Talk:EgyptAir Flight 804

Cause of the accident.

Last year, a french report was leaked to the public in which the report stated that the accident was the result of a cockpit fire that caused by an oxygen leak combustion that was ignited by a pilot's cigarette. The problem with this is that the report hasn't been officialy verified.

Further adding to the problem is the fact that Egypt refuses to release a final report, the BEA can't release reports due to ICAO guidelines and the fact that the leaked report is not public nor has it been verified. So do we keep that the accident was caused by the current summary "Cockpit fire caused by an oxygen leak combustion ignited by pilot's cigarette" or do we change it as there is no "official" final report? 103.145.130.210 (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Just to note that both current sources, The Telegraph and Al Jazeera], both considered WP:RS do not use the phrase "likely caused by". They both bluntly say "caused by". The Telegraph says this: "But an official investigation has concluded that it was caused by a cigarette being smoked in the cockpit that inadvertently ignited oxygen leaking from an emergency gas mask." Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Image use for page

Which image should we choose best to use for page? Tô Ngọc Khang (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need to change the current image. DaveReidUK (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Neither alternative images are better than the existing one. Ther needs to be a compelling significant reason to change an image, and such a reason has not been given. Maungapohatu (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Conflicting Reports -- but BEA's is Correct

Admiral Cloudberg has an excellent summary of the EAAID and BEA investigations. The two reports contradict each other, with EEAID suggesting an explosion and BEA identifying an oxygen leak as the cause. But, the EEAID report is sloppy, unreliable, and contains major flaws, such as that no sound of an explosion is recorded by microphone. The BEA's conclusion is clearly the correct one. I don't say this as a partisan, it just seems clear from reading the two reports. This article should be restructured now that the investigation has concluded and released its report. But I'm not sure how the article should reflect the two conflicting reports. Andrew Keenan Richardson (talk!) 05:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the current wording of the article is fine - it records that there is a disagreement between the two AIBs. Terms like "sloppy", "unreliable" and "just seems clear" have no place in a Wikipedia article. DaveReidUK (talk) 07:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

No one is saying that we should use those exact words. We should simply give each report its due weight, which we are not doing currently. We are giving them a 50-50 default and this is not right considering that the EAAID is not providing any evidence supporting their claims. Essentially, EAAID gives a theory, BEA gives an explanation supported by the evidence. Tvx1 14:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

This appears simply to be a re-run of Topic 1: "Cause of the Accident", with nothing new to add. All national accident investigation bodies have equal standing in terms of Annex 13, and any organisation affiliated to an investigation is free to file a difference from the official report. It's not ICAO's, or Wikipedia's job to decide who is correct. Let's just leave it at that. DaveReidUK (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

No, it’s Wikipedia’s job to give each side its due weight. And we are not bound by “Annex 13” for that, which only deals with the determining the authority to conduct investigations and publish reports anyway. It doesn’t attest to the correctness of the report published by any organisations. As I said before one side gives a theory, the other an explanation supported by evidence. And that’s how we should represent it to our readers. Tvx1 17:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The reports are primary sources for the investigation. We need high-quality secondary sources that reflect the relative credibility of them. I think they should be easy to find. John (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with citing secondary sources and reporting their assessment of credibility, though good luck in finding them. Absent those, any discussion of the "due weight" that assorted Wikipedians care to give to the respective reports is both presumptuous and pointless - we're talking about a national accident investigation organisation here, not about a bunch of Flatearthers. DaveReidUK (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

For crying out loud, read the source in the OP's post. It's beyond believe even how far the EAAID went in their desperation to make their theory the only viable one. Their explanation as to why their is no recording of an explosion on the CVR is the most ludicrous. Just because they are a "national accident investigation organisation" it doesn't mean that their findings are by definition correct or even impartial. The source explains very clearly how much the Egyptian government influenced the EAAID's investigation. They were all but forced to find a conclusion that exonorated Egypt in any way. Meanwhile, the BEA actually found themselves at arms with their own government through considering their loyalty to the integrity and the objectivety of the investigation and to the other parties involved in it more important than their loyalty to their own government. The EAAID set out to find evidence to support a pre-decided conclusion, while the BEA set out to collect and analyze evidence and information and ultmately drew their conclusion at the end of the entire sequence of analyzing all the collected evidence. Lastly, Egypt has a history of trying to shift the blame away from them and not conducting such investigations in an impartial manner. (Personal attack removed) Tvx1 21:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) DaveReidUK (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Tvx1, let's keep it on topic please. This is not the place for your judgement on other editors. Let's talk about how we improve the article. John (talk) 09:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

"This is not the place for your judgement on other editors".

Although a judgement that a fellow editor is "incredibly naive" is apparently acceptable and allowed to remain ???

Double standards at work here ... DaveReidUK (talk) 10:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Read what I wrote. I've reminded the other editor not to do that again. Now, can we please get back to the actual discussion? John (talk) 10:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've removed Tvx1's offensive remark directed at me, as is my right under WP:NPA. Happy to draw a line under the affair now. DaveReidUK (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

This seems to purely be original research based on your opiniated analysis. Unless you're actually providing proof (e.g: sources), I doubt your comment (which included a personal attack) is really going to be considered. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

The sources were already provided by the OP. I literally referred to it in my post. This is not my analysis at all.Tvx1 19:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

NTSB

According to a source cited in the above thread, the USA’s National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) was also involved in the investigation, representing the country where the aircraft’s engines were constructed, yet there is no mention of this in the article. Given that NTSB is one of the most highly regarded aviation accident investigation agencies worldwide, I find that really strange. Does anyone have more information on the extent of their participation and whether they published any conclusions?Tvx1 22:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

While the report states that the NTSB was indeed affiliated to the investigation, there is no mention of any specific involvement other than in respect of the recorders, where the NTSB simply agreed that the Egyptians had the capability to read them. I don't think that warrants inclusion in the article. DaveReidUK (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Unless sources talk about their participation, I don’t see the need to include them other than maybe a brief mention that they participated. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 06:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like their participation would have been limited to the advice on technical aspects of the engines, and/or perhaps liaison with the manufacturer? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

No need for guesswork - the report makes it clear that the NTSB's input was in connection with the flight recorders, including liaising between the EAAID and Honeywell (the manufacturer of the recorders). DaveReidUK (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. What has that got to do with "the country where the aircraft's engines were constructed"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

That’s the reason why they had to be invited.Tvx1 13:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I had imagined their remit would have covered only the reason for which they were invited. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

To clarify further, accident investigation protocol per Annex 13 specifies that four states are entitled to appoint a representative (usually from that state's AIB) to participate in the investigation. Those are: state of registry, state of operator, state of design and state of manufacturer.

Obviously the USA doesn't fall into any of those categories for this investigation, but the state of design or manufacture of the powerplant or other major components can also ask (or be asked) to participate.

So in this instance the BEA were accredited on behalf of the state of design, assisted by Airbus and EASA, and the NTSB on behalf of the USA as the state of manufacture of the engines.

Nothing in Annex 13 specifies that accredited organisations are limited to specific parts of the investigation - that's up to the AIB leading it.

Getting back to the original question, I don't have any strong view either way as to whether the NTSB's participation needs to be mentioned in the article. Most readers will probably be aware that when flight recorder data issues are encountered in any AIB's investigation, the BEA and/or NTSB will usually get involved. DaveReidUK (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks for that detail. I'm also not sure if the participation of NTSB warrants mention here. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

The above sources claims that NTSB investigators did take part in the physical investigation though. Tvx1 14:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)