Talk:Schiphol airliner crash blamed on altimeter failure, pilot error

Review
--Brian McNeil / talk 19:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Concern from comments page
Someone posted a message over on the comments page that would have been more appropriate on the talk page, I have copied it:

"This article should be using the Dutch Safety Agency (OVV)'s initial report as a source.

See:
 * which is an official translation from

It is clear there that it is still too early to assign a definite cause to the accident. They most certainly did not find that there was pilot error. That assertion in this article is egregious. LeadSongDog (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)"

♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 16:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you look at the report, you will find the pilots did not monitor their instruments. 'Pilot error' does not actually give any blame; the error may or may not be the fault of the flight crew. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that the report states initial findings (pilot error). So although a main investigation is ongoing, the initial findings are stated. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As an aside, the report is not needed as a source, as everything is already sourced, but maybe it is not too late to add it as an external link? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you folks are reading a different report. My copy doesn't have the words "error", "monitor" or "instrument" in it. The closest it comes to supporting the statement is to say "Initially the crew did not react to the issues at hand." without stating whether this was a possibility. It does not state that the crew had sufficient information to recognize the problem and diagnose it.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Indeed the report concludes "With the exception of the malfunction of the left radio altimeter the investigators of the Dutch Safety Board have not yet found any irregularities." I'd say that categorically excludes having made any other findings.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "The voice recorder has shown that the crew were notified that the left radio altimeter was not
 * working correctly (via the warning signal “landing gear must go down”).
 * Provisional data indicates that this signal was not regarded to be a problem."
 * The report then notes that the crew did nothing to correct the situation until the stick shaker activated. There is an error made by the crew there; wehter the design is such or they were poorly trained such that they felt there was not a serious issue, therefore partially or totally removing blame, only time will tell and has not been commented on in the article. All that is said is that the crew did not react despite the warning - they made an 'error' - and that is exactly what this release states. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide a quote, because all I see is suggestive, not a formal finding.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that I have quoted the report, above. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So you take "provisional data indicates that..." as a finding of cause? That's just plain wrong. Or is wikinews now able to make calls that the investigators, with full access to the data, are not? LeadSongDog (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't take it as a cause, the report does. And you stated that the report does quite clearly just now. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I said what?LeadSongDog (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you BRS for this edit. I'm still not happy with the erroneous assertion in both the headline and body, but as an occasional visitor on WN I'll just assume for now that the local culture has rules I'm not grasping that prevent it from being corrected. LeadSongDog (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect the problem is that on WP even such a tiny and clear assertion might be viewed as WP:OR or at least WP:SYNTH, whereas here we tend to be laxer and actively seek original reporting; nonetheless I feel it is backed up enough to say such, and the mainstream agrees with me (FWIW). I did actually state in my creation edit summary that I generally disaprove of 'calling' these reports - in fact, I wrote an early disclaimer into the text of Interim report blames ice for British Airways 777 crash in London - but here, it really is pretty clear from reading the material. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. I don't think I'll be doing much on accident stories in that case. Too close to libel for my taste. I can still contemplate several plausible chains of causation, particularly considering WX (700-800 ft ceiling), design of the autopilot/autothrust, manuals, training standards, SOPs, etc. Accordingly I'd much rather wait for the experts to decide. Thanks again.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The experts have decided, or rather they have decided upon as much as is repeated here. Everything here is backed up. I was simply highlighting the culture difference between WP and WN. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)