# Talk:Aeroméxico Connect Flight 2431

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

Not necessarily. The pilot flying LAPA Flight 3142 aborted take off after the plane had lifted off the ground when it became obvious the plane couldn't climb. --Omega13a (talk) 07:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Not sure how you came to that conclusion. To the contrary, while the pilots were warned that an RTO was necessary, they charged on, ignoring the warning horn. "Investigation results showed that the LAPA crew tried to takeoff without selecting the flaps, despite an aural takeoff configuration warning during the takeoff roll. Poor cockpit discipline while preparing for takeoff and during takeoff is cited as a cause." EditorASC (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
That was from a documentary about the crash where people involved in the investigation were interviewed. Also, using Google's translator, I was able get a crude translation of the official report. It says while the FDR wasn't the kind that records information about whether the thrust reversers were deployed or not but it did record the engine pressure ratio (EPR). It showed that the engine power went down before increasing which is consistent with what would happen if the thrust reversers were deliberately deployed. If the pilots deployed the reservers, they were obviously aborting the take-off.--Omega13a (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Change the "summary" field in the infobox at the top of the article to read "Crashed on takeoff due to low altitude wind shear, crew error, and air traffic control error"
OrbitalEnd48401 has objected to my changing of the summary of the accident in the infobox at the top of the article, preferring "Crashed on takeoff due to low altitude windshear and pilot error" to my change of "Crashed on takeoff due to low altitude wind shear, crew error, and air traffic control error".   Looking for feedback on what is a pretty insignificant change.   I have discussed it to some extent with him on my talk page in the "Aeroméxico connect 2431" section, which I won't repeat here unless someone needs me to.  Looking for feedback from additional editors.  Also propose removing the wikilink to "pilot error" as MOS:OVERLINK and removing the reference citation which is unnecessary and also creates an incomplete, duplicate reference. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Support as proposer. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Against To much in summary, a summary is the accident ‘summarised’. The current summary is fine and should not be changed. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
@MilborneOne: Need some help over here with a contributer making a summary into a sentence. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

It appears to be saying to much, the final report says says the cause was the windshear causing loss of control so I would suggest that all it needs is "Loss of control on takeoff due to low altitude windshear". All the rest are secondary factors and these are covered in the article, we cant name them all. MilborneOne (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
@MilborneOne: Agreed, the crew did loss control when they flew into the windshear, as if they didn’t lose control they would of be able to recover control of the airplane. What about pilot error though? If you read the final report it does make some clear statements. Although I do like you’re ideal summary. But overall i disagree with pixels summary but yours is something that has my attention. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
After taking a couple of notes, even if it was a loss of control, the plane crashed on takeoff so would it be classed as take off accident? Yes the crew did lose control but you need to make keep in mind the aircraft barley took off? So in all practicality the summary should remain as it is. I do agree with you Milborne, if it was later on in the flight I’d be 100%. But because it was in it's takeoff phase  not to sure if I’d be up with changing on the start of the summary. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Loss of control on takeoff due to low altitude windshear. Should be a brief factual summary of the occurrence, no need to list every factor involved in the infobox. That info goes in the article main body. - Samf4u (talk)  13:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@Samf4u: agreed. Should we note pilot error on the end of that as well as there was without a doubt pilot errors, especially noted on the final report as well. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aeroméxico Connect Flight 2431/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 15:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments

" The plane rapidly" never keen on the use of "plane", why not "aircraft" or "airplane"?  This crops up throughout, it's not something I'm going to die on a hill about, but "plane" just doesn't feel encyclopedic to me...
It comes from trying to not overuse the same term over and over again.  My go-to term is "aircraft", which appears in this article 37 times, followed by "plane" once "aircraft" starts to get repeated too often.  I've used "plane" in this article 20 times.   "Airplane" only appears once, in a quote.  I took a peek at a few other articles I've done a lot of work on, and the pattern is the same.  It wasn't really a conscious decision on my part, just the way I write.   Plane is slightly more informal than airplane, which I feel tends to increase readability.  I checked the AP Style Guide, Chicago Manual of Style and the Oxford Style Guide and none of them specify any preference over the other, although the AP guide definitely used the word "plane" in several examples in various contexts.
" All 103 people on board survived. 39 passengers and crew were injured" merge, to avoid choppy sentences, and also to avoid starting a sentence with a number.
Changed to "All 103 people on board survived, but 39 passengers and crew members were injured."
" 2:56 pm" (etc) -> "2:56 p.m."
Fixed all times that I could find.
" proceeded to taxi to the end of runway 03. As the plane taxied, rain" merge to avoid repeat of taxi.
Changed the first sentence to "headed toward the end of runway 03" as I couldn't decide on a way to merge the sentence without making it too much of a run-on.
"d 20 knot winds" convert units.
Added conversion templates to all units
" 3:18 indicating" p.m. missing.
Fixed that, although I'm tempted to just come back and reword the second instance.
"The aircraft proceeded down the runway. When..." time?
I'm not sure what you are asking here.  Are you asking what time the plane proceeded down the runway?   The previous paragraph mentioned that the flight was cleared for takeoff at 3:21, generally that's the "go" signal given to the pilots, so they would typically have started the takeoff roll within a few seconds of that.   Nothing in my source notes indicates that there was any significant delay between when the clearance was issued and the takeoff roll began.  Just doing to back-of-the-napkin math (total OR) and looking at the airport chart, it looks like the craft would have to travel about 5200ft from the terminal to the end of runway 03.   Depending on how fast the pilot was taxiing, the plane can cover somewhere between 1,500 and 3,000 feet per minute.  Add some time to account for pushback, and so on.   The plane left the gate at 3:14, and was cleared for takeoff at 3:21, so the timeline seems to make sense.
" of 147 knots" convert (and others if possible - you do it for " 30 feet (9 m)" so be consistent throughout).
Done.
Could link "rotated" to Rotation (aeronautics).
Done.
" aircraft.[7][1]" refs in numerical order.
Done.  See my notes at the bottom about reference order.
" It was first delivered in 2008.[6] It was first delivered to..." merge.
Done.
"landing cycles.[6][3](p22)" refs in numerical order.
Done.  See my notes at the bottom about reference order.
General, for page number formats, I believe e.g. p. 1 and pp. 2–4 is the preference.
The article uses the {{rp}} template per WP:IBID to produce the page number citations when a large source is cited a large number of times throughout the article.  I don't see a parameter that would let me change the ":p22" superscript to ":p. 22".  The documentation for that template hints that the {{cite}} templates may be updated at some future date to be able to handle that natively, which would be nice.
" ATPL license" I would expand that.
I have it wikilinked during the first use in the article (first paragraph of the "crew" section).  By expand, I assume you mean spell it out as "airline transport pilot license" instead of ATPL (that change also highlighted the grammatical error of calling it an ATPL license).  I made that change.
"successful.[4][11][10]" refs in numerical order.
Done.  See my notes at the bottom about reference order.
"first officer.[4][3](p20)" ditto.
Done.  See my notes at the bottom about reference order.
"a Commercial pilot license and" C->c.
Done.
" the crash.[4][3](p21) " order.
Done.  See my notes at the bottom about reference order.
"r injuries in the crash.[4][3](p21)" ditto.
Done.  See my notes at the bottom about reference order.
" 99 passengers and four crew" 99/4 per MOSNUM.
Done.
" 31 were Mexican citizens, 65 were United States citizens, one..." ditto.
Done.
" in flames.[13][14][4] " ref order.
Done.  See my notes at the bottom about reference order.
" About 3 to 4 " three to four.
Done.
"called for a strike" did they strike?  Was it resolved?
One source says "threatened to strike".  The other says that in mid-September, the pilots' union agreed to strike by October 1.  A different couple of others that aren't included in the article mentioned that the union members unanimously agreed to a strike.  On October 1st, the union delayed the strike for 48 hours and on October 3rd, the union and the company agreed to a new contract.   One provision of the new contract was that non-working flight crews would continue to be denied access to the cockpit, but would received reserved seats in the main cabin.  Added new sentence and source for that.
"the airline.[23][21]". order
Done.  See my notes at the bottom about reference order.
"for the crash.[26][18] " order
Done.  See my notes at the bottom about reference order.
" altitude."[4][3](p66)[27] " order.
Done.  See my notes at the bottom about reference order.
Three paras in "Final report" start "The investigation" which is a little repetitive.
Changed to "the report"/"Investigators"/"The Investigation"/The commission".
Avoid SHOUTING in the ref titles.
Done.
An excellent article and an interesting read.  Some trivial points above.  I'll put it on hold while we go through these.  Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for your feedback, my responses are in italics after each of the points you have identified above.  Take a look at it again when you get a chance and see if there are any more improvements you can suggest.
Also, a comment about reference order comments.  I do think it looks nice to have the references in numerical order, but I'm not sure how helpful it is to have it that way in the article.  I've made the changes, and now all of the citations are in order, but all someone has to do is insert a statement at the beginning of the article that uses Aviation Herald as a reference, for example (currently reference #4), and they all get renumbered.  Reference #4 becomes reference #1, and they're all out of order again.   I also didn't see anything in MOS:CITE about it, but I've seen these types of suggestions in the past, and have seen people make those changes on pages on my watchlist.  Just a thought.  RecycledPixels (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Very nice work, easily exceeds the requirements of GAN, thanks for your comprehensive work and detailed responses above, and for making changes where appropriate.  Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

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