Talk:Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907/Archive 5

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)
 * Note: I confirm all I wrote. "Now every one who, in the domain of ideas, brings his stone by pointing out an abuse, or setting a mark on some evil that it may be removed--every such man is stigmatized as immoral" (Balzac). X X Sdruvss 16:13, 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 Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard - 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)
 * 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 primary probable cause." [ref] "On the other hand the US NTSB review of that report concluded that this was the primary probable 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: Sdruvss (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 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, 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)

Note: I confirm all I wrote. "Now every one who, in the domain of ideas, brings his stone by pointing out an abuse, or setting a mark on some evil that it may be removed--every such man is stigmatized as immoral" (Balzac). X X Sdruvss 15:37, 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
 * X X 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. X X 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". X X 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". X X 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)
 * Note: I confirm all I wrote. "Now every one who, in the domain of ideas, brings his stone by pointing out an abuse, or setting a mark on some evil that it may be removed--every such man is stigmatized as immoral" (Balzac). X X Sdruvss 15:36, 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)
 * Note: I confirm all I wrote. "Now every one who, in the domain of ideas, brings his stone by pointing out an abuse, or setting a mark on some evil that it may be removed--every such man is stigmatized as immoral" (Balzac). X X Sdruvss 16:13, 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. X X 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. X X 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? X X 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? X X 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. X X 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? X X 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.”". 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.". 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? X X 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?" &mdash; 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"? X X 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. X X 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. X X 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. X X 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. X X 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. X X 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? X X 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:

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:

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) X X 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:


 * 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"). X X 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. X X 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. X X 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. X X 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).  X X 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. X X 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. X X 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. X X 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. X X 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. X X 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. X X 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. X X 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." (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." (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. X X 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. X X 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. X X 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. X X 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? X X 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. X X 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) X X 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"? X X 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? X X 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! X X 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. X X 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. X X 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. X X 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). X X 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. X X 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)
 * Note: I confirm all I wrote. "Now every one who, in the domain of ideas, brings his stone by pointing out an abuse, or setting a mark on some evil that it may be removed--every such man is stigmatized as immoral" (Balzac). X X Sdruvss 15:40, 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. X X X 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! X X X 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:

X X 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. X X 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. X X 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. X X 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? X X 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. X X 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! X X 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. X X 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. X X 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. X X 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 X X 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. X X 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? X X 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? X X 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? X X 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? X X 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. X X 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. X X 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. X X 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 and my page. I keep all I said above. If I have to repeat, I repeat. I don't see any of "my socks" defending any of my arguments. "Now every one who, in the domain of ideas, brings his stone by pointing out an abuse, or setting a mark on some evil that it may be removed--every such man is stigmatized as immoral" (Balzac). X X Sdruvss 15:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I keep that your citations are wrong: AW and NYT don't say that "crew acted properly". Please, the citation must be corrected. X X Sdruvss 19:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I keep that the name of NTSB documents are wrong cited, there are not two "Final Reports". Their title is "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. X X Sdruvss 19:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

References used in "Final Reports"

 * Reference [6] - Brazil Air Force, NTSB Spar on Midair Causes - Article signed by Jim Swickard


 * "Jim Swickard is Intelligence Editor for Business & Commercial Aviation. Jim spent many years in corporate communications at Rockwell Collins and FlightSafety International prior to founding a corporate communications agency serving aviation, high technology and financial service clients. He is a retired Air National Guard pilot, having flown the O-2A, F-100D and A-7D. He is a 4,400-hour Commercial pilot with Single- and Multi-engine, Instrument and Glider ratings". [reference].  CENIPA report says "The N600XL flight crew met the aeronautical experience requirements set in the Section § 61.159 “Aeronautical Experience: Airplane category rating”, also verified by the FlightSafety International (FSI-Houston-TX) where the Class D simulator training was conducted, in accordance to the prescription of the 14 CFR Part 142 – “Training Centers”.  In September, 2009, after writting this article, Swickard came to Brazil, invited by Embraer. [reference][reference] [reference]. The artcle doesn't use the expression "dissenting report".
 * And it is very interesting that Jim Swickard, a retired pilot that runs a resort in Alamos, Mexico is the aircraft "expert" to compare CENIPA and NTSB reports (sic). X X Sdruvss 23:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Reference [7] - Brazil Lays Some Blame on U.S. Pilots in Collision - Article signed by Andrew Downie and Matthew L. Wald


 * Andrew Downie is a Scotch freelancer journalist that wrote this article from Sao Paulo reading Brazilian news. He writes about any issue that happens in Brazil. He writes from Carnival, soccer, and wine until politics, economy, and business. He lived first in Mexico, where he became a journalist. Sent to Haiti by the Reuters news agency, worked with Larry Rohter. [reference]. Rohter published an article in New York Times titled "Brazilian Leader's Tippling Becomes National Concern", insinuating the Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva had a drinking problem that affected his presidency. The article's only quoted source for Lula's alcoholism was Leonel Brizola, a sworn political enemy of Mr. da Silva. The article caused consternation in the Brazilian press. Rohter's visa was temporarily revoked (and quickly reinstated) by Brazil's government, an event which overshadowed much criticism of Rohter's reporting. [reference]. Joe Sharkey is also a columnist for the New York Times. NYT is the single one and only source saying "dissenting report". As Crum well said, "on WP we need better sources than some reporter copying things from a press conference".


 * Reference [48] - NTSB, Cenipa at Odds over Midair Accident Report - Article signed by Richard Pedicini


 * Joe Sharkey describes Pedicini as "my correspondent in Sao Paulo". [reference] [reference] [reference]. Globo describes him as: “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, hat, and a mustache similar to Santos Dumont. "What better time to do a tribute to Santos Dumont?" he suggested. [reference]. AINonlie is a site open for anyone writting articles. Pedicini, who entitles himself as "journalist" have no one article published in any newspaper. He has only articles about the accident published in "open" sites (that accepts articles from anyone).  AINonline, accepts articles from anyone ("New writers should query the editor-in-chief (editor@ainonline.com) in writing (no phone queries please). Unsolicited hard-copy manuscripts are permissible, but will be returned only if accompanied by a self-addressed stamped envelope. Unsolicited articles from unknown writers sent via e-mail will not be acknowledged. Writers should read several issues of AIN or visit ainonline to become familiar with our editorial focus. Subjects should be related to business/corporate aviation, helicopters and regional airlines" [reference] Even being written by Pedicini, it says: "NTSB [...] authored an appendix to the final accident report", as I said. The article doesn't use the expression "dissenting report".


 * Reference [49] - NTSB, Brazilian Officials Differ On Blame For 2006 Midair


 * AeroNews Network is a kind of blog of a magazine. "ANN is the brainchild of US Aviator magazine Publisher and Aviation Safety Advocate Jim Campbell (right), whose brave efforts to bring constructive and honest information to the aviation industry are well-known, for all kinds of reasons". [reference] The article says: "In its 282-page report on the accident -- parts of which are redacted -- the American safety body says Brazilian controllers shoulder nearly all of the responsibility for the accident", but NTSB Comments (detailed) has just 10 pages! ANN also clearly says in another article: "Sao Paulo newspapers reported Saturday that the Brazilian Air Force investigation into the September 29, 2006 mid-air collision of a Gol Airlines 737 and an Embraer Legacy 600 has determined the probable cause of the accident. In a formal report slated to be released Wednesday, the Estado de Sao Paulo and Folha de Sao Paulo newspapers said Air Force investigators put much of the blame squarely on the two American pilots of the Embraer, stating they had inadvertently switched their transponder to standby mode. [...] Similar to US National Transportation Safety Board investigations, Brazilian Air Force investigations determine causes and recommend measures to avoid future accidents".  [reference].


 * Reference [50] - Turned-off warning device tied to 2006 U.S.-Brazil air disaster - Article signed by Andrew Downie and Matthew L. Wald


 * As the reference says, this is the same article as published by New York Times, reference [7]. Why is repeated the same article? Is it in order to increase the number of references?
 * Note: Reference excluded by editor. Perhaps their title is not what is desirable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdruvss (talk • contribs) 12:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Reference [50] - NTSB: Loss of 'effective air traffic control' at root of 2006 Legacy 600, Gol 737 collision - Article signed by John Croft


 * Reed Business Information Ltd, a subsidiary of Reed Elsevier, publishes Flight International. FlightGlobal is Flight International's website. It doesn't use any of the expressions "Conflicting conclusions",  "dissending report", "disagreed" .  Instead, the article say "The NTSB in its report comments says....".  The entire article is not about CENIPA report, but NTSB comments.  In another  article they recognize what I said several times: "In an appendix to the Brazilian investigation agency Cenipa's final report into the 29 September 2006 fatal mid-air collision between an Embraer Legacy 600 business jet and a Gol Transportes Aéreos Boeing 737-800 over the Amazon, the US National Transportation Safety Board said...". But Flight International commits gross errors on their articles. In this same article they say "Cenipa's verdict is: "The loss of effective air traffic control was not the result of a single error, but of a combination...". This is not Cenipa's verdict but NTSB on page 4 of  Summary Comments.  We can conclude that this article can be used as NTSB comments summary, but it doesn't compare it with CENIPA report, neither that NTSB reached at "conflicting conclusions". The only quote of CENIPA is "Brazil's investigation agency Cenipa, which headed the investigation, published its final report last week’. The article has no one CENIPA's conclusions. It is an article about a Final Report, that has no mention of any of their findings or conclusions, only NTSB comments. They don't use the expression "dissenting report", instead say "[...] NTSB in comments appended to the Cenipa report".  Crum demands that the source compares the NTSB report to the CENIPA report, but this one is all about NTSB comments.


 * Referencia [51] - Midair over the Amazon (new reference)


 * This is a very comprehensible article, and describes very well all comments of NTSB. Although it is a biased article and full of mistakes and citations that cannot be verified in CENIPA report, it is a reliable source. The article doesn't mention that FL370 to Manaus in UZ6 is "unusual"; it doesn't mention crew lack of pre-flight preparation; it doesn't mention that crew made use of a notebook for more than 40 minutes in the cockpit until 11 minutes after transponder being turned off; it doesn't mention that pilot-in-command was not in cockpit for 16 minutes before collision; it doesn't mention the clear conclusion that was the pilot-in-command who inadvertently turn off transponder, instead they say "Investigators were unable to determine conclusively how the transponder had been switched to the standby mode", raising discarded hypothesis. NTSB says "The collision avoidance technology aboard the aircraft did not function, likely due to inadvertent inactivation of the transponder on N600XL" and CENIPA says "unintentional change of the transponder setting". The article says: "While briefing his relief controller at 19:18, the Sector 7 controller said that the Legacy was maintaining FL360. At this point, the flight level display in the data block would have changed from 370=360 to 370Z360, to indicate that the airplane was being tracked by primary radar with an altitude sweep". This is clearly a big article's mistake. The transponder was turned off at 19:02, when datablock changed to 370Z360 for just a few seconds. Then after, the datablock started displaying altitude with great variation.  At 19:08 it was displaying 333Z360, at 19:21 396Z360. But overall, this is a very good reference. What is important is that this reference doesn't use the expression "dissenting report", and it makes it clear how biased is this WP article, for instance,  what the crew was doing when transponder went off, and a lot of other issues mentioned in the article.  The important is that WP readers want to know what was CENIPA findings, and don't want to read their 266 pages Final Report. The use of articles like this one can not obstruct citing all other sources that summarize CENIPA findings. X X Sdruvss 20:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * But what caught my attention was the following article of this magazine, "Investigation Turns Criminal (Pilots, controllers indicted in wake of collision that rocked Brazil)" written by Edvaldo Pereira Lima. Mr. Lima is a very known journalism professor and writer. One of his last books is about Airton Senna's life [reference]. I asked myself: why Mr. Lima is writing about aircraft accidents and legal issues if he is neither an aircraft expert, nor jurist, nor a lawyer? And, being Brazilian, why we can not find any of his articles in Brazilian press about this subject? Observing his curriculum we find a lot of his articles about aviation in international magazines (e.g. ATWonline, Revista Aerea).  Then we discover that Mr. Lima is a press secretary or press officer of many airline companies. He works for Interamerican Travel Industry Network, which mission is helping their contracting party to maintain a positive public image and avoid negative media coverage thru preparing and sending press releases and newsletters. Emirates Airlines, for instance, announces here, here, and here their new press secretary.  Now we can understand AeroSafety World article and many others.  I think that in WP we need better sources then those press releases. X X Sdruvss 21:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: no one of these sources said "the crew acted properly" as written in WP article. X X Sdruvss 01:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

WP says that Reliable source is, and the basis of its reliability, depends on the context. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process. Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion if they lack neutral corroboration. Widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. No other Brazilian newspaper, which are very close to the accident, use the expression "dissenting report" or highlight the "conflict". WP adds: The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them. Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. X X Sdruvss 12:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)