Talk:TWA Flight 841 (1979)

The Boeing Scenario

Per requests (Dec'2016) for more Talk:

The main "Article" -page needs a BIG WARNING message, at the top,

 cautioning readers that 

this Wikipedia Article will only discuss The Boeing Scenario .

Meanwhile, again, in Dec'2016, men lacking any background in this case, DELETE documentation (pdf's of the two main Petitions against AAR-81-8).

At some point, Wikipedia should condemn this persistent bias (? vandalism?): The documents (Petitions and a new book by Corsetti) were cited & linked

WP:AGF; WP:NPA
--> until one persistent "vandal", wiki's Sole Arbiter again DELETED those documents. One could conclude that NTSB's own Office of Media Relations has taken-over this Wiki-effort to limit sources, limit documents.

IGhhGI (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you cite pages in the book instead of blogs, chat forums and websites that look like a stalker's bedroom wall, and also write with WP:DUE in mind? Brycehughes (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

IGhhGI, editors' background in the case is irrelevant. We are an encyclopedia; we summarize other sources rather than generate our own research. Relevant guidelines and policies for deciding if additional links to primary source documents such as appeals should be included, and if the secondary sources you are proposing using (such as Corsetti) should be included include WP:SELFPUB, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:RS. At a glance, it appears that Corsetti's book is self-published, so is unusable as a source for any topic except Corsetti himself. Are there any other secondary sources that we should look at (such as websites), or is everything else primary (such as the appeal)? VQuakr (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Jan'2017 -- OK you have CHANGED my "talk" contribution --

--  and you have deleted links to the main Petitions
-- and now,  "... 19:04, 24 January 2017‎ VQuakr ... Reverted ... by VQuakr (talk): Incoherent and unrelated to specific improvements to the article. 

this WiKipedia editor has so badly twisted this "Talk" page -- He is the Sole Arbiter, he owns the "talk", and the "article". Once again, Wikipedia is the UN-reliable source for Boeing 727 N840TW 4Apr79 .

Above an official Wiki "editor" cites a NEED FOR anOTHER SOURCE;

"... editors' background in the case is irrelevant.... an encyclopedia .. summarize other sources ..."

And that is USA's weakness (no investigative safeguards) -- lack of any Review Board, -- lack of any Scientific Ombudsman -- lack of any Public Inquiry

Do you understand that, after any NTSB AAR,

there is NO Review Board,  no alternative "source".

For the TE901 case, wiki could chose from four official reports. In contrast, after B727 N840TW, a wiki "editor" lacks official alternative, you get only Davis' scenario,

 or the alternative from  an MIT-Grumman expert.

IGhhGI (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)IGhhGI (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

If you dislike the US's procedures for aircraft incident investigations, this is not the forum to effect change. VQuakr (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

VQuakr's above:

"... for aircraft ... investigations, this is not the forum ..."

For accurate information about the LoC-I, B727 N840TW, Wikipedia is not the best source.

 And NO  wiki editor had enough mishap- background to correct the errs.

IGhhGI (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

In the context of our policies, including our requirement that sources be reliable, what specific changes to the article are you proposing? Article talk space is not your forum for kvetching about the NTSB or Wikipedia in general. VQuakr (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

  =   =   =   =   \\//  =   =   =

Now,Jan'26th, responding to almost-sincere question posed in Dec'2016 (above):

VQuakr -- "... for deciding ... links to primary source documents ... appeals ... the secondary sources ..."

Now think about our industry,
from flight-test, to line-ops', to mishap-investigation,
NOTHING we write (the Flt Test Cert' rpt, Ops-Manuals, mishap-rpts)
would meet the minimum requirements you defined as

the Wikipedia-standards for a "source"  (??).

= = = 

But let me pick just one example-document, for you to comment upon:
that 4May95 document from NTSB, acknowledged as "received" by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals; this document fits into the cover-up phase of the NTSB process.

As you can _infer_ from that web-link depiction,

that 4May95-document was endorsed by three Board Members.

Since none of those men were familiar with the details

of the B727-N840TW mishap,

 WHO?  might the "accountable executive" to answer for the facts cited ??

The NTSB has never acknowledged that their 4May95 document even exists,

and the Public Docket (according to NTSB-staff)  has NO RECORD of that letter to the court.

One of the advances in this B727-case, comes from that book Scapegoat,
on page 344 mid.

From the standpoint of professional-standards, this one breach, scientific fraud, taints the whole NTSB investigation.

Everyone in the business (investigation) knows and respects the man cited, and he himself has openly cited similar behavior in the JAL-747 case:
a soldier's mindset of accomplish-your-mission. That 4May95 document was never acknowledged by NTSB, so it officially doesn't exist.

Could you, Mr Wikipedia, cite that 4May95 -document : Court recognized it, wiki No?

IGhhGI (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

To evaluate a source, you need to pair the source with the proposed content you intend to support with that source. The relevant policy for primary documents such as this is WP:PRIMARY. Your posts would be much easier to follow if you quit peppering them with spam to obviously unusable websites. VQuakr (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

lying investigators?

i said yes what about u? 2001:9E8:6716:A000:2D88:AB97:A1A3:BEEA (talk) 06:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Use of Emilio Corsetti III as a source

@Krios101: As a self-published source, Emilio Corsetti's book should be used with caution when dealing with claims. For all we know, he may or may not be a subject-matter expert in this field. Per WP:SPS, "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources." For example let's talk about this passage. Before the change:

However, 21 minutes of the 30-minute tape were blank. Tests of the CVR in the aircraft revealed no discrepancies in the CVR's electrical and recording systems, however, according to Emilio Corsetti III, a pilot and author, this was false. In his book, Scapegoat: A Flight Crew's Journey From Heroes to Villains to Redemption, it is claimed that a TWA representative erroneously told the NTSB that tests had been conducted when none had supposedly been done.

and this passage after the change:

However, this was false, a TWA representative erroneously told the NTSB that tests had been conducted when none had supposedly been done.

To consider the information false, point blank, would be inappropriate considering the above. Since we don't know his level of expertise into the matter, it would be best if we used "he claimed" instead of "this is false." It's the same for other passages. I don't mind including him and his claims but such information should be used carefully and appropriately, instead of simply stating that what he says are "facts". Such claims and information should be verifiable across multiple sources if we were to consider his book or findings as correct and reliable. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Krios101: Aviationwikiflight (talk) 06:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Krios101: Emilio Corsetti is the only one stating that it was false. So stating that it was false or that it was "most likely" false would be giving credence to his claims. However as stated above, as a self-published source, this would not be appropriate. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

References