Talk:Colgan Air Flight 3407/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Indemnification

At this edit the "allegedly" was removed from the indemnification assertion. Rather than force readers without broadband access to watch the Frontline video, we should consider quoting a statement about (or from) that indemnification language. It is also not clear whether it is even possible to indemnify someone against the consequences of a criminal act, (in this case the allegation would presumably be negligent homicide). A vigorous prosecutor might even take that very contract language as evidence of intent and of conspiracy. User:LeadSongDog come howl 16:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems like an unusual requirement but if you like, we can include a link to the detailed transcript of the show [1]. In it you'll see that in addition to an expert legal opinion on the topic, there's an exchange between Sen. Mike Johanns (R), and airline vice-presidents about changing their contractual practices so they are jointly and severally responsibly (instead of the status quo). This was part of his duties on the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Clearly, a Republican senator was concerned enough about this issue to ask whether the airlines in general are willing to change this practice. But let's first decide whether your desire for "allegedly" is warranted at all. Do you have separate evidence that Continental does not try to indemnify themselves in their business dealing with outside carriers? Do you know something that experts and a Senator quoted in the news show do not? Mattnad (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
That link to the script would be very helpful, and is a better reference than the actual video. I wonder why I couldn't find it earlier on the site, though perhaps it was blocked by my firewall. Don't misunderstand, I'm not overly concerned about the word "allegedly" in this context, though others might be. It was just that removal drew my attention to the rest of the statement. WP:RS only mentions video once, to the effect that if there's a reliable third party archive, it is usable. WP:ACCESS discusses images at length, to the effect that screenreaders should find Alt-text so that the article does not rely on visual access for understanding. Having a searchable text for the reference is even better, though. User:LeadSongDog come howl 21:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for supplying that Frontline transcript; it makes it a lot easier to analyze the many different opinions expressed in that kind of PBS agenda "reporting." I removed the entire paragraph as it was last worded, because it was not at all accurate in reporting the statements of Gordon Bethune. I think if anyone wants the Bethune Statements to be in this article, then it should be a verifiable word-for-word quotation (within context, of course), so that it will be accurate.

There are other problems with trying to summarize a program like Frontline's "Flying Cheap." It is easy to be very selective about which opinions (and there were many) in that program that should be mentioned in this article. It is my contention that to select some statements or conclusions, while excluding others that contradict those selections, is a form of POV. I think that has already happened, when the comments of Bethune were mis-characterized, and by leaving out the part about the average pay of a commuter pilots:

"ROGER COHEN, Pres., Regional Airline Assn.: Let's get the facts out on- on the table on this, Miles. The average salary for a regional airline captain is $73,000. The average salary for a first officer at a regional airline is about $32,000, $33,000 a year."

Additionally, the program clearly seeks to link this accident to the low pay of those pilots (implying that was why they commuted to their flying assignments). The problem is that Frontline leaves out the historical fact that commuting has been going on for many years, even before Deregulation, and was one of the "rights" that ALPA and APA won for their members, so that they could use cockpit jumpseats and/or unlimited SA tickets, to commute to the highest paid and the best quality flying locations. Many of the highest paid pilots in the industry commuted long distances, utilizing "pilot flop pads" and crew rooms, to get part of their rest, prior to carrying out their scheduled flights, in the same manner as did these Colgan pilots. That has been an extremely common practice for many years. It has always been the responsibility of the individual pilot to ensure he had adequate rest before beginning his assignment. That is how ALPA and APA have always wanted it. That long cherished "right to commute" was jealously guarded and management was never allowed to oversee the pilot during his commuting. I am not suggesting that we post all this in the article, but I do think it deserves mention here because it helps to illustrate why Frontline is a highly biased, agenda reporting source. Biased agenda reporting can detected by what the reporter leaves out of the historical picture, as well as by what is included.

Then, there is the issue of low pilot experience. That too is an out-of-historical-context distortion by Frontline. The pilots of today have much higher experience on average, than those that were hired by the Legacy Airlines during the 1963-1967 period (which was pre-deregulation). There were no complaints about that in those days. The unions loved it, because that expanded their membership and thus their political clout.

If any quotes are to be made from a highly biased, agenda-reporting source such as Frontline, then I suggest the only way is word-for-word quotes. And then others can help to offset Frontline's distortion of history, cause and effect, by quoting and soucing other contrasting opinions. EditorASC (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to quote it directly, but I believe your entire diatribe here, including complaints that the show was biased lacks foundation. See WP:SOAP. Anyway, do you promise not to delete quotes if they are not in keeping with your personal views?Mattnad (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
So, at your insistence, I added a lot of long winded quotes. Same info, longer paragraph. And please read up on WP:RS and WP:OR before you bring in your POV and edit out well sourced and topical content.Mattnad (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I beg your pardon? I am not the one who has been guilty of WP:OR. To the contrary, the one guilty of that is the editor who said the Bethune said something that he did not in fact say, and that first alleged that Frontline had found something to be true, when in fact it was a statement of opinion that did not actually reflect what all was said in that program. I refer you to WP:RS, especially about the part which says that citations should actually support the statements that are made in the article, that are based on that cited source. If you would try to make only statements, in the article, which are accurateso that the citation source actually supports what you posted, then we wouldn't be here in the first place, would we? EditorASC (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The Frontline Program

You removed valid comments that were supported by independent secondary sources. This justification by you, for that removal is not valid:

(→Frontline Investigation: Remove - this is classic WP:SYN. If editor has a reliable source critiquing Cohen specifically, then we can include it.

The statement that Prater did not offer statistical evidence to support his biased opinion, is a valid observation about that Frontline Program, which you insist must be discussed and included in this article. The statement, which you removed, that 2009 was in fact one of the safer years, was supported by NTSB stats and also by a reliable source article that discussed those stats. I was not critiquing Cohen. I simply provided additional information which helped to balance the POV that you insist should be in the article. EditorASC (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Given that the Frontline investigation focuses on this crash, it would be strange to remove it (as one editor has tried in the past). It's your opinion that it's POV, and even if it were, we need to abide the rules of surrounding original research and logic. The statistic you brought up confuses, rather than clarifies, in that does not address the topic of lowering costs by hiring less experienced personnel.
While the stat itself is not OR, where you placed it, and the counterpoint you wish to make is WP:SYN. By your own admission you have included it to counter what you perceive as POV. But a relevant counterpoint (if available) would be statistic that shows that Colgan employees are in fact as experienced and have salaries comparable to the major airlines. Instead, your statistic that shows an entire industry was safer overall in 2009 does not speak to the specifics of the ongoing hiring practices of Colgan and other regional airlines. You've applied what's known in statistics as an overgeneralization. You have also introduced a logical fallacy that amounts to "The overall airline industry was safer in 2009, therefore regional airlines are safe." At best, the stat could be used somewhere else in the article where overall industry safety (in 2009) is discussed.
Now here's another stat for you from the Frontline transcript that cuts to the quick, "Since 2002, the last six fatal commercial airline accidents in the U.S. have all involved regionals. In four of the accidents, the NTSB cited pilot error as a cause." As you can see, this fact is much more relevant to the issues at hand and focuses on regionals and not the entire industry. I'm open to comments on this but I'm inclined to remove your stat since it's really out of left field.Mattnad (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Transfered and continued from EditorASC talk page

Colgan/Frontline

Hi EditorASC, I did some more edits and reinserted some text up front, but instead of tit for tat editing, how about we work together on an opening statement that you think can capture the major thesis and content of the episode that's accurate.

Even if the show has a point of view (and it does), that doesn't mean we ignore it. And for the record, I'm from a state where unions have wrecked our economy and not afraid to state it.

What I liked about the Frontline episode is that they dug deeper into what may be a systemic issue that contributed to the crash. The NTSB has to be conservative (so for instance they say fatigue probably contributed to the crash, but they can assess how much so it wasn't in the Probable Cause statement) whereas Frontline can mention it. What's important for an article is to provide relevant perspectives. We don't have to agree with them to include them. Mattnad (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would like very much to work out something that works not only for the both of us, but which also conforms to the Wiki guidelines which try to keep out POV, OR, undue weight, etc. Right now I am busy with other matters outside of Wikipedia, so it will probably be a week to 10 days before I will have the time to work on that article any further.
For now, if you can be certain that any summarization of comments by any of the parties interviewed in that Frontline Program, is accurate and has enough accompanying information along with the comments, so the average reader can access the likely bias and vested interests of the person making the comments (for example, that the "attorney" who criticized the standard indemnity clause in the feeder contract, was the attorney for plaintiffs in ongoing litigation), then a lot of the potential problems will be headed off at the pass. It is essential that the view of any of those on the Frontline Program is clearly presented as OPINION, and not as if what they are saying is FACT, unless it really is FACT (like the statement that the indemnity clause that is found in all the feeder contracts and which has, in fact, been upheld by the courts). In comparison, comments about outsourcing and "low pay" which imply that either or both were contributing factors to this accident, must be presented as OPINION, not fact. That is precisely why I put in the comment that the ALPA President did not support his seeming allegation, with any valid statistical data.
I am sure you can appreciate why that kind of information is essential, if we are not to be accused of trying to use a Wiki article for COI agendas. If one person is to be quoted, that has a certain vested interest in getting his view out there (like the ALPA President), then it must be balanced with the view of someone like the President of the commuter airlines assn, which points out that the average commuter captain is making a fairly good salary. Above all, any comments that seem to conflict with the official findings of the NTSB, will have to be supported with citations from reliable sources other than the one in the Frontline Program who is being quoted.
ALPA has long decried "outsourcing," because it is a management alternative to having no choice but to cave into the demands of ALPA---that only their pilots should fly any company flights. Obviously, ALPA opposes outsourcing, because it sometimes reduces the amount of their own membership, as well as reduces the amount of pay and benefits it can get for its members. But, when ALPA and other Legacy airline unions try to cast that "outsourcing" issue as a SAFETY issue, then they are on very thin ice. I know of no valid statistical studies which show that outsourcing has increased the risk of flying or reduced alleged "margins of safety." Without such non-biased, objective evidence, we at Wiki must be very careful about how much weight we give to opinions that outsourcing was a contributing factor in that accident. In fact, one could make a pretty good argument that it was not a case of outsourcing at all, since the Colgan pilots ARE ALPA pilots.
I will get back to that article as soon as I can. EditorASC (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
If you're going to introduce your counterpoint to the frontline section, please provide a relevant source otherwise it constitutes orginal research and will be removed. Thanks. Mattnad (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
???? I have no idea what you mean. You'll have to clarify, if I am to provide an intelligent response. EditorASC (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure. I've been editing Wikipedia for a while so what's obvious to me may not be to others. You have added your own editorial commentary to the section in addition to what was covered in the Frontline episode. So for instance, citing a statistic that air travel is safer than any other time in history is your comment that a) needs a citation, and b) needs to be connected to the Frontline investigation by a reliable source (see WP:RS). I'll add that it's an irrelevant stat since Frontline was focusing on the regional airlines and not the overall industry. A more telling stat is what portion of fatal accidents were with regional airlines (which you left out even though it's quoted in the Frontline episode). Likewise, your comment that the plaintiff's attorney interpretation was financially motivated is your opinion (as far as I can tell) and needs a source - otherwise it's OR (or really just your opinion). What you are doing, aside from advancing your own POV under the guise of NPOV, is at best WP:SYN. There are other examples in what you have done but I think I've made my point.
It's our job to cover what has been said/written. It's not our job to insert our opinions and bring up unrelated facts to counter something we personally don't agree with. Mattnad (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, since it appears that we are headed for an OK Corral Shootout, I think it best that this be coppied to the Colgan talk page, so that when any Admins are called in, they will have a comprehensive picture of how this dispute began and then developed. I will give you my answer [there]
EditorASC (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
============

OK, here is my answer to your latest comments:

First of all, your statement that “So for instance, citing a statistic that air travel is safer than any other time in history is your comment that a) needs a citation, and b) needs to be connected to the Frontline investigation by a reliable source (see WP:RS).” is not accurate. In fact I said “2009 proved to be one of the safer years for airline passengers.[1][2] Please don't do the straw man argument bit on me. If you want to refute something I said, then be sure you are accurately quoting what I said.

That statistic is relevant and valid, after your POV sources have tried to make a case that outsourcing operates in derogation of airline safety. What has actually happened, during the years in which outsourcing has increased, is highly relevant. The statement was factual, and it was supported with two WP:RS. The stats from the NTSB have always been among the very highest of WP:RS. Don't remove that again. If you do, then the entire FP comments will have to be taken back to the one-sentence statement about that program, which was all that was required to allow it to be in the list of reactions to the crash.

It is one of those facts that is obvious to all, that any attorney that is using public media, while acting as an attorney for plaintiffs in a lawsuit, is only going to present opinions which would be likely to help the case they are being paid to process. It isn't necessary to prove the obvious. Any lawyer which would speak publicly against the best interests of his clients, while getting paid to represent them, would be laying himself open for disbarment. The fact that she is a lawyer, representing plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Colgan, makes anything she says highly suspect. That makes it valid to point out the likely bias of the source, so long as you insist upon it being there. Of course, if you would prefer to remove her comments entirely, then that would solve the problem.

To begin with, I didn't think it proper that the Frontline Program (FP) be included in the article at all. For the same reason that PPRune and other such pilot forums are not recognized as WP:RS: They contain a lot of political agenda opinions about airline safety, accidents and incidents. In other words, most of those writing in such forums have strong axes to grind and that makes such sources unacceptable as WP:RS, for the purposes of accident articles like this. FP has the same kind of a problem: It has long been a political agenda program. It sets out to convince the public that certain opinions of certain selected parties, support its particular views on a given issue. In this particular FP, it sets out to “prove” that airline safety is and has been sacrificed by the process of “outsourcing,” which in the context of that program, means that big airlines contract out to smaller airlines, to supply them with passengers on the smaller route structures.

But, you insisted that a discussion about the FP had to be part of the article. So, in an effort to compromise, I began to work with you on allowing it in, in a way that would not grossly violate the usual Wiki POV, RS and other relevant standards. From the beginning, the way you first inserted the FP commentary, had very real problems.

The first reference to the FP, showed up as a one sentence reference, [here], as part of a list in the “Reactions” secton. “The PBS program Frontline, examined the crash and the safety record of Colgan Air in its segment titled, Flying Cheap[1]“ That was OK, for the purpose of adding it to the list of reactions to that accident.

Then, you began to expand on that one-liner [here]. “The PBS program Frontline, examined the crash and the safety record of Colgan Air in its segment titled, Flying Cheap. The news show noted that Continental airlines, and other large carriers, have developed regional airlines to help lower costs by reducing experience requirements of their employees. While lowering costs, the major airlines have also indemnified themselves from the legal risks associated with mechanical safety and pilot training. [1]“ And, that phrasing introduced your first POV: Namely that you referred to the FP as a “News Show.”

To the contrary, it was an editorial show, designed to convince the public of its particular view of the Colgan accident, as well its view of the “issue” of “outsourcing.” It was no more proper to refer to the FP as a “news” show, than it would be to refer to an editorial from the WSJ, as a “news” piece. In addition, the statement of “to help lower costs by reducing experience requirements of their employees” is not a fact statement, but a typical union propaganda statement, which ignores the fact that the FAA sets the minimum required experience and training requirements for all Part 121 airline pilots, and that in fact, how far the experience level goes above those minimum requirements, is a function of the supply and demand of pilots, at any given time in history.

Anyone who knows the history of airline pilot experience at the time of hire, knows that market supply and demand is a major factor as to the experience level of new-hire pilots. In other words, to prove that the major airlines wanted to reduce the experience level of new-hire pilots, needs to either be supported by a proper in-line citation, or made clear that the statement is coming from one who is grinding a political ax, with a vested financial interest. Such a person deliberately ignores the kind of historical fact that the major (Legacy) airlines actually hired persons who had never flown planes at all, during the 1964-67 period (before Deregulation), because that would reveal that the actual experience level of new-hire pilots, is dependent upon market supply and demand, and not the result of any airline WANTING to have the least experienced pilots possible.

Then at [this point], you added this unsupported statement: “While lowering costs, the Continental also indemnified themselves from the legal risks associated with Colgan's deficient mechanical safety and pilot training." [66] That is a highly POV statement, which did not have any valid WP:RS source to support it. It amounted to a political agenda opinion of some who were interviewed in that program. If outsourcing was the cause of ALLEGED maintenance deficiencies at Colgan, then what was the cause of the FACTUAL maintenance deficiencies at AMR, which led to the crash of American Airlines Flight 191?

That is when I first intervened in a very limited way, by inserting the word “alleged.” [here]

You then removed the “alleged” word, but without giving the Actual name of the person who said it, and why that particular person constituted a WP:RS. [here]

You then responded [here], by saying “In the episode, Gordon Bethune (Former CEO of Continental Airlines) stated that Continental airlines, and other large carriers, have developed regional airlines to help lower costs by reducing experience requirements of their employees. While lowering costs, Continental also indemnified itself from the legal risks associated with Colgan's deficient mechanical safety and pilot training. [66].

There was one problem with that: Bethune said no such thing. I don't know if you innocently screwed it up, or if the misquote was intentional, but in fact, he did not say that. That left me no choice but to remove the entire statement, since it was not a true characterization of what Bethune said. [here]

Then, instead of you correcting your erroneous statement about what Bethune actually said, you just put it back in, [here]

Then, [here] you finally corrected the grossly distorted statement of what Bethune actually said. But, after quoting him accurately (finally!), you left in the unsourced statement about Colgan's alleged “deficient mechanical safety and pilot training.” Again, highly POV on your part. You don't have to make the statement yourself, for it to be unsupported POV. You can do it the way you did, simply by alleging that someone else said it, without even saying who, nor if they are a WP:RS.

[Then], you inserted this: A lawyer on the show stated, "What people think is because- in the case of the Buffalo crash, because "Continental" is painted on the door of the plane, they think that Continental is responsible. In fact, their contract with their code share carriers say that the code share carrier, the- the contracting carrier, the Colgan of the world, is absolutely completely and totally responsible for the safety of the operation of that flight. And by the way, if something goes wrong with that flight, Colgan has to indemnify Continental."[69] But, no identification of who the attorney was, or that she was representing the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Colgan. Again, you left in the unsourced statement about Colgan's alleged “deficient mechanical safety and pilot training.”

Since you refused to correct that, it became necessary for me to use a lot of my time, to correct the record about who said what in that program, [here].

You then proceeded to change the title to that section to “Frontline Expose”. Highly improper, for obvious reasons, [here]. That forced me to remove that highly POV line title, [here].

It then became necessary for me to remove more weasel word POV statements that were again, unsourced. I remind you that the FP did not say anything, as you alleged. Only individual persons, that were talking during the course of that program, said anything. If you want to use any of their statements, then you must identify them as well as assure that you quote them or summarize them ACCURATELY. And, if you insist upon putting in statements that amount to unsupported POV, they will have to either be removed, or balanced with additional information, so that the reader can surmise that it is opinion that is likely to be motivated by invested interest bias, instead of a statement of known fact, coming from an objective WP:RS source.[| here]

You then inserted a new title for the FP: “Frontline Investigation” , again to make it look like a legitimate source, instead of the POV editorial program that it really was. [here]

You then went on to remove my counter balance statement to what Prater said. That was improper, because it was a statement of fact. Prater did not offer any valid evidence to back up his contention, and the year of that accident was one of the safer ones, is also documented fact by a WP:RS (the NTSB). Actual known safety stats are highly relevant to any arguments that the structure of airline outsourcing contracts acts in derogation of airline safety [here]. If you want the Prater POV in, then those counter balance FACTUAL statements will have to be in too, to achieve a neutral balance in the article. If you delete that again, then I will have to remove the Prater statement, because it is classic, unsupported, political agenda POV.

You then revised again, to say that “A PBS program Frontline investigated the safety issues associated with outsourcing.” [here] Again, POV. The way that is worded, makes it look like there are IN FACT “safety issues” generated by the process of “outsourcing.” What valid, objective, statistical studies can you cite to support such a contention? Some one on the FP saying that, does not automatically make it so. If the accident and fatality rate continues to decline, however slowly, over a period of years, then how can it be an objective statement that outsourcing acts in derogation of airline safety? If the accident rate was higher in years past (including the larger carriers), when there wasn't as much outsourcing, then on what basis is that allegation made? And, the issues that were examined by the NTSB (but not cited as contributory factors), were not also the same kind of issues found in other airline crashes, when outsourcing was not present? If you think that, then it is evident you haven't done your homework.

I am willing to work with you on how to improve specific statements in the FP part of the Reactions section. But, as I said before, POV from self-interested parties on that program must be balanced with information which provides a balanced, neutral point of view. That is official Wiki policy. If you continue to remove valid statements which accomplish that Wiki policy, then we will have to remove all but the original one-sentence statement.

When you try to prove that the NTSB failed to find the "Real" causes of that accident, or that outsourcing ads risk to airline flying, then you cannot do that simply by quoting some on a polemic, political agenda editorial program like Frontline. You have to support such claims with independent, objective studies, which have actually compared accidents over a period of years, where "outsourcing" was found to be a direct or contributing factor in the accident, and then compared to the same kind of accident causes, where there was no outsourcing. I have been studying issues like that for many years, and I have NEVER found any such studies. If you have, then you are welcome to use them to support your agenda politics, but until then, the findings of the NTSB must really be the prime WP:RS upon which this article relies. EditorASC (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

So really, the issue for you is that you don't think Frontline is a reliable source. Perhaps you should take it up with the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Frontline does not dispute or disagree with the NTSB findings at all. Everyone agrees it was pilot error. But what they can do is investigate the underlying cause of the pilots' failure to follow their training and they do. I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm trying to add a source and capture what that source says. Your efforts to argue against that source with your own commentary is leading to a greatly expanded section - much larger that it needs to be.Mattnad (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Accidents)

I have decided I made a major mistake when I tried to work with another editor, who was intent on expanding a one-sentence reference to a POV TV program about this accident. Instead of enabling us to reach a reasonable consensus, it resulted in a massive violation of the rules for allowable content in aviation accident articles, found at [[2]].

It is quite improper to try to use a Wiki Aviation Accident article as a Soap Box for political propaganda, especially when it amounts to rank speculation that is intended to conflict with the official findings of the NTSB. To wit:

  • Speculation in the article should be avoided and only information from official investigation bodies, operators and airports should be included.
  • Care should be taken in information from experts and professional bodies with due regard to a neutral point-of-view.
  • With due regard to a neutral point-of-view the article should not include comments by persons or bodies designed to blame or distance those persons or bodies from actions taken.

Layout (Accidents)

I am therefore removing the section on Frontline, since it amounts to rank speculation that is to be avoided in any aviation accident article. EditorASC (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The frontline investigation is not in conflict with official findings and amply quotes NTSB and other relevant sources. Using these guidelines to censor wikipedia is not in keeping with the project.Mattnad (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you would do well to introduce sources other than Frontline in support of the inclusion of any Frontline allegations as per WP:UNDUE? JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sensitive to the undue weight problem here as well. What was a small paragraph got greatly expanded and does not need to be nearly so large or detailed. I'm of course open to more views if they can be found, but I'm also worried about editors putting in their own two cents beyond what's published in connection to Colgan Air.Mattnad (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Having just read User:EditorASC's observations in WP:RS/N, I'm almost embarrassed to have overlooked his link to the aviation accident guidelines in the first place. Those guidelines are rather clear and the Frontline hit job has no place in this article as I read them. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I should point out that Frontline does not disagree with the official findings at all, but does some digging into the broader systemic challenges that has lead to regional airlines being significantly more dangerous than the rest of the industry with the Colgan accident as part of the story. Since EditorASC has an issue with Frontline, here's a more recent Bloomberg article (and I assume Bloomberg is a reliable source, or are they also shills for the pilot's union) [3].Mattnad (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
It appears to me that EditorASC's issue is not so much with Frontline's allegations themselves but rather the propriety of their inclusion in this article given the "proposed" guidelines cited (whose "proposed" status I overlooked in my earlier comment). Assuming those proposed guidelines to have some legitimacy in their formulation, they do appear to argue against inclusion of this material. However, as they are not yet "adopted" (or whatever Wiki term for "official" guideline adoption might be), there does appear to be room for some type of consensus edit for inclusion (at least temporarily) pending resolution of the "guideline" proposal. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, so how about we come up with a neat little paragraph on the episode. I'm for less material on this. Even within the proposed guidelines, alterting readers that such a program exists (which also seems to aggravate some editors who seek absolute censorship) could be argued for. Mattnad (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I won't presume to speak for EditorASC but utilizing this Colgan flight article as an anchor for a Wikipedia presentation of Frontline's treatment which, I assume, is targeted at the communter airline industry in general and not Colgan specifically has some issues of fairness and equity that need to be hashed out as well. I'll retire to the sideline in deference to his further input. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It's been agreed (except by one holdout editor) that Frontline is a reliable source. It's also been noted that the proposed guidelines cited by EditorASC as justification for blanket removal off all mention of the "Frontline Investigation" has not been agreed upon. I have no objection to greatly reducing the section and I would encourage EditorASC to come up with a summary that captures the basic content of program. I have restored the section but welcome input to reduce the size. My only caution is that editors do not introduce their own original research. But what I would think is reasonable as a counterpoint (if needed) is an acknowledgment of Colgan's press release reaction to the program which EditorASC found. This is an example of relevant and specific information from a relevant (if not completely reliable) source.Mattnad (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Been watching this debate from the sidelines for a while now. I say cut the Frontline section to one paragraph that says something along these lines:
"The accident was the basis for a Frontline episode on the regional airline industry. Discussed in the episode were issues relating to regional airline regulation, safety, and working conditions. Also discussed were the operating principles of regional airlines and the agreements between regional airlines and major airlines."
I then propose creating an entire article on the Frontline episode assuming relevant third party sources can be located. The section as it exists is frankly obnoxious. This article should be about the accident, not a TV show. --N419BH (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
While I commend your approach in attempting to address both WP:UNDUE and WP:OR issues with your suggested edit, it still serves more as a means of injecting questionable allegations and conjecture into the official "accident investigation" equation. Perhaps a better resolution (and as you somewhat suggested), would be to transfer the Frontline content to List of Frontline (PBS) episodes with a "see also" link incorporated into this article? JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Looking at this further, that Frontline Wiki page I cited isn't really designed to host "synopsis" content either but more as a convenience listing of links to Frontline presentations. In the interim and until a suitable Wikipedia article for this Frontline content is found, I believe the "External Link" to the Frontline episode must suffice. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
An external link is not a bad idea, but I don't agree that we cannot provide some explanation of something so topical. While some editors may disagree with Frontline, there are reasonable grounds for inclusion. Is the episode topical to the article? Is it a reliable source? Do readers benefit from some explanation of what it covers to help them take the next step (if they choose) of watching it? I draw your attention to a much larger article, the 9/11 attacks, that allows for a section for conspiracy theories and a link to much bigger article. So here we allow wild, fringe ideas from anything but official sources . We do this because it's relevant and topical and do not pass personal judgment on what's allowable or not. We do not exclusively rely on the "official" sources and interpretation. So taking this conservative approach on Frontline, and apply it to the 9/11 article, we'd excise not only the conspiracy section from the 9/11 article, but also the deletion of the conspiracy article as well.Mattnad (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
There is no POV if all you mention is the topics covered. "Safety at regional airlines" is a neutral statement. "Safety at regional airlines is poor" is a POV statement. --N419BH (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I've taken your proposed language and put it in. POV worries aside, do a Google search on "regional airline safety" and you see many, many articles outside of Frontline that document very similar concerns brought up by the program. It's not a stretch at all to to note that Colgan was a wake-up call about regional airline safety including issues around pay, training, and fatigue. I encourage you all to do the reading yourselves and draw your own conclusions. And after you do that, consider whether we want to include other reliable sources with this part of the aftermath.Mattnad (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The statement, as now constituted, is a reasonable consensus compromise. However, placing it in its own special section, is not only unjustified, but constitutes a violated of the WP:UNDUE guideline.

"Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

Therefore, I moved it back to the "Reactions" section, where it originally was when the POV expansion started. EditorASC (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree: Prudent edit. --N419BH (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Frontline discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard

I've opened up a discussion on Frontline here -- Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Colgan_Air_Flight_3407-- since there is a dispute on whether Frontline can be included in the article.Mattnad (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Separate to the discussion of reliable sources, this whole section is about the program, not the crash per se. I'd suggest Flying Cheap as an article on its own. The show is also about the industry and uses Colgan 3407 more as a jumping off point for an investigation into the industry. Flying Cheap got a lot of press when it was first broadcast, so finding sources for that article shouldn't be hard. Mention of Flying Cheap here should probably be no more than one paragraph. My 2 cents. -- Flyguy649 talk 15:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah the program uses Colgan Air Flight 3407 as the impetus for the discussion, but it isn't about that but regional airlines in general. Canterbury Tail talk 15:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
No argument here on trimming down to a single paragraph. EditorASC insisted on adding a lot of detail, per his comment above in the indemnifacation section, "There are other problems with trying to summarize a program like Frontline's "Flying Cheap." It is easy to be very selective about which opinions (and there were many) in that program that should be mentioned in this article. It is my contention that to select some statements or conclusions, while excluding others that contradict those selections, is a form of POV."
He was uncomfortable with permitting what he perceives as a biased source in the article at all. So as a compromise, he started adding a lot of detail, but then went beyond the program to add his own counterpoints and opinion. You can see his defense of those tactics in his essay above after I pointed some of it out. I can't say that I was pure in my approach either as I added balancing content where I felt necessary and now we have a bloated, waaaayyyyy overweight section. I'm not in favor of wholesale dismissal of the points on Colgan made by a reliable source, but we don't need all of this bloat.
So if we can get back to a simple summary paragraph, I'm totally fine with that. Mattnad (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The phrase "In the episode, Frontline raised the possibility that industry practices may have contributed to the accident" is at the very least trite and is probably misleading in its attribution. The whole purpose of accident investigation is to identify and correct those practices that contribute to accidents. It is always a possibility, and most investigations do find contributory practices. I can't see what justifies mentioning Frontline as having "raised" the possibility. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

List of victims

I've reverted the addition of a list of non-Wikinotable victims, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Mjroots (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Pilot error information

With the recent edits going on by an anonymous IP, the term "pilot error" has fallen into general disfavor,[3] as it will impede the correction of accident causes. It is an oversimplification which tends to gloss over the contributing human factors which lead to the critical error or errors. In this case aircraft design and training standards appear to have been such contributing human factors. The use of the term "pilot error" can also cause conflict between the goals of accident investigation and those of legal attribution of responsibility under the Warsaw Convention.[4] As such, the accident report never uses the pilot error term as a reason for the accident and it is not up to us to second-guess the report. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "2009 a safe year".
  2. ^ "NTSB Accident Statistics 1990 through 2009".
  3. ^ Risk Management Handbook FAA
  4. ^ Menno Sjoerd Kamminga. The Aircraft Commander in Commercial Air Transportation. p. 101.
How do reliable sources categorize this particular accident. I understand your points regarding FAA investigative guidelines, but this is an encyclopedia rather than a government organization.Mattnad (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I know, but my concern is that the "pilot error" term might not be used in the article since the official NTSB report does not mention "pilot error." However, the low airspeed led to the chain of events of the crash. In order to not start an edit war, I'm going to discuss the matter here and probably get a consensus on the matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to reconcile your concern with these reliable sources (quotes included)
I think it's reasonable to include the category, even though there were other contributing factors such as training, industry practices, and crew fatigue. Few accidents happen due to a single issue, but we're just talking about a category tag, and there's ample sources to support it.Mattnad (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@Sjones23: I'm surprised by this edit removing "pilot error" based on the ample sources that say exactly that. I've reverted it, and added two news articles as sources, with quotes. I'm not sure why you're taking this stance, but it's pretty clear cut based on secondary reliable sources.Mattnad (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, also the NTSB says:

the probable cause of this accident was the captain’s inappropriate response to the activation of the stick shaker, which led to an aerodynamic stall from which the airplane did not recover.

the article should not give undue WP:WEIGHT to other contributory factors. Burninthruthesky (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll add that it's not an all or nothing situation. I think the objection is to the words "pilot error", but that's exactly what reliable sources called it.Mattnad (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
My point was that, whether we use the words "pilot error" or not, after this edit, the causes are now emphasised quite differently in the executive summary of the NTSB report and our summary of it. Burninthruthesky (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted the edit I linked above. Burninthruthesky (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, so I think we should add an editorial note not to change the terminology without first discussing it on the talk page. Objections? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Can you be more specific? I should also point out that wikipedia prefers secondary, rather than primary reliable sources. From what I can tell, you are reading the NTSB report and making your own interpretations of what it does or does not say. That's not in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines.Mattnad (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
After going through the secondary sources that were posted here and "pilot error" is used as cited terminology according to these sources, I think it's reasonable enough that I had to add an editorial note next to it asking others not to change it without discussing it on the talk page. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
What you put it was factually incorrect. The term "pilot error" simply did not appear in the official report. Secondary sources are obviously not reliable if they say black is white, and we should not use them to say in the voice of the encyclopedia "Black is white". Simply quoting the NTSB finding is sufficient for the reader, we don't need to add someone's less-expert derivative analysis. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the positions taken by Lord Sjones23 and LeadSongDog

I have been editing Wiki articles since 2006, and it has long since become apparent that one of the greatest deficiencies in the posting rules, is the idea that once some publication has been designated as a WP:RS, then it is ASSUMED that makes it WP:RS for all subjects, throughout all eternity! Nothing could be further from the truth!

When it comes to aviation accident stories, some of the worst examples of extremely ignorant, stupid and know-nothing reporting comes from the pens of reporters employed by such stellar publications as the NYTimes, the Chicago Tribune, LATimes, etc. etc. There are many more than those, so please don't interpret my remarks to mean I am singling those out alone.

The old "pilot error" type of reporting, used over and over again in such secondary sources, proves only that there are a lot of lazy and incompetent reporters out there. As an example, this gem of aviation accident reporting was included in a NYTimes article last month, about the crash of Flydubai 981:

The television channel cited experts who suggested that by turning off the autopilot, the pilots were trying to pull the plane back to a horizontal position. But at that moment a stabilizing fin at the jet’s tail was switched on.
With the fin activated, “the elevator is no longer working and the plane practically does not react to the pilot’s control panel,” the report said. The channel suggested that the pilot could have accidentally hit the button that activated the fin because of his reported “chronic fatigue.”

Thus, the argument that "everybody is doing it," as a justification for Wikipedia doing it too, amounts to little more than a Wiki writing standard of "teenager wisdom." Is that all we think Wikipedia should be: An encyclopedia that can be understood by the average teenager?

How about we use the primary, far superior source that is based upon a lengthy, detailed and time-consuming investigation that left no stones unturned, BEFORE it reached it's final conclusions? Why should we parrot reporters who don't know an aileron from a "fin," when we have a pot of gold source of precise, accurate and fully professional knowledge like that, at our disposal?

If ever there is and should be a logical exception to the general Wiki rule that secondary sources are to be preferred to primary sources, it is in this field of NTSB investigation and findings, relating to an airliner accident. We should always strive to ensure Wikipedia aviation accident articles adhere to the same kind of professional accuracy that the NTSB (and similar ICAO investigative agencies in other countries) strive for. If we don't, then what could be our excuse for publishing a Free Encyclopedia at all? The world needs more tabloid journalism? EditorASC (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

First officer's flap retraction

Anyone can edit this article, and there is no general requirement to discuss changes first. @Sjones23: Did you have any reasons to think this revert would improve the article? Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I removed it as everything must be verifiable and sourceable. The flap retraction didn't have a source to confirm it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
See the NTSB report (currently ref. 23):

In addition, the captain had not yet called for the landing gear to be raised or for the flaps to be retracted. However, about 7 seconds after the stick shaker activated, the first officer raised the flaps and then told the captain about the action she had just taken. All of Colgan’s procedures pertaining to flap movement required a command from the flying pilot and acknowledgment from the monitoring pilot before the flaps could be moved.

For a concise secondary source, see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1180864/Chilling-recordings-reveal-moments-doomed-Buffalo-flight-killed-50.html#ixzz3qzODFMWf:

Shaw also retracted the plane's flaps. An expert on stall recovery working for the plane's manufacturer, Wally Warner, told the board retracting the flaps would significantly increase the potential for a 'secondary stall' and make it harder to recover.

Burninthruthesky (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
@Sjones23: Thanks for re-adding some of the material, although 174.101.157.164's wording was better because:
  • Retracting the flaps did not cause the upset, as now stated.
  • The crew were acting as captain and first officer, and have been entirely referred to as such in this section.
  • The first officer's failure to discuss a planned action before carrying it is no longer mentioned.
Burninthruthesky (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
@Sjones23: this edit of yours does not address one of the issues highlighted above. The flaps were retracted after the upset. I have made a further correction.
I see you disagree with my suggestion to refer to the pilots by role rather than name. I have sought further advice on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I understand. The reason for my recent edits here was only attempting to improve the article; my ultimate goal is to get it up to at least a GA or an FA (using Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907, an FA, as a reference). Eventually, it may want to be featured as a TFA on February 12, 2016 (the 7th anniversary of the crash). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I see. It's not a GA or FA, but one notable comparison that springs to mind is Air France Flight 447. The name "Bonin" appears only three times in the whole article. Given the concerns you raised in the thread above, I thought you would be against personalizing reports on pilots' errors? Burninthruthesky (talk) 11:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Colgan Air Flight 3407. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Colgan Air Flight 3407. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colgan Air Flight 3407. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Colgan Air Flight 3407. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Pilot fatigue

@OrbitalEnd48401:, MilborneOne, WilliamJE, Sjones23. 194.207.74.71

I hope this is not going to degenerate into an edit war. The NTSB did state that pilot fatigue was a factor. Indeed, it is mentioned on the second page of the NTSB report into the accident. IMvHO, it is appropriate to display pilot fatigue in the infobox as one of the major factors. The issue was also covered in the Aircrash Investigation programme covering the accident. Mjroots (talk) 06:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I have not read the report! but if Mjroots things that it is approporiate then I dont have a problem with that. MilborneOne (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey there! No i dont want to start a war haha, i'm chilled, i always want to sort situations like these out ambiently. Like i say, i'd recommend reading the report as it does state that pilot fatique was also a specific cause to the accident. Like i said I dont want to argue or anything, im a big plane person and i always make sure i back my edits with evidence. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I think you should, in fact, read the pertinent part of the report. See p.161. There was disagreement on the board about including fatigue as a cause, with the 2:1 majority voting (against the chair) to exclude it. The reasons are discussed at length. I do not believe WP editors should be changing the findings of the board, per wp:NOR. Reporting that there was disagreement (as has been done) is quite sufficient. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, I understand, I did read about the board disagreement, like I say it's why I wanted to discuss it with you all, as you all know this more then I do, but this is fun to discuss. If you feel like there is or isn't enough evidence to conclude whether pilot fatigue was a factor to the crash, like the previous editor said, it should remain on the summary unless someone disagrees. 195.195.244.197 (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colgan_Air_Flight_3407/Archive_2&oldid=1165280836"