Talk:Air France Flight 447/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

A summary that describes the cause

Three years ago, shortly after the final report was released, a bunch of editors objected to pilot error because the report didn't contain those magic words. This despite the fact that the official report actually said that a pitot tube blockage shouldn't have wrecked the plane and spent most of its discussion of causes describing what the pilots did wrong. I just put in "Crash due to pitot tube malfunction followed by inappropriate pilot response", which clearly accurately sums up what happened. This is softer language than pilot error but clearly states that the pilots handled the situation poorly. It's time to ditch the terrible summary currently on the article. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Pinging previous participants. @Nathan Johnson:@HeyMid:@SmokeyJoe:@Gautier lebon:@Lfdder:@Martinevans123:@Dr.K.:@NickCT:@Samkass:@Moriori:@AndyTheGrump:@Kiwi Kousin:@JonRichfield: Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you forgot to ping a few couple: @LeadSongDog: and @PauloMSimoes: and @JonRichfield:. Fwiw, I think that the current summary is pretty good and this issue needs no revision. The lengthy discussions of the past have minutely covered all possible angles of the debate and nothing new has come up to change any facts. The status quo is perfectly fine by me. Also please refer to WP:TALKNEW where it is mentioned: "Don't be critical in headings: This includes being critical about details of the article." and "Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it." Therefore, I am asking you to make your heading neutral because the way it is now it is a not-so-subtle attempt at casting those who disagree with you in a negative light. Thank you. Dr. K. 02:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The report doesn't contain those words because they are never used anymore in investigations. They divert attention from what can and should be fixed, including external things which contribute to pilot behaviour (e.g. pilot selection, doctrine, training, testing, recertification standards, flight duty assignments, etc.) However, I agree the summary could be improved. It should somehow reflect the finding that airspeed sensing was lost, leading to loss of control and ocean impact.LeadSongDog come howl! 05:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: thanks for "ping" me. In that discussion, I suggested to include "...inappropriate control inputs", obviously inadequate. However, the refuted cause "LOC" (loss of control) is accepted by FAA, that assumes "LOC due to unreliable airspeed indications" in this accident. Some suggestions of additional reading on SKYbrary, for a possible consensual improvement in summary:

• Airworthiness (loss of)
• Loss of Control (due "false instrument readings displayed to the flight crew")
• Accident and Serious Incident Reports: LOC
• Unreliable Airspeed Indications
• In-Flight Icing
  PauloMSimoes (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, PauloMSimoes. When I see mention of pitot tube, I think of @Burninthruthesky: so we'd better ask him too, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Also invited Socrates2008 and htom. PauloMSimoes (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The former hasn't edited since November 2015, the latter since January 2016. Dr. K. 23:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Oiyarbepsy: OK folks, thanks for the compliment of the pings. I don't have a great deal to add to the updates so far. The article certainly has improved a good deal. I have added a separate section to this talk page, on the subject of ice crystals, but that is a different matter, so I am not dealing with it here. I have nothing factual to add to the article, and I am hesitant to interfere with wording that seems to have conventional and specific significance, so if everyone is happy with it as it stands, I will not make waves. However, I did struggle slightly with what seemed to me clumsy modes of expression, so I did a bit of rephrasing for clarity. However, I did not edit it into the article, because not everyone might share my taste. Instead I include my edits here. Anyone who likes to include them is welcome to use them. If not, no problem. Here goes:

Air France Flight 447 (AF447/AFR447) was a scheduled passenger flight from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil to Paris, France. The flight on 1 June 2009 crashed fatally. The Airbus A330, operated by Air France, entered an aerodynamic stall from which it did not recover; it crashed into the Atlantic Ocean at 02:14 UTC, killing all 228 passengers, aircrew and cabin crew aboard the aircraft. Unusually for a crash that caused so many deaths, this event was ruled neither accidental nor criminal; although the death toll in some previous crashes of commercial flights in that category had been even greater, such events are most uncommon; for example, between 2009 and 2016 no commercial airplane crash that was ruled neither accidental nor criminal, resulted in so many deaths.

The Brazilian Navy removed the first major wreckage and two bodies from the sea within five days of the accident, but the initial investigation by France's Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses pour la Sécurité de l'Aviation Civile (BEA) was hampered because it was not until May 2011, nearly two years later, that search teams succeeded in recovering the aircraft's black boxes from the ocean floor.

The BEA's final report, released at a news conference on 5 July 2012, concluded that the aircraft crashed after the autopilot disconnected in response to temporary inconsistencies between airspeed measurements from Pitot tubes. It was considered likely that the aircraft's Pitot tubes had been obstructed by ice crystals, and that the crew reacted incorrectly, which eventually caused the aircraft to enter an aerodynamic stall from which it did not recover. The accident was the deadliest in the history of Air France. It also was the Airbus A330's first fatal crash in commercial passenger service.

Over! JonRichfield (talk) 08:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@JonRichfield: See WP:AVIMOS for format of lead sentence. AHeneen (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

OK JonRichfield (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@LeadSongDog:@Martinevans123:@JonRichfield:Folks, specifically what do you think of my proposed wording, "Crash due to pitot tube malfunction followed by inappropriate pilot response"? I'm not trying to force my wording in, just trying to keep the conversation productive, BTW Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

No strong feelings. JonRichfield (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Although not pinged specifically, my opinion is that reading the comments by LSD and Paolo at least, "pilot error" is off the table, even if piped through somehow more innocuous wording. I happen to agree with them. Dr. K. 17:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we can call obstruction by ice a failure of the tubes. One could equally say the aircraft was misrouted through environment that produced the icing. Unless the report says they failed, we should not either. LeadSongDog come howl! 11:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Oiyarbepsy: - Think I have to agree with you. I've read a variety of sources on this crash and they almost universally seem to lay some level of blame on the pilots. Frankly, your wording seems non-controversial and in-line with the sources. Unfortunately, it seems like there are a few editors who seem to have issues with making any pilot error explicit in the summary. The only way to get around this impasse is going to be to re-do the RfC to see if consensus has changed. Let me know if you'd like help working up the RfC. NickCT (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, my objection is to wp:OR. If there's a source as good as the official report which literally calls it "pilot error" I'll be surprised, but we should report that. "Inappropriate pilot response" is not an equivalent term. It encompasses also (for example) the lapses in training for unusual conditions which seem to have been a factor here. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I think James Reason would probably agree with you. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@LeadSongDog: - Re "literally calls it" - WP frequently uses words and terms that don't occur verbatim in RS. Why shouldn't we here? Anyway, there are plenty of RS that do use the exact term "pilot error" (e.g. [1]). NickCT (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@NickCT: Please don't confuse headlines with substantive text when considering sources, they often are not given the same degree of scrutiny. Indeed, that source you link explicitly says "The report maintains that the pilots’ actions indicate they perhaps believed they were in an overspeed situation as opposed to a stall. According to investigators, the training likely undergone by the A330 pilots associated buffet with a potential overspeed situation, despite the fact that on the aircraft buffet is actually only experienced when approaching a stall." That is not describing a pilot error, but rather a probable training error leading them to act in accordance with their training. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

"Pilot error" is a specific term applied by technical reports investigating the accident. As such it has a very specific meaning and we cannot assign this to this case by just adding our own evaluation of what we think the official accident report says or does not say based on our interpretation of the report. That would be original research. The report by flyingmag.com is written by Bethany Whitfield who is the managing editor of Flying Magazine. She has a degree in English and she is also a pilot. But she is not an expert accident investigator and even then her report mentions "pilot error" only in passing among many other things and accident factors. We cannot emphasise "pilot error" under such circumstances. It would be a WP:UNDUE violation not to mention BLP. Everyone has their own definition of what they think "pilot error" is, which may not always align with what the expert definition is. That is why we should stick with expert sources starting with the accident investigation. If the expert accident investigators don't explicitly mention pilot error in their report no amount of layman characterisations can replace the verdict of the experts. Dr. K. 18:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@LeadSongDog: - Dude??? You really arguing that there aren't RS that use the term "pilot error"? Ok. How about [2], [3] or [4]. I could give you 100 of these.

@Dr.K.: - Just to be clear, you're placing your aeronautic expertise above that of someone who is the managing editor of an aeronautic magazine? Who are you again? NickCT (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@NickCT: I realize that "on the internet nobody knows you're a dog", but please don't call me "Dude". Are you really arguing that a self-published Cessna-172 pilot, an anonymous blogger at the Huffington Post, or a scandal-monger at the New York Post (apparently relaying a Vanity Fair bit) are more reliable than the official report written by a panel of expert investigators from multiple agencies and countries? The Telegraph piece written "By Our Foreign Staff" is slightly more credible, but if you read it carefully, it does not use its own editorial voice for those words; instead it reports on an unnamed source telling AFP that they were in an as-of-then-unreleased judicial report. Have you ever played the party game Chinese whispers (a.k.a. Telephone)? He said she said they said... Authority matters. The whole reason we insist on citing sources is to establish in our readers minds whether or not they can trust what they read here. If all we wanted to do was promulgate rumours we'd be just another internet aggregator. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@LeadSongDog: - Honestly, this sorta beggars belief. Ok.... let's continue then, Business Insider? Popular mechanics uses the term "human error" (which I guessing isn't good enough). NPR? Daily Beast? The Independent? Seriously, how many of these do you need? Your point about "Chinese Whispers" is shenanigans. These aren't blogs. They are mainstream RS. If the RS's whisper, WP does too. NickCT (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you're placing your aeronautic expertise above that of someone who is the managing editor of an aeronautic magazine? Who are you again? It is one thing to personally attack someone and quite another to attack someone because you didn't manage to understand what they wrote to you. On that basis, can you give me a diff where I said that I have "aeronautic expertise"? Otherwise, could you kindly retract this clueless PA? Dr. K. 20:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hint: You can't supply a diff where I claimed that "I have aeronautic expertise" because I did not even come close to claiming such a thing. The only thing I said was that the managing editor of Flying magazine has a degree in English and that she is a pilot, none of which makes her an expert aeronautical accident investigator. First, the degree in English has no relation to aeronautics and second, being a pilot does not mean you are an expert in airplane accident investigations, at least no more than driving a car makes you an expert in investigating car accidents. If you don't understand that, that's your problem, not mine. Dr. K. 20:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: - She runs a magazine about aeronautics. I'm guessing she knows something about the subject. Regardless, you may think you know better than the RS, but that's not really how WP works. Your opinion counts for nothing. The opinion of the RS counts for everything. NickCT (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

She runs a magazine about aeronautics. I'm guessing she knows something about the subject. Nonsense. Again, she has no qualifications, ergo, her opinion does not overrule the expert opinion of the accident investigation. Wikipedia does not reflect speculation by non-experts. Your opinion counts for nothing. The opinion of the RS counts for everything. More nonsense. Evaluating sources is routine on Wikipedia. I just evaluated the sources you supplied and found them insufficiently reliable. So did LeadSongDog with whose rationale I agree completely. Dr. K. 20:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: - Seems like slightly perverse thinking to say that running an aeronautics magazine isn't an indication of some type of knowledge about aeronautics. I mean, would argue Elon Musk of SpaceX knows nothing about rocketry. Odd...

Anyways, argument about individual sources may be fair enough. But the "pilot error" position is supported by a broad array of sources. Just apparently not the ones you like. NickCT (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

LeadSongDog and I have patiently analysed and debunked your sources and arguments multiple times. Yet you continue the same arguments while adding new personal attacks. I have nothing more to say to you that I have not said before other than you should consider dropping the subject because we have reached the point of copying and pasting our replies to you. And please no more of this annoying pinging. I watchlist this page and in any case this conversation has reached its useful limit. I am no longer interested in repeating my arguments to you just because you refuse to understand my points and you also want to proliferate your PAs. Dr. K. 15:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

You could just admit that you don't have a point. It would make you look smarter than simply claiming that no one gets you. NickCT (talk) 11:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It is ironic that you talk about being smart after the above discussion has proved multiple times that you don't get my points or those made by LeadSongDog. But whatever gets you thru the night. Dr. K. 14:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

 Comment:Graphs in BEA report shows a speed variation of 222 knots (255 mph; 411 km/h) in 2 seconds None known physics law, applicable in those conditions, can explain this abnormal deceleration, decodified from FDR. I think that the fact, being or not a pitot failure, turns plausible a summary including “Unreliable (or inconsistent or erroneus or erratic) airspeed indications, causing loss of control”. The investigation is inconclusive about pitot failure, not about inconsistent airspeed indications.PauloMSimoes (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping. The trouble with the proposal as it stands is that it lists only two of the six events bulleted in the final report. The report also goes on to list many possible reasons for those events occurring.

If we are going to describe cause, it needs to reflect the sources. After a very short look for summaries in secondary sources, I found this:

A deadly combination of pilot confusion, “warning system ergonomics” design and inadequate pilot training were responsible for the crash of Air France Flight 447 on 1 June 2009.

Maybe some inspiration? Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The use of that word "ergonomics" there seems somewhat awkward. But at least we are moving away from the "single cause fallacy". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

And this crap, all of this talk, is exactly why I don't even try to edit Wiki. This is why you can't attract new editors. People like me, who have a million different interests, who are great researchers (did it for work at one time), people who are eager and excited to help and have nothing better to do with their lives, look at stuff like this and say, "Why bother? Everybody and their dog knows it was pilot error (the tapes make that abundantly clear, but hey, someone at a flight magazine says otherwise), but somebody with an agenda who can Wikispeak circles around me is going to make damn sure the cause never changes." Go ahead, slap all the warnings down on my page, Wiki me this and Wiki me that because you know I cannot possibly hope to master all the arcane policies and procedures that you have. Revert me, threaten me with banning, condescending question my credentials, whatever. I really don't care. I'm fed up with that infobox and I finally had to say something. Telcia (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Telcia

Do you not regard it as sensible to enquire as to why the pilot(s) made errors? 109.145.107.35 (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

It's abundantly evident to anyone whose head isn't planted firmly in his or her rear end exactly why the crew made those errors. You don't need to be an aeronautical engineer or a pilot; indeed, this encyclopedia is not, to my knowledge, written for such experts, nor is it the exclusive province of snooty self-proclaimed professionals who are so desperate to exonerate their fellow aviation professionals and blame a company they despise that they would write pages of technical data to drive away and bully those with an opinion that differs from theirs. I thought everyone was allowed to contribute to Wiki, but the owners of this article have made it quite clear that under no circumstances will the crew be held accountable for their mistakes. Wiki me this and Wiki me that; slap warnings all over my page. I don't care. This article is just one example of the toxic tribalism pervading the site. I don't have the time or the energy to engage in pointless battles with pompous, self-aggrandizing little boys who parse words and spin facts to suit their agendas and massage their egos. Bonin panicked and forgot his training. Nobody noticed until it was too late. It's happened before, it'll happen again. Spout all the technical data you want. Shower me with vitriol and condescension and tired old sarcasm. It's not like anything I do or say is going to change minds that are already made up. I'm just a woman. What could I know about airplanes? I can tell you, as a former proofreader and copy editor (I spell it the AP way), that the suggested summaries are needlessly complicated and clunky. Again, though, I'm a woman and not a techie, so what do I know? ~~ Telcia (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The immediate cause of the accident was the handling pilot's failure to take his hands and feet off the controls when the Captain returned to the cockpit, sat down, and said "I have control". The other pilot instead continued to hold his stick back, thus keeping the nose high and the aircraft stalled, at the same time as the Captain was correctly holding his stick forward in an attempt to lower the nose and get the aeroplane out of the stall and back to normal flight.

As a result of this electronic confusion caused by opposite commands from the two side sticks, the computer flight system retained the elevator control in the state it had been in before the mixed signals, i.e. fully up, and so held the nose high as it had been before the Captain returned to the cockpit. If the other pilot had simply let go of the controls (as he was required to have done when the Captain announced "I have control", as this is a standard command/announcement used when a pilot takes over actually flying the aircraft from another pilot. When the handling pilot has taken his hands and feet off the controls he/she is then required to reply; "You have control".) the accident would have been averted by the Captain's corrective action with feet to spare.

That's why the accident report mentioned crew training.

IIRC, the "I have control/You have control" procedure was devised at Gosport.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.132 (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Notes

External links modified 3

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Air France Flight 447. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090611150623/http://www.sundayherald.com/international/shinternational/display.var.2512885.0.0.php to http://www.sundayherald.com/international/shinternational/display.var.2512885.0.0.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified 1

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on Air France Flight 447. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the templates below to fix any issues with the URLs.

I made the following changes:

EL group 1a

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=comm&id=news%2FRECORD060309.xml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news%2Faw060809p1.xml&channel=awst
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/world/europe/03plane.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://g1.globo.com/Noticias/Brasil/0%2C%2CMUL1180489-5598%2C00-JOSE%2BALENCAR%2BDECRETA%2BTRES%2BDIAS%2BDE%2BLUTO%2BOFICIAL%2BPOR%2BVITIMAS%2BDO%2BAIRBUS.html

When you have finished reviewing these changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

1, 3, and 4 are okay. #2 is not found as a url, or on web archive. (To be more exact, it's a soft 404 on the web, and absent on the archive). Mathglot (talk) 04:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Per instructions at bullet 2 under the red X, I queued the IABot as job 936 regarding link #2; this is my first time using this bot, so not sure what's going to happen. Mathglot (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

EL group 1b

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news24.com/Content/World/News/1073/27cddc2b46c04b558f783e845b6a4721/02-06-2009%2007-06/Mini-subs_sent_to_look_for_jet
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mar.mil.br/menu_h/noticias/busca_air_france/air_france-desaparecido.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091125230600/http://www.fab.mil.br/portal/capa/index.php?mostra=3262 to http://www.fab.mil.br/portal/capa/index.php?mostra=3262
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090624014556/http://www.fab.mil.br/portal/capa/index.php?mostra=3252 to http://www.fab.mil.br/portal/capa/index.php?mostra=3252

When you have finished reviewing these changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

• 1: failed; 2,3,4: good. Mathglot (talk) 06:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

EL group 1c

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090620122837/http://www.fab.mil.br/portal/capa/index.php?mostra=3180 to http://www.fab.mil.br/portal/capa/index.php?mostra=3180
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/world/europe/03plane.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110919041132/http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flight.af.447/pressrelease19april2011.php to http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flight.af.447/pressrelease19april2011.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.europe1.fr/Info/Actualite-France/Faits-divers/La-disparition-du-vol-AF-447-Rio-Paris/Vol-AF-447-ouverture-d-une-information-judiciaire/%28gid%29/227268

When you have finished reviewing these changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

• OK: 1, 2, 3. Failed: 4: redirected back to home page, cannot be found in web archive either. Mathglot (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

EL group 1d

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601e1.en/pdf/f-cp090601e1.en.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601e2.en/pdf/f-cp090601e2.en.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601e3.en/pdf/f-cp090601e3.en.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601.en/pdf/f-cp090601.en.pdf

When you have finished reviewing these changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

• All good. Mathglot (talk) 04:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

EL group 1e

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601.en/pdf/f-cp090601.en.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601e1/pdf/f-cp090601e1.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601e2/pdf/f-cp090601e2.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601e3/pdf/f-cp090601e3.pdf

When you have finished reviewing these changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

• These are all good. Mathglot (talk) 04:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

EL group 1f

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601/pdf/f-cp090601.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/66CbKcYzp?url=http://www.fab.mil.br/portal/capa/index.php?mostra=3308 to http://www.fab.mil.br/portal/capa/index.php?mostra=3308
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.webcitation.org/66CbKcYzp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fab.mil.br%2Fportal%2Fcapa%2Findex.php%3Fmostra%3D3308

When you have finished reviewing these changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Sidestick control issue

Please do not hide this very important info information in a note. Thanks! 181.93.170.92 (talk) 07:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Air France Flight 447. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140320122518/http://sibianul.gandul.info/magazin/violeta-bajenaru-declerck-romanca-aflata-la-bordul-air-france-447-4477852 to http://sibianul.gandul.info/magazin/violeta-bajenaru-declerck-romanca-aflata-la-bordul-air-france-447-4477852

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Aeroplane, airplane?

Could we just use "aircraft" throughout, as we do in the opening section? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Aircraft is preferred unless "airplane" is used in a direct quote. - Samf4u (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

And if don't we should consistently use aeroplane as this article is written in British English. Arnoutf (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware "aircraft" is perfectly good British English and has the advantage of being officially preferred internationally in aviation contexts. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Except in Air France Flight 447#Angle-of-attack indication, where it would be incorrect to refer more generally to aircraft. Burninthruthesky (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Why is that? Because rotary aircraft are excluded? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the BEA recommendation was specifically for "aeroplanes", not other aircraft. Burninthruthesky (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with keeping that instance. It's almost a quote. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Arnoutf, the trend since 1-3 months after creation is American English, and it's been that way ever since, less quotations and the odd difference here and there. I don't think there's any MOS:TIES issue here, so MOS:RETAIN and MOS:ARTCON would seem to point to AE. That said, if the community sees a TIES issue to the U.K., I have no objection, but it should be a community decision, and not imposed by an IP with an agenda. Anytime we can avoid the issue (e.g., 'aircraft') we should do it. The solution to the AoA case, is simply to eliminate the unnecessary verbiage and reword: "...and the FAA should consider making it mandatory to have an angle-of-attack indicator on the instrument panel." Mathglot (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Went ahead and fixed AoA sentence per above to remove airplane; feel free to revert/change/whatever. Mathglot (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

That seems to be a perfectly fair reword. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

" .... has the advantage of being officially preferred internationally in aviation contexts" - actually 'aeroplane' is the official ICAO term for a fixed-wing aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.9 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Could you provide your source for that claim? Sources such as this suggest otherwise. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

"Aeroplane" and "Aircraft" are both ICAO terms - the latter being a larger category that also includes helicopters. Definitions are given in ICAO Annex 1. Burninthruthesky (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I wonder do you have a link to that source? I think we can all agree were talking about a fixed-wing aircraft here. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Official source. Also, it's not difficult to find public documents using both terms. Burninthruthesky (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

So where the meaning of fixed wing is required, or where we have a quote or near quote, it will be easier just to use "aeroplane"? I'm just keen that we don't use "plane" or "airplane". I think the most common UK use is "aircraft". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I support the use of ICAO terms, including "aircraft" or "aeroplane" as appropriate. See WP:COMMONALITY. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The same argument applies to our article currently entitled Airplane. I have filed a move request. Burninthruthesky (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. A good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Fyi: Airplane move request was filed here; result was "Not done." Mathglot (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow, the power of GoogleSearch. In my book "airplane", just like "plane", is American English pure and simple. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Second and deadliest

I'm proposing a change to the last sentence of the lead, which seems awkward to me. Did you have to backtrack a couple of times, like I did, to make sure you got the sense of it:

It was also the Airbus A330's second and deadliest accident and its first in commercial passenger service.

I tripped up in various parts of this, including the "also" (also what?) the "second and deadliest" (okay, I get it, it's the second accident and deadliest accident; still had to read it twice). It wasn't till I backtracked right into the previous sentence, that I fully got it: this sentence is contrasting Airbus's accident record for this model, with Air France's accident record for all models. Finally, from a grammar PoV, if it was the second accident, then shouldn't it be deadlier not deadliest? Unless there were 29 other A330 crashes since AF 447, then it's back to deadliest again, but the sentence sort of leaves us hanging on that point. And was it only deadliest for the A330? I'd hate to think there was an even more deadly accident for some other Airbus model.

Is there a smoother way we can handle this? How about merging the two final sentences into one, thus:

The accident was the deadliest in the history of Air France;[5][6] while for the model A330, it was its first accident in commercial passenger service and second overall,[7] and Airbus's deadliest accident to date.{{cn}}

This seems clearer to me, complex comparison finessed, no backtracking needed. I've verified the "deadliest for Airbus" claim at the end of the sentence, but it required clicking a bunch of links and comparing counts model by model; would be nice to be able to establish that in one source. Mathglot (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Notes

Safe image

I found this on deviant art: https://www.deviantart.com/maggie-x-awesomeness/art/The-Pilots-of-AF-447-3-496480477 Should I use it? Tigerdude9 (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

No, and it has now been deleted as a copyright violation. MilborneOne (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there any way we can get permission to use the image? This is gold finding pictures of the flight crew OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why we would want a picture of the flight crew. MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Questionable edit re pilot dialog

This edit has added various unsourced assertions to the #Accident section. Other than the edit summary (Added more dialogue from CVR transcript) and one hidden comment ("<!-- direct from the CVR transcript.-->") there are no citations of any kind for dialog added (and removed) in five separate chunks. Even if they match dialog in the transcript, there is no verification that dialog snippets were added in the right sequence, adjacent to non-transcript plain text in that section. I would have reverted this edit, but subsequent edits have made the "Undo" button nonfunctional. The content of this edit should be examined bit by bit, and either sourced properly, or removed. Mathglot (talk) 09:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Some dialogues can be confirmed in 02:10:05 – 02:10:25; 02:10:27 – 02:10:49 and 02:10:50 – 02:11:30.--PauloMSimoes (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@PauloMSimoes:, thanks for that research. If confirmed, they should be cited. But beyond that, I have a problem with the quotations being woven here and there into the narrative of the story as they are now, because that's a kind of WP:SYNTH: that is, someone is making an editorial decision about where to place brief snippets of conversation within the larger narrative. Unless there is a source which combines the two, we must not do that. I would have no problem with taking all the snippets of conversation that are there now, removing them from their current location, and including them all together, in one section, without interruption by intervening parts of the narrative that are cited to different sources. But the way it is now, is not acceptable imho, and must be removed or rearranged. Mathglot (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Change Summary?

I was wondering if we could change the summary to 'Entered Aerodynamic stall and impact ocean due to muutiple crew errors' it mentions that the crew were the cause as they made multiple errors as listed by the Final Report, and the plane did enter an aerodynamic stall leading it to crash into the ocean. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@OrbitalEnd48401:, please see RfC - What "Summary" should the Accident have? and A summary that describes the cause Tks.--PauloMSimoes (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that, I have already read but, when I was going to edit this page there was a note beside the summary in the Edit Source. I wanted to ask if there was a dispute about what the summary should be. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@OrbitalEnd48401: Perhaps you would indicate where in the Final Report is the word "error" used in the sense you intend. I was unable to find it. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

In the report it does state failures made by the crew such as not ide identifying the stall. So I’d note crew error. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 11:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Where does it say that? In Wikipedia as elsewhere sources must be cited to be useful. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The report states a variety of crew errors. Link Here ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#CITEREFBEA_final2012 I think multiple crew errors should be added to the summary as there was poor crew resourse management i.e. captain pulling up on the cntrl column whereas the FO pushed down on the colum OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@OrbitalEnd48401: Nowhere does that report call those "crew errors". Please do not misrepresent what the report says. Terminology is very important in these matters. That term is very rarely used in modern investigations, and for good reason. If a crew is incompletely or incorrectly trained, then the training needs correction. Calling it a "crew error" or "pilot error" takes the onus for correction away from those who must learn, apply, and teach the lessons learned in order to make future operations safer. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

What would it be classed as? The summary doesn’t explain the prior causes, whereas others include example such as: spatial disorientation. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Page 17 of the report lists the sequence of key events, but it is too lengthy for the infobox. The third bullet encapsulates it pretty well: "The crew not making the connection between the loss of indicated airspeeds and the appropriate procedure". We could reasonably paraphrase this as "Crew did not identify the correct procedure after airspeed indication was lost." That wording does not imply that they had been properly trained in the correct procedure for the circumstance.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

So crew training error is another factor? Or crew resource management? OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

After re-reading your post, Could it be pilot error as they failed to moniter their altimeter, or CRM as none of the pilots worked together properly from reading CVR transcripts and reports? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrbitalEnd48401 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@OrbitalEnd48401: The key words in your last comment, are: "Could it be...[X].. or [Y]..." Entries in the article must be based on verifiable citations to reliable sources, as I'm sure you know. Speculation about what it could be is inappropriate here, per WP:TALK: discussions on Talk pages should be aimed at how to improve the article, not on speculation or general discussion about the topic. I think your original post at the top of this section is well within Talk policy, and was fine. But somewhere along the way, as it devolved more into, "Could it be this?" or "Could it be that?" it started to become more of a meandering, general speculation about the topic, and that is inappropriate for the Talk page, per WP:NOTFORUM. If you still have a specific comment or question to raise that relates directly to how to improve the article, you're more than welcome to do so. But to the extent that you're just curious about the topic in general, please don't raise that kind of question or comment here; instead, you can do that at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. Thanks for your understanding, Mathglot (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Right?? Well not to be rude but I don’t really care anymore because oh it’s been two months since I left that comment. I already know and I don’t need the thanks.

OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Comparing flight 771 to AF447

I have moved the following discussion from my talkpage so that other editors can chime in. This discussion involves this revert. Dr. K. 20:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Start of user talk discussion

Air France Flight 447

I was going to verify that citation, but I'm not the best at source editing. Tigerdude9 (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a tricky analogy with flight 447. Because for flight 447 there was no verdict of pilot error in the official investigation, as in the flight you try to compare it to. So, even if you have a source that says what you wrote, we go by the official investigation report of AF447, not by the opinion of the source, when it comes to calling it pilot error, or faulty crew cooperation etc.. Dr. K. 02:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you that it's tricky, yet the investigators of Afrqiyah Airways flight 771 stated that the crew failed to monitor their flight path and made different with the side-sticks too quickly, similar to flight 447 and it even brings up fatigue, as flight 771 pilot's all had less than 244 of rest before the flight (I might have failed to notice how much the crew of flight 447 slept, and no, I'm not editing the fatigue section of flight 447). If I can revert your edit (which I will only do if I have your permission) I should state that "just like 447, the crew of flight 771 failed to monitor their flight path properly and made opposite inputs to the side stick at the same time." To be honest I think I need to read the investigations of these crashes some more as I sometimes read (and sometimes type) too fast. Tigerdude9 (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has to go to the talkpage of AF447 along with your proposal, including quotes from the investigation of 771 comparing 447 to 771. Your quote from the investigation report of 771 must show that the statement "just like 447, the crew of flight 771 failed to monitor their flight path properly and made opposite inputs to the side stick at the same time." is included in the investigation report of 771 and it should not be your own conclusion. If the quote is your conclusion, it is WP:OR and it will not be added to the AF447 article. But I don't think the investigators of flight 771 can make conclusions about AF447 in any case, because they did not investigate AF447. I will copy this discussion to the AF447 talkpage so that other editors can give their opinion. Dr. K. 20:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

End of user talk discussion

• Comment As I suspected, the final report of Afriqiyah Flight 771 does not have a single mention of AF447. Therefore, the conclusion proposed: "just like 447, the crew of flight 771 failed to monitor their flight path properly and made opposite inputs to the side stick at the same time.", is the conclusion of the proposing editor, and as such it is WP:OR. Dr. K. 20:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I cant really see that it is relevant to this accident. MilborneOne (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Thank you MilborneOne. Dr. K. 22:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree. A strong secondary source would be needed. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

That strong secondary source can be the LYCAA's final report on flight 771, and/or the sources in the "accident desciption" section of the article on flight 771. Tigerdude9 (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Are we missing something, I cant see any mention of Air France in the LYCAA report. MilborneOne (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think Tigerdude9 has read my comment above, stating that the LYCAA report makes no mention of AF447, and that his proposed addition is WP:OR. Also the Afriqiya 771 article makes no mention that 447 is comparable to flight 771. I think this editor is not getting the idea of what constitutes original research. Dr. K. 21:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• Same aircraft type, similar time, similar pilot confusion involving stick input and communication. Surely a reliable source has commented? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• None has been submitted as yet making any comparisons. Dr. K. 22:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• There are some glaring similarities and differences. I cannot quickly even find a blog discussing. If a reputable source is found, the place to cover it would be Airbus_A330#Accidents_and_incidents, not here. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• I agree. Dr. K. 23:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

This article doesn’t seem to link explicitly to that section. Would a link belong in the section Air_France_Flight_447#Other_incidents? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Not sure. I don't know what the practice is for other A330 accidents. Dr. K. 23:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, talking about this hypothetical unfound source ... The similarities go to the cockpit, the pilots and the controls, maybe visibility at the time of the event. These things are not particularly connected to the route. If cross A330 incident comparisons get coverage, I’m pretty sure that they belong at the A330 article, not the individual flight articles. I’m pretty sure there is no justification synthesising comparison here. I support the revert. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, a bit of unthreaded thought on my part. On cross linking I agree with you in being unsure. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

My proposal has been rejected. Hasn't it. Or I can just say flight 771 "crashed for reasons similar to flight 447 (despite flight 771's report not brining up flight 447)." Other than that, I'm about to give up. Also Dr., I saw your comment stating that I haven't read it about original research. Tigerdude9 (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

As soon as you say "crashed for reasons similar to flight 447 (despite flight 771's report not brining up flight 447).", that's already WP:OR. That "despite" means you are about to break WP:RS, and WP:OR. So, no. Not allowed. Dr. K. 23:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Them I assume I should say "crashed for reasons similar to flight 447 (although flight 771's report does not bring up flight 447)." I guess? Tigerdude9 (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

No. Anything along these lines is WP:OR. Won't work under any circumstances. Let's forget about it. Dr. K. 02:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, we will. I do admit that this was an interesting and discussion though! Tigerdude9 (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

original research and speculation about other flights by IP

The nearest parallel to AF447 is Birgenair Flight 301 which also crashed on a night flight due to pilots mis-diagnosing confusing messages from the flight instruments caused by a blocked pitot tube or static vent causing the autopilot to disconnect. The lack of airspeed indication in both cases caused an 'Overspeed' and a 'Mach Trim' warning, as well as a contradictory and confusing stall warning, that could have simply been discounted by the crew listening to the cockpit noise, which gets considerably louder as the speed of the aircraft increases due to the increased flow of air around the outside of the aircraft nose. The stall warnings could also have been partially-confirmed by the above method, the amount of noise in the cockpit, or rather the comparative lack of it compared to that heard in normal flight. Hence if the overspeed and Mach trim warning were erroneous, the stall warning was the one least likely to be incorrect. In AF447's case the first mistake was the Captain going to his bunk leaving two relatively-inexperienced junior crew members to monitor the aircraft at night, albeit on autopilot. The second mistake was in whatever training the Second Pilot received not instilling in him the need to take both his hands and his feet off the controls as soon as the Captain announces 'I have control', a basic rule of initial pilot training the world over intended to prevent just this kind of accident and which the Captain on taking over control from the Second Pilot would automaticity assume had been complied with. If either of these had not occurred it is likely the aircraft either would not have entered a stall in the first place, or the Captain could have recovered from it with height to spare as soon as he re-entered the cockpit. Both accidents also would likely not have occurred if they had been normal day flights rather than night flights without any external visual clues as to what the aeroplane was actually doing, as opposed to what the instruments seemed to indicate, and some of the crew think, the aircraft was doing, a factor that also had similar unfortunate results on Aeroflot Flight 593.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.68 (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Collapsed off-topic original research per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TPO. Mathglot (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

First officer

The article says that both the left-seat and right-seat pilots were First Officer. That's not how First Officer works. IAmNitpicking (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The captain was out for a nap, and the right-seat was occupied so the 2nd first officer occupied the captain's seat T.Man21flex (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)