers. But on WP our goal is to report what reliable secondary sources have said, not to search for "the truth". See WP:V, first sentence. Crum375 (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I've quoted above many Brazilian sources which summarize accident causes, from the most reliable sources one can find. They are the three most important Brazilian newspapers. Some of them even include links for downloading the CENIPA Report that includes the appendix of NTSB. No one of them has a single reference to NTSB comment. All Brazilians sources clearly don't summarize the report like Sharkey's publisher did. This article don't summarize the accident causes quoting Brazilian sources, because they don't compare the "Comments on the Draft Report" of NTSB with the "Final Report" of CENIPA as Sharkey's publisher did, affirming that the Comments are a "dissending report". I hope people who read this talk page understand what is going on here. XX Sdruvss 11:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"I hope people who read this talk page understand what is going on here": I hope so too. The current article makes heavy use of Brazilian sources. We have a total of 26 Brazilian sources overall, out of 66 total sources. The most heavily used source is Brazilian (CENIPA): it is linked and referred to in the article 28 times, more than any other source by far. Since it is a primary source, as is the appended U.S. NTSB report, we also include secondary sources to help interpret them. These two primary reports are in sharp disagreement with each other, so we use high quality secondary sources, such as Aviation Week and The New York Times (which characterize the reports as "dissenting" and "sparring"), to compare and contrast them. We would gladly accept any good source, from any country and in any language, to help us further analyze and compare these reports. Crum375 (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I repeat for those who didn't understand, as Crum375 for instance: "There aren't two final reports. There is just one, "CENIPA Final Report" (266 pages), NTSB Appendix 1 to CENIPA final report ("U.S. Summary Comments on the Draft Final Report", 4 pages) and NTSB Appendix 2 to CENIPA final report ("U.S. Detailed Comments on Draft Final Report", 10 pages), which means that NTSB made comments to the CENIPA final report and not another final report. It doesn't make sense to compare a report with comments to the draft report. It is not necessary to compare a subject with the comments to the draft subject". If comments are on "Draft Report" (as can be seen in their title), we not even know if the "Final Report" has included the comments. The main articles listed above from Brazilians sources in the period of Final Report disclosure (Folha, Globo, Estado, of December, 2008) where not cited or were selectively quoted. The editors have consensus that they should be hided, sorry, selectively quoted. XX Sdruvss 15:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"The editors have consensus that they should be hided, sorry, selectively quoted.": No, Wikipedia editors have consensus that we need high quality secondary sources to interpret primary sources, esp. in contentious WP:BLP cases, when the primary sources disagree with each other. In this case, the CENIPA and NTSB primary sources (which are highly reliable and linked to many times throughout the article) are in strong disagreement between them, so we need high quality secondary sources to interpret, compare and contrast them. We use sources such as Aviation Week and The New York Times (which characterize the two reports as "dissenting" and "sparring") to compare them. If anyone has a high level secondary source which does does this comparison and which we are currently missing, it would be most welcome. Crum375 (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said many times, it is impossible to find high quality secondary sources (sic) to interpret primary sources (sic) disagreements when the primary sources (sic) don't disagree with each other. The sole high quality secondary source (sic) that argue that they strong disagree is Sharkey's publisher. XX Sdruvss 16:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

We have two of the highest quality mainstream publications, Aviation Week and The New York Times, characterizing the NTSB and CENIPA reports as "sparring" and "dissenting" with each other. We make use of these (and other) secondary sources to compare and contrast the conflicting primary investigative reports. That Joe Sharkey has a private blog, which we don't use in the article to maintain neutrality, does not taint the NYT as an unacceptable or unreliable source. Crum375 (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest using Folha, Globo and Estado or other reliable secondary sources (sic) to summarize CENIPA report, and you use Sharkey's publisher to summarize NTSB comments and compare them with Final Report. All quoted sentences that could be verified in those sources can't be deleted. It is fair. Do you agree? XX Sdruvss 20:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

In the CENIPA report section, we currently use two Brazilian and one English secondary sources to interpret and summarize the CENIPA report, along with a link to the CENIPA report itself, which is primary. If you see significant new information, which is not included in the current Portuguese sources or the English one, then please specify the source(s), and the specific details which you propose to change. Bear in mind that other sources, including more English ones, may need to be added, if we get into conflicts between sources about specific details or their relative weights. Here is the current CENIPA report section:

On December 10, 2008, more than two years after the accident, Centro de Investigação e Prevenção de Acidentes Aeronáuticos (CENIPA) issued its final report, describing its investigation, findings, conclusions and recommendations.[1] The CENIPA report includes a "Conclusions" section that summarizes the known facts and lists a variety of contributing factors relating to both air traffic controllers and the Embraer's flight crew.[45][46]

According to CENIPA, the air traffic controllers contributed to the accident by originally issuing an improper clearance to the Embraer, and not catching or correcting the mistake during the subsequent handoff to Brasilia Center or later on. CENIPA also found errors in the way the controllers handled the loss of radar and radio contact with the Embraer.[1][46]

CENIPA concluded that the Embraer pilots also contributed to the accident with, among others, their failure to recognize that their transponder was inadvertently switched off, thereby disabling the collision avoidance system on both aircraft, as well as their overall insufficient training and preparation.

Crum375 (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Final report topic is biased and full of mistakes. The text bellow is better and correct, according to the cited sources:

Final report

On December 10, 2008, more than [why?] two years after the accident, Centro de Investigação e Prevenção de Acidentes Aeronáuticos (CENIPA) issued its the Final report, describing its investigation, findings, conclusions and recommendations.[1] The CENIPA report includes a "Conclusions" section that summarizes the known facts and lists a variety of contributing factors relating to both air traffic controllers and the Embraer's flight crew.[45][46] According to Brigadier Jorge Kersul Filho, CENIPA’s chief, "An accident does not occur by just one factor. They are several factors combined" [Globo reference]. The causes of the accident listed by CENIPA are [Estado, Folha, Globo references]:

• 1. Failure to carry out an appropriate flight planning by Legacy's pilots.
• 2. Hurry to take off and pressure of the passengers of the Legacy, preventing sufficient knowledge of the flight plan for pilots.
• 3. Inadvertent shutdown of the transponder, possibly by the limited experience of the Legacy's pilots.
• 4. Lack of communication between pilots and controllers.
• 5. Lack of integration between the Legacy pilots and little experience in piloting this type of aircraft.
• 6. The air traffic control in Sao Jose dos Campos, Brasilia and Manaus, although providing surveillance radar, did not correct the flight level of the Legacy or conducted procedures for certification of altitude when they started not to receive information from the transponder.
• 7. The controllers did not transfer correctly traffic from Brasilia to Manaus.
• 8. Flight controllers did not provide the predicted frequency for the Legacy to communicate adequately in the Amazon region.
• 9. The lack of involvement of supervisors of controllers, letting that decisions and actions over the Legacy flight were taken individually, without monitoring, advice and guidance provided for the air traffic control.

U.S. NTSB published two documents, "Comments on the Draft Final Report of the Aircraft Accident" (Summary and Detailed) in accordance with ICAO Annex 13 [cite annex 13], which were appended to CENIPA Final Report (Apendix 1 and 2), with the following Probable Cause statement: "The evidence collected during this investigation strongly supports the conclusion that this accident was caused by N600XL and GLO1907 following ATC clearances which directed them to operate in opposite directions on the same airway at the same altitude resulting in a midair collision. The loss of effective air traffic control was not the result of a single error, but of a combination of numerous individual and institutional ATC factors, which reflected systemic shortcomings in emphasis on positive air traffic control concepts" [cite CENIPA final report].

The NTSB further added the following contributing factors: "Contributing to this accident was the undetected loss of functionality of the airborne collision avoidance system technology as a result of the inadvertent inactivation of the transponder on board N600XL. Further contributing to the accident was inadequate communication between ATC and the N600XL flight crew" [cite CENIPA final report].

According to some American magazines and newspapers, CENIPA and NTSB arrived at disagreeing interpretations and conclusions, although this was not mentioned in any mainstream Brazilian source. They say that CENIPA report concludes the accident was caused by mistakes made both by air traffic controllers and by the Embraer pilots, whereas the NTSB focuses on the controllers and the ATC system, concluding that both flight crews acted properly but were placed on a collision course by the air traffic controllers.[2][6][7][48][49][50][51] [none of the references say that "crew acted properly", instead all of them repeat NTSB comment (not conclusion) that:] the crew flew the route precisely as cleared and complied with all ATC instructions, and was not in violation of any regulations [2][6][7][48][49][50][51].

According to [Jim Swickard of..., it is a signed article] Aviation Week, "the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) strongly disagreed with the Brazilian conclusions regarding the Legacy pilots' actions as a causal factor, noting, 'The crew flew the route precisely as cleared and complied with all ATC instructions,' as did the GOL airlines crew."[6] Aviation Week adds that "the Brazilian military operates that country's air traffic control system, conducted the investigation and authored the report." [not necessary, it is said several times in the text, and written here induces to conspiracy theory. This paragraph repeats the arguments of above paragraph ]

Is there something above that is not verifiable? I believe not. (I apologyse by my poor translantion, but I'm sure Crum can improve it) XX Sdruvss 01:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all let's focus on the "CENIPA" subsection, which I quoted above; we can address the other subsections later. The issue here is not verifiability, which only means we can attribute every individual statement to some reliable source. The problem is that we have a limited amount of space in the "Final reports" section, where for each subsection ("CENIPA", "NTSB" and "Conflicting CENIPA and NTSB conclusions"), we are trying to concentrate the most essential or important elements, and do so in a way that reflects our combined best sources, without violating WP:BLP, WP:NOR, or WP:UNDUE. In the case of the raw CENIPA report, it is 266 pages long. If it had a standard 'probable cause' statement, we would just quote that, as we normally do in every accident article on WP, and as we do in the NTSB section below it. Unfortunately, CENIPA did not provide a probable cause statement, only some subsections with essay-like discussions, and some 40 findings, all non-prioritized. We may not pick a small subset out of the long CENIPA report (thereby creating an effective 'probable cause' statement) unless all sources are in essential agreement, or else we'd be violating NOR, UNDUE and/or NPOV. The way the article is currently worded, it refers to all issues collectively, for both controllers and Embraer pilots, without going into specifics, so as not to improperly prioritize one finding over another. I ask you again: please find a high quality secondary source which adds significant new information to what we already have from the existing sources. Ignore the exact wording for now, we can work on it later. Crum375 (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Your affirmatives have no groundings. I am trying to concentrate the most essential or important elements, and do so in a way that reflects our combined best sources, without violating WP:BLP, WP:NOR, or WP:UNDUE, correcting article mistakes. The "Causes" is exact quote of Estado FAB expõe falhas de pilotos e do controle that is the best "secondary source" (sic) one can find. Original text:

AS CAUSAS

• 1. Não realização de um adequado planejamento de vôo pelos pilotos do jato Legacy
• 2. Pressa para decolar e a pressão dos passageiros do Legacy, impossibilitando o suficiente conhecimento do plano de vôo pelos pilotos
• 3. Desligamento inadvertido do transponder, "possivelmente pela pouca experiência dos pilotos" do Legacy
• 4. Falta de comunicação entre pilotos e controladores
• 5. Falta de entrosamento entre os pilotos do Legacy e pouca experiência em pilotar esse tipo de aeronave
• 6. O controle de tráfego aéreo de São José dos Campos, Brasília e Manaus, apesar de estar prestando serviço de vigilância radar, não corrigiu o nível de vôo do Legacy nem realizou procedimentos previstos para a certificação de altitude quando passou a não receber as informações do transponder
• 7. Os controladores não transferiram corretamente o tráfego de Brasília para Manaus
• 8. Os controladores de vôo não ofereceram a freqüência prevista para que o jato Legacy se comunicasse adequadamente na região da Amazônia
• 9. A falta de envolvimento do supervisores dos controladores de vôo permitiu que as decisões e ações relativas ao jato Legacy fossem tomadas de forma individual, sem o acompanhamento, assessoramento e orientação previstos para o controle de tráfego aéreo.

There is a exact quote of CENIPA chief saying "An accident does not occur by just one factor. They are several factors combined", conflicting with your original research that "Unfortunately, CENIPA did not provide a probable cause statement". Are you criticizing CENIPA report? You don't agree how CENIPA made the Final Report? The report is not what you believe it should be? Is that why you don't want to write what Estado clearly says is the accident Causes and all Brazilian sources are in essential agreement? Your arguments are not supported by any "secondary sources" (sic), and would be original research. All other sentences are corrections of your text, because they cannot be verified in your refereces (Sharkey's publisher). Not even Sharkey's publisher say what you cite ("the crew acted properly"). XX Sdruvss 11:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sdruvss, the CENIPA report is a high quality primary source, and we use it extensively (28 times) in the article as a reference. But we can't pull out pieces from it, or we would violate WP:NOR, and if one single secondary publication does the pulling, in conflict with others, it would violate WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. In this case, the list of "causas" which you posted above, to the best of my knowledge, is not quoted directly from the report, but has been drawn up by one reporter in one Brazilian news publication. The CENIPA report has 266 pages, and to summarize those pages we need either a self-contained 'probable cause' statement, which CENIPA did not provide, or a consensus among all top level sources. In addition, the NTSB report, which was included with the CENIPA report, did have a probable cause statement, which was in conflict with CENIPA's conclusions (according to high quality secondary sources). So we need to also present NTSB's conclusions, along with their comparison and contrast to the CENIPA report, to show how they conflict. The current article's "Final reports" section contains three subsections, one for each topic (CENIPA, NTSB and Comparison). I suggest again, that you address each subsection individually, starting with the first one, and following our NPOV rules. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This Estado article lists conclusions of Final Report, presented at 10th December 2008, live transmitted by TV, by Brigadier Kersul, CENIPA's chief, and researchers. The journalist copied those 9 causes from the powerpoint presented by CENIPA during the Final Report disclosure press conference. Causes were summarized live by CENIPA on TV and reported in the news by Estado, Folha, Globo, and all Brazilian media one can find (as you can note, all the news I referenced above have the same content). Millions of people saw it live, me too. CENIPA provided those causes and made clear in the press conference that "An accident does not occur by just one factor. They are several factors combined". Everybody understood what this mean after reading NTSB comments, but not you and until now, WP readers. This is the summary done by Kersul in a press conference. Do you mean that even with all Brazilians news publishing those 9 causes presented by CENIPA in a press conference, WP may not included them in the article without violating WP policies because you and Sharkey's publisher don't agree with them? You say "We need to also present NTSB's conclusions, along with their comparison and contrast to the CENIPA report, to show how they conflict". Why? None of Brazilian sources did it. Just because Sharkey's publisher did it? But OK, I agree, include Sharkey's publisher analysis of "NTSB Comments on the Draft Report" after the causes of accident according with CENIPA, as I did above. Don't forget that they must be verifiable. "Crew acted properly". for instance, is not verifiable in Sharkey's publisher article. Not even Sharkey's publisher said that. XX Sdruvss 17:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sdruvss, on WP we need better sources than some reporter copying things from a press conference, esp. for contentious BLP cases, with complex long technical reports involved. As I noted above and elsewhere, we have high quality mainstream sources telling us that our two main primary sources, the NTSB and CENIPA reports, are at odds with each other. Therefore, we need to compare and contrast these reports, while relying on high quality mainstream secondary sources. This is a very basic requirement of WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and of course WP:BLP. Crum375 (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I understood: Are you saying that we need better sources than ALL Brazilian newspapers to summarize 10 pages of CENIPA conclusions that where presented in a press conference, which was live transmitted on TV, to write 9 causes of the accident in a Wikipedia article? Are you saying that "some reporter" of ALL Brazilians newspaper are not able to write what was told in the press conference to announce CENIPA conclusions? Are you saying that the sole high quality mainstream source telling us that NTSB and CENIPA reports are at odds with each other (sic) is Sharkey's publisher? Are you saying that WP can't publish CENIPA conclusions because no one summarized it the way you required it to be done and the way Sharkey's publisher did? Are you saying that all Brazilians that don't read your Wikipedia article and Sharkey's publisher articles live in ignorance about this accident causes? We, Brazilians, don't know accident causes? I hope you and WP understand the consequences of these statements. XX Sdruvss 22:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, Sdruvss. What I am saying is that WP is not a battle field between editors of different nationalities or allegiances. If you want to improve this article, you have to start out by assuming good faith of other editors here. You state that only one source, which you don't accept, says that there is a conflict between the NTSB and CENIPA reports. The source you refer to is The New York Times, and I can assure you that most editors here consider it one of the highest quality sources we have. Another source which tells us the same thing is Aviation Week, also a high quality source, which also has technical expertise in aviation safety. If you read the actual NTSB report, which is primary, you will also find many places where they clearly disagree with CENIPA's conclusions, but our goal is to rely on secondary sources for that, not to interpret primary sources on our own. Both high quality secondary sources tell us that there is sharp disagreement between CENIPA and NTSB. Clearly, if there is such disagreement, it needs to be explained and analyzed, since these reports were written by the only two government agencies which investigated this accident. If you believe that there is no conflict between these reports, despite the fact that two high quality secondary sources tell us otherwise, as a minimum you should provide us with one or more high quality secondary sources telling us there is no conflict between NTSB and CENIPA and that the reports are in essential agreement. If you have such a source, it would go a long way in helping you make your point. Crum375 (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Crum, all Brazilians sources during disclosure of CENIPA Final Report (there is only one final report) including NTSB Comments Appendix, didn't say that NTSB disagrees from the causes of accident pointed by CENIPA. This is a strong indication that the sole article of Sharkey's publisher that say this is not reliable. You wrongly cite Sharkey's publisher. You say "crew acted properly" citing AW and NYT. The AW article you cite to justify this statement is signed by Jim Swickard who recently was invited by Embraer to visit its plant in Brazil. He publishes his articles in the same magazine of Sharkey. Jim Swickard citing NTSB says "The crew flew the route precisely as cleared and complied with all ATC instructions". NYT says: "The crew of the business jet was not in violation of any regulations”. Thus, you make clearly wrong citations and you should correct it without questioning. But if these sources are right saying CENIPA and NTSB disagree, we would find in CENIPA report or in the news (anyone) that crew didn't fly the cleared route, not complying with ATC instructions, and in violation of regulations. We are not able to find this statement in CENIPA report as one of the causes of accident. Does any of those 9 causes listed above said that crew disobey clearance? Does any of those 9 causes listed above said that crew violate any regulations? No, they don't. So, clearly AW and NYT are wrong, and that is why no one of Brazilian newspapers made the same error as Sharkey's publisher. Do you think that all Brazilians newspapers are wrong and Sharkey's publishers are right? OK, I admit that, but the minimum we should do is to report both summaries and let readers judge by themselves. We should not censor all Brazilians newspaper because one Sharkey's publisher said something that no one else said. I assume your good faith, but you are censoring accident causes according to CENIPA. XX Sdruvss 00:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sdruvss, on WP we don't have 'right' or 'wrong' sources. We do recognize primary vs. secondary, or reliable vs. unreliable, or high quality mainstream vs. low quality advocacy publications, etc. The issues here are simple: we have two highly reliable primary sources, the NTSB and CENIPA reports, which have been characterized as being "sparring" and "dissenting" with each other, by high quality mainstream secondary sources, The New York Times and Aviation Week. That you, Sdruvss, an anonymous editor, consider these sources "wrong", is not relevant or important for WP. If you can find other high quality mainstream secondary sources which support your view that CENIPA and NTSB reports are not in disagreement, please provide us these sources and please quote where they say something like "NTSB and CENIPA reports are in complete agreement" or "NTSB and CENIPA reports are in essential agreement". Unless you can provide reliable sources which say these things, your own personal opinion is of little consequence. Crum375 (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Following your reasoning, we may understand that we can summarize nine accident causes pointed by Final Report (there is only one) using as references Estado, Folha, and Globo, because, as you agree, they are the best reliable sources one can find. Current editors can not obstruct quoting them because they don't agree with these sources summarization or the sources do not consider relevant NTSB Comments on Draft Report, or they are "wrong" or "right", or done by "some reporter" (sic). One can not obstruct citations giving as reason they don't say what current editor require ("provide us these sources and please quote where they say something like NTSB and CENIPA reports are in complete agreement"). They are reliable sources and quotes can be verified, quoting them can not be obstructed. I claim that CENIPA Final Report be summarized using Estado, and completed with Folha, Globo, AW, NYT (if you want, but correctly cited). XX Sdruvss 11:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• I keep that your citations are wrong: AW and NYT don't say that "crew acted properly". Please, the citation must be corrected. XX Sdruvss 11:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• I keep that the name of NTSB documents are wrong cited, they are not "Final Report". Their title are "U.S. Comments on Draft Final Report of Aircraft Accident" (Summary and Detailed). WP can not change documents title just because Sharkey's publisher changed their title. Please, the citation must be corrected. XX Sdruvss 11:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. We can't just pull out a bunch of quotes from a primary source in a contentious case, unless there is no disagreement among all secondary sources. In this situation, we have two high quality primary sources, the CENIPA and NTSB reports, which have been reported to be in conflict between each other according to high quality secondary sources. Therefore, if we were to just randomly or selectively pull quotes from the primary sources (which are hundreds of pages long), we'd be violating WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, etc. We must let high quality secondary sources do that analysis, summary and comparison between the conflicting sources for us, which is what the current article does. If you can point us to another high level secondary source which compares these primary sources and sheds a different light on the matter, it would be most helpful. Crum375 (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think you are still missing the point. Neither of the reliable secondary sources (Estado, Folha, Globo and any Brazilian source you want) disagrees about accident causes. The causes above are literal translation of one of them (FAB expõe falhas de pilotos e do controle). You are obstructing to quote Estado, and also Folha and Globo because they don't say what you want (I assume your good faith obstructing it). Thus, "pull out a bunch of quotes from a primary source" is false, it is a quote from a secondary source (sic). If there is a disagreement between Estado, Folha, Globo, all Brazilians sources with Sharkey's publisher, WP should included both and not only Sharkey's publisher quotes. You can't obstruct Estado, Folha and Globo, using as reasoning that they don't defend or condemn Sharkey's publisher original research. XX Sdruvss 14:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is being "obstructed". We have two basic reports written about this accident, by two different investigative agencies, representing two different governments. Although they worked collaboratively during the investigation, they ended up with two separate reports. The NTSB report, which was published separately by the U.S. government, is also included as "Appendix 1" which was appended to the CENIPA report written by the Brazilian Air Force. We have high quality mainstream secondary sources, The New York Times and Aviation Week, which tell us that the two reports are "dissenting" and "sparring" with each other, i.e. in significant conflict. Therefore, we must use high level secondary sources to interpret, analyze, compare and contrast these two reports and their conflicting results. This is what the article currently does. If you have more high quality secondary sources which interpret the two reports and help us compare them, please provide them. Crum375 (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• "We have two basic reports written about this accident" - False. We have CENIPA Final Report (266 pages), "U.S. Summary Comments on Draft Final Report of Aircraft Accident" (4 pages)" and "U.S. Detailed Comments on Draft Final Report of Aircraft Accident" (10 pages, most of them discussing "Recommendations"). Comments on draft final report with just 10 pages can not be considered a Final Report. "We have high quality mainstream secondary sources, The New York Times and Aviation Week" - As I said, Sharkey's publishers. "We must use high level secondary sources to interpret, analyze, compare and contrast these two reports and their conflicting results" - This is not a reason to obstruct all other sources that don't compare them because they don't think that this is a relevant issue. XX Sdruvss 14:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• I keep that your citations are wrong: AW and NYT don't say that "crew acted properly". Please, the citation must be corrected. XX Sdruvss 14:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• I keep that the name of NTSB documents are wrong cited, they are not "Final Report". Their title are "U.S. Comments on Draft Final Report of Aircraft Accident" (Summary and Detailed). WP can not change documents title just because Sharkey's publisher changed their title. Please, the citation must be corrected. XX Sdruvss 14:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, we have two basic high quality primary sources in this case, NTSB and CENIPA reports. They were written by two professional investigative agencies, representing the U.S. and Brazilian governments, respectively. The NTSB report is included in its entirety as "Appendix 1" and appended to the CENIPA report. These two reports have been characterized as being "sparring" and "dissenting" by two high quality secondary sources: The New York Times and Aviation Week. Therefore, we must present an analysis, comparison and contrast of these conflicting primary sources by high quality secondary sources. That you, Sdruvss, believe that The New York Times and Aviation Week are tainted, corrupt, unreliable or unacceptable and therefore should be ignored, is immaterial. Wikipedia is based on high quality secondary sources interpreting and summarizing primary ones, and this article conforms to that standard. Crum375 (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

When we search NTSB site for "GOL 1907", we get this result:

1 related item(s) for this investigation:

1. Midair collision Final Report 1907

Abstract: OCCURRENCE: AERONAUTICAL ACCIDENT ACFT REGISTRATION: PR–GTD and N600XL MODELS: B-737 8EH and EMB-135 BJ LEGACY DATE: 29 September 2006 FINAL REPORT A-00X/CENIPA/2008 AERONAUTICAL ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION AND PREVENTION CENTER COMMAND OF AERONAUTICS GENERAL STAFF OF THE AERONAUTICSFR A-022/CENIPA/2008 PR-G...

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/brazil-cenipa/midair_collision_final_report_1907_english_version.pdf - size 6540388 bytes - 4/1/2009 8:26:29 PM GMT

As anyone can verify there is only one Final Report: CENIPA.

"That you, Sdruvss, believe that The New York Times and Aviation Week are tainted, corrupt, unreliable or unacceptable and therefore should be ignored, is immaterial" - I've never said that, and I expect your retraction. I want that they are corrected cited (they don't say "crew acted properly") and I have argued that all other sources are being obstructed just because they don't believe that is relevant the subject of these sources (AW, NYT) articles. XX Sdruvss 15:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

We may not analyze primary sources ourselves, per WP:NOR. According to one of the highest quality secondary source we have, The New York Times: "A Brazilian report issued Wednesday ... put part of the blame on the American pilots for apparently turning off cockpit equipment meant to alert other planes to its presence ... But a dissenting report by the United States National Transportation Safety Board on Wednesday put the main responsibility on the Brazilian air traffic control system."[4] (emphasis added) Note that the NTSB report was included in its entirety as "Appendix 1" with the CENIPA report. Another high quality secondary source, Aviation Week, tells us: "Notably, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) strongly disagreed with the Brazilian conclusions regarding the Legacy pilots' actions as a causal factor, noting, "The crew flew the route precisely as cleared and complied with all ATC instructions," as did the GOL airlines crew."[5] (emphasis added) On Wikipedia we rely on high quality secondary sources to interpret, analyze and compare primary sources. If the NYT and Aviation Week tell us there were conflicting reports issued, we need high quality secondary sources to summarize, interpret and compare them. Crum375 (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As can be verified above, we do not analyze "primary sources" (sic) ourselves. The summary above is a literal translation from Estado, one of the most important Brazilian newspapers, besides that there is a lot more. As can been verified above there is only one Final Report, but Sharkey's publisher didn't like it. As can be seen bellow I don't want to obstruct Sharkey's publisher, but only include what ALL Brazilian newspapers said of accident causes, and all Brazilians knows, but who reads only WP don't know. I just want to share what is been hiding from WP readers. XX Sdruvss 18:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• "That you, Sdruvss, believe that The New York Times and Aviation Week are tainted, corrupt, unreliable or unacceptable and therefore should be ignored, is immaterial" - I've never said that, I am still waiting your retraction. XX Sdruvss 18:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• I keep that your citations are wrong: AW and NYT don't say that "crew acted properly". Please, the citation must be corrected. XX Sdruvss 18:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• I keep that the name of NTSB documents are wrong cited, they are not "Final Report". Their title are "U.S. Comments on Draft Final Report of Aircraft Accident" (Summary and Detailed). WP can not change documents title just because Sharkey's publisher changed their title. Please, the citation must be corrected. XX Sdruvss 18:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The CENIPA report does not have a 'probable cause' statement, only several discussion-type sections, listing many contributory items, which are not prioritized. For us to promote any contributory item in their list over another, would violate WP:NOR or WP:NPOV. If all secondary sources were to create or agree on a brief prioritized list, we could use it in principle, but I am not aware of such a consensual prioritized list. There is one Final report document, published by CENIPA, which includes CENIPA's own report along with the NTSB report, called 'Appendix 1' inside the CENIPA document. The NTSB report was also published by the US government separately. We have high quality secondary sources telling us these reports are in sharp disagreement with each other over their conclusions. We need to use high quality secondary sources to analyze, compare and contrast these two reports, or else we'd be violating WP:NOR. Crum375 (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If Sharkey's publisher says that sky is "red", do we have to find sources which say that sky is not red, or is it enough to find sources that say sky is blue? XX Sdruvss 18:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If The New York Times (which is often used generically on WP as an example of a very high quality source) said that on a certain day the sky over some city was red, while relying on primary sources which also seem to be saying it, we could just say the sky was red over that city at that time, citing the NYT and the primary sources. If there are other reliable secondary sources which disagree with the NYT, and specifically state that on that day the sky over the same city was blue, we'd need to include them too and explain the discrepancy if possible (ideally relying on another secondary source). In this case we have two highly reliable sources (NYT and Aviation Week) telling us the NTSB and CENIPA reports were in sharp disagreement with each other. At this point, I am not aware of a single reliable secondary source which contradicts the NYT and AW, saying that NTSB and CENIPA were in agreement, or in substantial agreement, with each other. Crum375 (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As I thought, you are arguing that we must find a source that says that sky is not red. This is a very clever strategy, I admire you and I assume your good faith. XX Sdruvss 21:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sdruvss, let's try to stay in one place. If a reliable secondary source says X, and provides a primary source for it, we may say X on WP, citing those sources. If some other sources disagree, we need to cite those too. In our case here, The New York Times and Aviation Week tell us the NTSB and CENIPA reports are in sharp conflict, and we have the original reports as primary reference. We have no reliable secondary source refuting the NYT and AW, hence we can accept it an assertion, pending a reliable secondary source to the contrary. Crum375 (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"One of the biggest scams of our time has been the prestige of the press. Behind the newspaper, we see the writers, composing alone their article. We see that the masses will read and that share that illusion, repeated as if it were his own oracle" (Joaquim Nabuco commenting the press) XX Sdruvss 19:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure about Nabuco's examples, but in most civilized countries, in addition to the writers, there are editors, lawyers and publishers who are very concerned about the quality of their publications, and try very hard to review and vet all published materials, to help maintain their reputation. This is why on WP we focus on publishers, not individual writers. Crum375 (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you excluding Nabuco's country of "civilized countries"? XX Sdruvss 19:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Joaquim Nabuco lived in many countries, and among others was Brazilian ambassador to the United States. But he died in 1910, so his "evidence" of poor quality journalism is based on mostly 19th century newspapers, regardless of country. I think (hope) the press has improved considerably since then. Crum375 (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If you think Nabuco is talking about "poor quality journalism", you didn't understand what he said. Would you mind jump to next topic to we follow from there? XX Sdruvss 20:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Please explain what he said, then. And sure, we can continue the main discussion in the section below. Crum375 (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Learning without thoughts is labour lost; thoughts without learning is perilous" (Confucio). Think! XX Sdruvss 22:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Explaining" one quote by giving another is not helpful. Crum375 (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Why I would help you, if you don't help me, but I assume your good faith. XX Sdruvss 23:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to help you understand anything I have posted on this site. Crum375 (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand exactly what you said in this site, but I assume your good faith. XX Sdruvss 00:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In that case, you should be willing to explain anything you have posted here, so we can understand you. Crum375 (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this a Wikipedian game? We must have the last word to win? I am not playing games. XX Sdruvss 00:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not a game at all. If you make a statement here, and would like people to take you seriously, you need to explain yourself if someone doesn't understand you. To say: "Why I would help you, if you don't help me" when asked to explain your words, is not helpful. Crum375 (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"How can we understand each other if the words I use have the sense and the value I expect them to have, but whoever is listening to me inevitably thinks that those same words have a different sense and value, because of the private world he has inside himself too" (Luigi Pirandello). XX Sdruvss 01:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As I noted above, answering with yet another quotation when trying to explain yourself is not being helpful. Crum375 (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes... If you don't understand Nabuco, Confucio and Pirandello, how can I expect that you understand me? I'm not as good as them to write. XX Sdruvss 02:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If you are trying to make a point, you need to explain yourself with your own words, without replying by quoting others. Otherwise, people will not take you seriously. Crum375 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Sdruvss was confirmed to be the sockmaster of Herbmartin, Lmc9 and Wiki2wk who have all posted on this talk page. See: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sdruvss
Crum375 (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

A possible compromise

This talk page seems more active now than at the time of the accident. I figured, since I was also a contributor to this article, that I'd try to find a way to address some of Sdruvss' concerns (some of which I somewhat agree with). If there's any doubt as to the credibility of Mr. Pedicini or his connection to Joe Sharkey, whatever that may be, why don't we simply switch the source? Here's a similar story from Flight Global that references the same points in the NTSB report as the Aviation Week article did: NTSB: Loss of 'effective air traffic control' at root of 2006 Legacy 600, Gol 737 collision At the same time, since both reports (CENIPA and NTSB) are given equal weight everywhere else in the article, we could perhaps include a quote in the same format, from this article at Folha Online, one of Brazil's most reputable news sources. That way the equal weight is kept and there should be no debating the credibility of the source for the NTSB quote. XXX antiuser 16:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, both are good sources and I have already added them to the article. I'll go through them carefully, esp. the Folha, to see if anything needs to be added to the text. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree, and I also suggest Estadão FAB expõe falhas de pilotos e do controle that summarizes CENIPA report and is very comprehensive and complete. Although I think that should be allowed to go deeper into some issues pointed in these summaries, quoting the reports, of course. Sdruvss (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I know that it is against WP policies to talk of this subject here, but I wish you all, Crum, LSD, WhisperToMe and AntiUser a Merry Christmas!!! Sdruvss (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not against the rules (we have WP:IAR just in case it is), so thank you Sdruvss, and same to you and your family, and all the others. Crum375 (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The same from me. Hope everyone has great holidays! XXX antiuser 20:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to all of you as well :) WhisperToMe (talk) 09:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

To reach a compromise, I suggest this Final Report section:

Final report

On December 10, 2008, more than two years after the accident, Centro de Investigação e Prevenção de Acidentes Aeronáuticos (CENIPA) issued the Final report, describing its investigation, findings, conclusions and recommendations The CENIPA report includes a "Conclusions" section that summarizes the known facts and lists a variety of contributing factors relating to both air traffic controllers and the Embraer's flight crew.[1] According to Brigadier Jorge Kersul Filho, CENIPA’s chief, "An accident does not occur by just one factor. They are several factors combined" [reference: Deficiências no preparo dos controladores e dos pilotos do Legacy contribuíram para o acidente da Gol, diz relatório do Cenipa]. The causes of the accident listed by CENIPA are:

• 1. Failure to carry out an appropriate flight planning by Legacy's pilots.
  
• 2. Hurry to take off and pressure of the passengers of the Legacy, preventing sufficient knowledge of the flight plan for pilots.
  
• 3. Inadvertent shutdown of the transponder, possibly by the limited experience of the Legacy's pilots.
  
• 4. Lack of communication between pilots and controllers.
  
• 5. Lack of integration between the Legacy pilots and little experience in piloting this type of aircraft.
  
• 6. The air traffic control in Sao Jose dos Campos, Brasilia and Manaus, although providing surveillance radar, did not correct the flight level of the Legacy or conducted procedures for certification of altitude when they started not to receive information from the transponder.
  
• 7. The controllers did not transfer correctly traffic from Brasilia to Manaus.
  
• 8. Flight controllers did not provide the predicted frequency for the Legacy to communicate adequately in the Amazon region.
  
• 9. The lack of involvement of supervisors of controllers, letting that decisions and actions over the Legacy flight were taken individually, without monitoring, advice and guidance provided for the air traffic control. [reference: FAB expõe falhas de pilotos e do controle]
  
  

U.S. NTSB published two documents, "Comments on the Draft Final Report of the Aircraft Accident" (Summary and Detailed) in accordance with ICAO Annex 13, which were appended to CENIPA Final Report (Apendix 1 and 2), containing the following Probable Cause statement: "The evidence collected during this investigation strongly supports the conclusion that this accident was caused by N600XL and GLO1907 following ATC clearances which directed them to operate in opposite directions on the same airway at the same altitude resulting in a midair collision. The loss of effective air traffic control was not the result of a single error, but of a combination of numerous individual and institutional ATC factors, which reflected systemic shortcomings in emphasis on positive air traffic control concepts"[1].

The NTSB further added the following contributing factors: "Contributing to this accident was the undetected loss of functionality of the airborne collision avoidance system technology as a result of the inadvertent inactivation of the transponder on board N600XL. Further contributing to the accident was inadequate communication between ATC and the N600XL flight crew" [1].

According to some sources, CENIPA and NTSB arrived at disagreeing interpretations and conclusions. They say that CENIPA report concludes the accident was caused by mistakes made both by air traffic controllers and by the Embraer pilots, whereas the NTSB focuses on the controllers and the ATC system, concluding that the crew flew the route precisely as cleared and complied with all ATC instructions, and was not in violation of any regulations [1][6][7][48][49][50][51].

XX Sdruvss 16:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see my reply to this above. Let's not split the discussion into multiple threads. Crum375 (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• I want to reach a compromise, ending this endless talking. I assume you have good faith in reaching a compromise. XX Sdruvss 18:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have very good faith, but splitting the discussion into multiple threads is not helpful. Crum375 (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The text above meets all your requirements, but even so, we stay in this endless talking. The entire text comes from reliable "secondary sources" (sic). I'm still assuming your good faith. XX Sdruvss 18:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

All of this was discussed before, in the above section, and is still under discussion there. Let's not split the discussion into multiple threads, as that is unhelpful. Crum375 (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to keep this endless talk; You are repeating arguments. I want that you say what is wrong with my compromise suggestion. Estado is not a reliable source? AW and NYT are cited (correctly cited). Is it all wrong? I'm still assuming your good faith. XX Sdruvss 19:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, splitting this thread into multiple locations is unhelpful. Crum375 (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

May we follow from here? XX Sdruvss 21:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, as long as we stay here, and please try not to repeat issues which we have already addressed. Crum375

(following the debate...)

This is a strategy to leave us in a deadlock? Sharkey's publisher said CENIPA and NTSB disagree in one solitary article. No other source said they agree; you are right. Thus, we are obstructed when we try to include in the WP article Estado, Folha and Globo articles (all of them have even huge sections just to join all accident articles) to summarize the accident causes because none of them said that CENIPA and NTSB agree. We are obstructed to include the nine causes pointed by ALL Brazilian newspapers. Clever strategy, but I assume your good faith. XX Sdruvss 22:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No, there is no "strategy" here, except our goal to ensure this featured article continues to follow Wikipedia's content policies. We have two, not one, high quality secondary sources (The New York Times and Aviation Week), telling us the CENIPA and NTSB investigative reports are in conflict with each other. This means we must present these two primary sources as conflicting reports, unless we have some other high quality secondary source(s) telling us they are in agreement (or essential agreement), and I am not aware of any. Crum375 (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Unless we have some other high quality secondary source(s) telling us they are in agreement, and I am not aware of any". Humm... So, Brazilians that don't speak English live in the darkness of the ignorance! You're right! We should translate English WP and Sharkey's publisher article to Portuguese to enlighten us! We don't known GOL 1907 accident causes! XX Sdruvss 22:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times and Aviation Week tell us the CENIPA and NTSB reports are in conflict with each other. Are you aware of any secondary source, in any language, from any country, which tells us NTSB and CENIPA are not in conflict with each other? If so, please provide that source. Crum375 (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Eureka! In scientific methodology, as you should know, a null hypothesis is a hypothesis that might be falsified on the basis of observed data. The null hypothesis typically proposes a general or default position, such as that there is no relationship between two variables. This description is assumed to be valid unless the actual behavior of the data contradicts this assumption. Thus, the null hypothesis is contrasted against another or alternative hypothesis. If we test and reject our null hypothesis we should accept the alternative hypothesis. In this episode, we want to test if Estado, Folha, and Globo (EFG) argue that CENIPA and NTSB disagree with other. The null hypothesis (H0) is that EFG believe that CENIPA and NTSB disagree. The alternative hypothesis (H1) is that EFG believe that CENIPA and NTSB agree. If EFG argue that CENIPA and NTSB disagree, it would be expected to be observed in at last one of their articles that they would had said that CENIPA and NTSB disagree, but we cannot find any EFG article where they say that CENIPA and NTSB disagree. Thus we reject the null hypothesis (H0) that EFG believe that CENIPA and NTSB disagree, and have to accept the alternative hypothesis (H1) that EFG believes that CENIPA and NTSB agree. So we can scientifically assure that Estado, Folha, and Globo strongly believe that CENIPA and NTSB agree. XX Sdruvss 23:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you translate that into English, say in 50 words or less? We have two high quality sources telling us the NTSB and CENIPA reports are in conflict with each other. Do you have one single source, in any language, from any country, telling us that NTSB and CENIPA are in agreement? Or better still, just telling us anything at all about the NTSB report? Crum375 (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If none of the Brazilian sources say they disagree, only someone that is not able to think (not you) would conclude that they believe they disagree. This is not hard to think, but I assume your good faith. XX Sdruvss 00:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If you read our content policies carefully, you will notice that we have no such concept as a "Brazilian" or "non-Brazilian" source, only reliable vs. unreliable, primary vs. secondary, high vs. low quality, etc. In this case, we have two high quality secondary sources telling us the CENIPA and NTSB reports are in conflict with each other. Unless you have a reliable secondary source, from any country, in any language, which compares the CENIPA and NTSB reports and tells us they are in substantial agreement, we need to assume they are conflicting reports, and therefore present them as such. Crum375 (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what I said. If all sources don't say they disagree (H0 - null hypothesis), all sources assume they agree or it is a not relevant issue (H1 - alternative hypothesis) as Sharkey's publishers believe it is. We should block all sources because they don't say what we would like they had said? But I assume your good faith. XX Sdruvss 00:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Please point us to one secondary reliable source, from any country, in any language, which tells us that it has compared the NTSB and CENIPA reports, and considers them to be in substantial agreement with each other. Crum375 (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As you wish:
Relatório do Cenipa aponta erros de pilotos e militares
Aeronáutica culpa pilotos e controladores por acidente da Gol
FAB expõe falhas de pilotos e do controle (In my humble opinion, this is the best)
Pilotos desligaram transponder inadvertidamente, diz Cenipa
Cenipa apresenta relatório final do acidente aéreo da Gol; leia o relatório
Relatório sobre acidente da Gol aponta erros dos controladores e pilotos do Legacy
Relatório aponta erro de operação em acidente de avião da Gol
Deficiências no preparo dos controladores e dos pilotos do Legacy contribuíram para o acidente da Gol, diz relatório do Cenipa
XX Sdruvss 00:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you please quote from one of the above sources, where it says that it has compared the NTSB report to the CENIPA report, and found both reports to be in substantial agreement? Crum375 (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes... You are right... No one say a world about NTSB disagreement... All these sources didn't pay attention to NTSB appendix; it seems this is not a relevant issue as Sharkey's publishers think. Is this a reason to obstruct all these sources to be included in WP article? I assume your good faith. XX Sdruvss 00:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"All these sources didn't pay attention to NTSB appendix": We need a high quality secondary source which did pay attention to "Appendix 1", which is the NTSB report appended to the CENIPA report, and compared it to the CENIPA report. Since we have two highly reliable secondary sources, The New York Times and Aviation Week, telling us these two reports are in conflict with each other, we need to present them as such, unless there is some source which tells us it has compared them and found them to be in substantial agreement with each other. Crum375 (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Crum, be clear: you don't agree to quote any of those above references (from Estado, Folha and Globo) in this article because they don't mention NTSB. Right? XX Sdruvss 01:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Quoting" is not the crucial issue here. The point is simple, as I explained many times: we have two highly reliable secondary sources, The New York Times and Aviation Week, telling us the NTSB and CENIPA reports are in conflict with each other, so we need to present them as such, unless there is some source which tells us it has compared them and found them to be in substantial agreement with each other. Crum375 (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Crum, be clear: you don't agree to quote any of those above references (from Estado, Folha and Globo) in this article because they don't mention NTSB. Yes or No? XX Sdruvss 01:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As I replied just above, "quoting" is not the issue. We already have 26 Brazilian sources in the article, out of 66 total. And in the "CENIPA" subsection of the "Final reports" section, we use three Brazilian sources out of four total. The issue here is the top level presentation, and unless you have a source which tells us it has compared the NTSB and CENIPA reports and found them to be in substantial agreement with each other, we need to accept that two highly reliable secondary sources, The New York Times and Aviation Week, are telling us that the NTSB and CENIPA reports are in conflict with each other, and we need to present them as such. Crum375 (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If quoting is not the issue, can we quote them in Final Report? Yes or No? XX Sdruvss 02:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Quoting is not the issue because quoting can only be decided after the selection of the overall presentation and sources. At this point, you seem to be in disagreement over the basic presentation and sources, so there is no sense in discussing individual quotations. Crum375 (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

So, I keep my suggestion of the Final Report section above because I understant you agree with the text and it meets WP:NOR, WP:RELY, secondary source, WP:BLP. OK? XX Sdruvss 02:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No, not OK. The starting point has to be the basic presentation of the section. We have two highly reliable secondary sources, The New York Times and Aviation Week, telling us the NTSB and CENIPA reports, which are primary sources, are in conflict with each other, so we need to present them as such. In other words, the logical presentation is CENIPA, NTSB and then the analysis of their conflicting conclusions. Crum375 (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"No, not OK" = It is not ok to quote any Brazilian newspapers informing CENIPA conclusions of the accident to 200 millions of Brazilians. "We have two highly reliable secondary sources,The New York Times" = Joe Sharkey's publisher, "and Aviation Week" = Joe Sharkey's publisher, "telling us the NTSB and CENIPA reports" = NTSB "report" (sic) title: "U.S. Comments on Draft Final Report", 10 pages, "which are primary sources, are in conflict with each other, so we need to present them as such" = obstructing all other sources that consider NTSB comments not relevant. "In other words, the logical presentation is CENIPA, NTSB and then the analysis of their conflicting conclusions" = the way Crum and the "consensus" here allow to be, including wrong citations of Sharkey's publisher (Sharkey's publisher didn't say that "crew acted properly"). This WP article has became a not neutral unreliable source of information of the accident. I suggest to those who want to know accident causes and don't speak Portuguese, use Google translation and access directly reliable sources listed above. XX Sdruvss 12:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"It is not ok to quote any Brazilian newspapers informing CENIPA conclusions of the accident": We already include 26 Brazilian sources in the article, out of 66 total. The main Brazilian source, the CENIPA report, which is a highly reliable primary source, is linked and cited 28 times in the article. There is a good English translation of the CENIPA report, so English readers can easily access it by clicking on one of the 28 links. In the "Final reports" section, under "CENIPA" subsection, we have currently four total sources, of which three are Brazilian. This is an article with contentious WP:BLP issues, so we need to be very careful not to appear to criticize living persons unless supported by multiple reliable secondary sources. Crum375 (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"We already include 26 Brazilian sources in the article, out of 66 total", although not a single one describing the nine accident causes pointed by CENIPA. "This is an article" that editors wants to omit "contentious WP:BLP issues, so we need to be very careful not to appear to criticize living persons", hiding CENIPA accident causes "unless supported by multiple reliable secondary sources" (= only Sharkey's publishers). I suggest to those who want to know accident causes and don't speak Portuguese, use Google translation and access directly reliable sources listed above. XX Sdruvss 13:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think most editors and readers consider The New York Times and Aviation Week highly reliable sources. For those who want to read the original CENIPA and NTSB primary reports, they are readily available, cited 30 times in the article and linked to directly. There is a very high quality translation of the CENIPA report, prepared by CENIPA itself, so no Google translation for it is needed. For those who want a secondary source interpretation of the CENIPA report, two of the three secondary sources in the CENIPA section are Brazilian, along with one in English, and the original Brazilian CENIPA report itself. And yes, readers can use Google or Babblefish to translate any foreign source they don't understand and compare it to our text. Crum375 (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I recommend for those who want to know accident causes and don't speak Portuguese, use Google translation and access directly Brazilian news that summarize final reports. XX Sdruvss 14:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Sdruvss was confirmed to be the sockmaster of Herbmartin, Lmc9 and Wiki2wk who have all posted on this talk page. See: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sdruvss
Crum375 (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: I recommend reading Criticism of Wikipedia, my page, and search for "Crum375" at internet. I keep all I said above. As always, Crum is wrong; it's said: "If these are socks, I'm not sure who they would be socks of (whether it would be of User:Sdruvss or possibly somebody else entirely)". I don't see any of "my socks" defending any of my arguments. XX Sdruvss 15:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)