Talk:Aeroméxico Connect Flight 2431

Not "Rejected takeoff"
That nomenclature is incorrect and should be removed. The term "rejected takeoff" is to be used only when the pilot tries to abort the takeoff, while still on the runway. While we cannot say for certain at this time what caused the accident (though it does resemble a "microburst" type of accident, like the one that brought down Pan Am Flt 759 in 1982), it is clear from the first news report that it was not a pilot attempted abort situation. If it had been, then the plane would have either stopped within the confines of the runway, or it would have run off the end of the runway, never having become airborne. EditorASC (talk) 06:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. The pilot flying LAPA Flight 3142 aborted take off after the plane had lifted off the ground when it became obvious the plane couldn't climb. --Omega13a (talk) 07:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Not sure how you came to that conclusion. To the contrary, while the pilots were warned that an RTO was necessary, they charged on, ignoring the warning horn. "Investigation results showed that the LAPA crew tried to takeoff without selecting the flaps, despite an aural takeoff configuration warning during the takeoff roll. Poor cockpit discipline while preparing for takeoff and during takeoff is cited as a cause." EditorASC (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That was from a documentary about the crash where people involved in the investigation were interviewed. Also, using Google's translator, I was able get a crude translation of the official report. It says while the FDR wasn't the kind that records information about whether the thrust reversers were deployed or not but it did record the engine pressure ratio (EPR). It showed that the engine power went down before increasing which is consistent with what would happen if the thrust reversers were deliberately deployed. If the pilots deployed the reservers, they were obviously aborting the take-off.--Omega13a (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Infobox summary

 * Proposal: Change the "summary" field in the infobox at the top of the article to read "Crashed on takeoff due to low altitude wind shear, crew error, and air traffic control error"

has objected to my changing of the summary of the accident in the infobox at the top of the article, preferring "Crashed on takeoff due to low altitude windshear and pilot error" to my change of "Crashed on takeoff due to low altitude wind shear, crew error, and air traffic control error". Looking for feedback on what is a pretty insignificant change. I have discussed it to some extent with him on my talk page in the "Aeroméxico connect 2431" section, which I won't repeat here unless someone needs me to. Looking for feedback from additional editors. Also propose removing the wikilink to "pilot error" as MOS:OVERLINK and removing the reference citation which is unnecessary and also creates an incomplete, duplicate reference. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as proposer. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Against To much in summary, a summary is the accident ‘summarised’. The current summary is fine and should not be changed. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Need some help over here with a contributer making a summary into a sentence. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It appears to be saying to much, the final report says says the cause was the windshear causing loss of control so I would suggest that all it needs is "Loss of control on takeoff due to low altitude windshear". All the rest are secondary factors and these are covered in the article, we cant name them all. MilborneOne (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, the crew did loss control when they flew into the windshear, as if they didn’t lose control they would of be able to recover control of the airplane. What about pilot error though? If you read the final report it does make some clear statements. Although I do like you’re ideal summary. But overall i disagree with pixels summary but yours is something that has my attention. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

After taking a couple of notes, even if it was a loss of control, the plane crashed on takeoff so would it be classed as take off accident? Yes the crew did lose control but you need to make keep in mind the aircraft barley took off? So in all practicality the summary should remain as it is. I do agree with you Milborne, if it was later on in the flight I’d be 100%. But because it was in it's takeoff phase not to sure if I’d be up with changing on the start of the summary. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree with Loss of control on takeoff due to low altitude windshear. Should be a brief factual summary of the occurrence, no need to list every factor involved in the infobox. That info goes in the article main body. - Samf4u (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

agreed. Should we note pilot error on the end of that as well as there was without a doubt pilot errors, especially noted on the final report as well. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Number of passengers and crew
There were 103 total people on the board. The pilot, the co-pilot, two flight attendants, two Aeroméxico crewmembers deadheading on the flight (not part of the crew), and 97 passengers. One of the deadheading crewmembers (José Ramón Vázquez) was in the cockpit actually flying the plane just before it crashed. However, he was not part of the official flight crew assigned to the flight. Therefore, the infobox should reflect that there were 4 crew members and 99 passengers (including the deadheading Aeromexico employees). ASN says there were 5 crewmembers, there were only 4. Source: page 15 of the official accident report. I don't think I made it clear enough in the article itself that Vázquez had been assigned a seat in the cabin, but had been invited into the cockpit by the flight crew. One of the findings of the investigation was that the flight attendants apparently had not noticed that he was not in his assigned seat in the cabin. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)