Talk:EgyptAir Flight 804/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Black Boxes Located

Last Updated May 21, 2016 9:56 PM EDT

ALEXANDRIA, Egypt -- Search crews located the data recorders for EgyptAir Flight 804 close to an area where human remains and debris from the crashed flight have been found, an Egyptian government source told CBS News on Saturday. Flight 804 Black Boxes Located — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.213.246 (talk) 05:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, seems they have may detected some beacon pings: [1] That's not quite the same thing as "locating the boxes", though. Most other press outlets much more cagey. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

This piece of info is old (=not from today), and has been denied by Egyptian authorities. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, even that Daily Mail report says: "However, Egyptian government authorities have denied the reports, saying they would notify the public 'immediately' if they had been found." Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice to write something about the depth of the sea there, in connection with the reach of the sonar of the French boat. I read somewhere over the weekend that it can reach only 2,000 m while the sea is up to 3,000 m deep there. It says ca 5,000 feet here. WikiHannibal (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, agree. And it's not just depth, of course, but also sea-bed topology. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The plane's exact age

So, we mention when the plane first flew, and when it is presumed to have crashed. But then we also do the sum for the reader, assuming the reader is too stupid to do this for themselves. But then we get it wrong; we round 12 years and 10 months to 12 years. Apparently this is writing that needs to be aggressively edit-warred to defend. I'll leave you to it. --John (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

We first sum it for the reader, and then we give precise dates. I think it reads well this way. Especially considering that readers may not have time to do the math, skimming through the article in search of more substantial information. I tried to explain why I prefer the age where it was in the comments to my reverts. And I did not understand you reasons for its removal from your comments. (Now I do, but still..) WikiHannibal (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Right now we have no idea if the plane's age is relevant or not. If this turns out to be a metal fatigue issue or something similar then it is probably worth retaining the age spelled out like this, but if it turns out to be a cause that is not related to the age of the aircraft then mentioning the age in several ways is probably feeding the readers a red herring. - Ahunt (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Bloat

Bearing in mind that this article will look very different in a week or a month, we should avoid trying to record every possible factoid about the flight. That the flight was usually flown with a Boeing, or the colour of the company's website or Facebook page, are not important in the big scheme of things. --John (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

So no rumours of the black boxes being found from The Mirror, or even the "chilling photo posted on Facebook by one of the air hostesses just months before the crash" from The Sun, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Neither of those pass WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll try and find something from a more respectable source about "smoke alarms sounding for almost three minutes". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I would include graffiti from several years before in this. --John (talk) 09:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

We'll just have to try and restrain you, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Do we need the RT (TV network) reference? – Jwkozak91 (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Measurements

The last paragraph of the "Search and recovery efforts" section gives depth in "metres" and equivalent "fathoms". Since the average person is not familiar with how 'long' a "fathom" is, how about also including a "feet" equivalency (which would be "9842.52 feet" for those who prefer preciseness, or "about 9843 feet" for those who don't mind rounding. Also, in the first paragraph of the "Investigation" section, the altitude equivalencies given in "metres" are slightly off. 37,000 feet is 11,277.6 metres NOT 11,000 even. 10,000 feet is 3,048 metres NOT 3,000 even. Considering how nitpicky and precise everyone is being on this event, I'm surprised someone hadn't picked up on this before. Anyway, would it be possible to 'correct' the metric equivalencies in the "Investigation" section as well?68.231.71.119 (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I venture to say it did not fly in 11,277.6 m. I suppose the measurements are already rounded and expressed in units according to the source/typical. We do not work with precise numbers here. So things like "9843" feet etc. make no sense to me. Sourcing/factuality and nitpicking are 2 different things. WikiHannibal (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Wholly agree with User:WikiHannibal. I chose fathoms guessing that this may have been the units used by the Towed pinger locator, but I'm happy to see feet used instead, if appropriately rounded (I suspect the locator probably has a choice of depth units). I'm less happy about using any conversions at all for altitude, which is always feet unless, when the aircraft is cruising, it's Flight level. Metres simply have no place here in my view. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Most of the world is metric now, and anyone outside aviation (and even some people inside aviation) younger than, say, me, will not necessarily know how long a foot is, so IMO the comparison is useful for comprehension. The difference between feet and flight level is not much, but I think it's worth saying "Flight level 370 (approximately 37,000 feet or 11,200 metres)" or whatever in the text where appropriate. Given that the 'depth in metres' appears not to be an actual precise measurement but a ballpark figure, rounding to the nearest thousand feet is acceptable IMO. YSSYguy (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Not sure how to best format that. Current effort looks a bit clumsy. Also is Enseigne de vaisseau Jacoubet fitted with a Towed pinger locator? I guess to add that would mean overlink anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Do we really need the full text of the last ACARS codes?

I would remove it but, per WP:FENCE, I thought it possibly more prudent to bring this up here first.

Do we really need that full list of the last ACARS codes received from the plane? This is so wrong for several reasons:

• First, it's extremely technical information that the lay reader, and I daresay many with some knowledge of aviation that does not include avionics, will not really be able to make too much head or tail of this. As such, I think, it's not only a primary source, but one that requires interpretation. And while, as that policy requires ("Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.") we have reliably sourced interpretation of that material immediately following it in the text, I do not think the reader is served well by including the full source material.

• Second, it's indiscriminate. It includes not only those messages discussed as relevant in the interpretation, but everything.

I suggest instead that, unless there's some good reason for including this, the text just stick to the interpretation as currently included, with the text of any messages interpreted included parenthetically where necessary. Take a look at the relevant section of our article on Air France Flight 447, the first commercial-aviation incident where (IIRC) ACARS messages were made public as part of the early investigation (at which time the plane's wreckage had not been recovered). That's bow it's handled there.

At the very least, if consensus deems it necessary to include all of them, it would be better for the article's readability to put them in a {{quotebox}} to the side. Daniel Case (talk) 04:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment - ad 2, all ACARS messages are mentioned in the interpretation (wndows being summarized in oen sentence), so it seems it is not indiscriminate. WikiHannibal (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree, the AF article shows how it should be done. And per WP:PROSE "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not." 80.2.106.75 (talk) 10:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Have seen image of the list of messages used on BBC news reports. See no problem with putting them in a quote box, that might look tidier. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Perhaps later, if investigators have decided that not all of them are relevant, we can get rid of the box, too. Daniel Case (talk) 02:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

If the utility of the ACARS messages is proven by later FDR/CVR (or even other) analysis, I think we may want to keep them. But to trim them down, on the basis of later findings, seems to slightly spoil the narrative? Perhaps best dealt with by a footnote. But I think we may need to wait quite a while before we can decide. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep the times and descriptions - the sequence of events before the crash is of strong interest to readers - and likely to feature in a full report when they have the flight data recorder. The diagnostic code numbers can be removed. -- Callinus (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

ACARS messages

• Time
• 00:26 ANTI ICE R WINDOW
• 00:26 R SLIDING WINDOW SENSOR
• 00:26 SMOKE LAVATORY SMOKE
• 00:27 AVIONICS SMOKE
• 00:28 R FIXED WINDOW SENSOR
• 00:29 AUTO FLT FCU 2 FAULT
• 00:29 F/CTL SEC 3 FAULT

All times are UTC or Zulu time.

I'd agree that the diagnostic code numbers can be removed. They don't add any value to the general reader and would tidy the list up as the codes shown are 4 and 6 digits meaning the text following them gets staggered. We could also drop the "Z" after the time as there's a footnote at the bottom of the list that explains it's Zulu/UTC. I added one line with "Time" to serve as a header as I was confused when I first saw the list until I got to the bottom about that these were times. Part of the confusion was the diagnostic codes which I thought were additional time stamps at first plus it was odd we had used the same code for two different events. There's an example of the proposed info-box to the right of this message. I tried to remove the bullets too using 'style="list-style-type: none;"' but was not successful.

--Marc Kupper|talk 23:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

"It was not reported when the signal had been sent."

It seems that CNN and WSJ are not fully informed about the ELT signal: "It was not reported when the signal had been sent." A more complete report giving a precise time appears in Bloomberg. I leave it to you enthusiasts… Layzeeboi (talk) 01:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Infobox formatting

The standard WikiProject Aircraft Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence formatting includes parameters for fatalities and survivors. Normally these have the number of fatalities and the number of survivors. Some new editors to aircraft accidents seem to not understand this simple use of the infobox and keep deleting the "survivors" parameter. The template documentation explains how to use this template and says for this parameter, "Total number of people who survived the accident or incident. As above, add in brackets if any of this number were people other than crew or passengers, or if everyone involved survived." Is there any reason that this article should be different from other aircraft accident articles? Unless a good case can be made the infox should be used as per consensus and include this parameter. - Ahunt (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:OSE comes to mind, if nobody survived the crash you would be saying to the reader the same info twice. It is simple math when it comes to totals equaling zero, the survivor parameter is best used if there are actual survivors. I find that the usage of (all) next to fatalities would have the same effect. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Would anyone oppose to simply replacing "66" with "All" in the fatalities parameter? Tvx1 19:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not see any reason why change - in this particukar case - the standard use of the template as decribed by Ahunt. (My random checks of List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft seem to confirm this use, usually adding "(all)" - May 1923 Air Union Farman Goliath crash, United Airlines Trip 34, United Airlines Trip 34, Aviastar Flight 7503, Metrojet Flight 9268, Trigana Air Service Flight 257). WikiHannibal (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Again WP:OSE, can you counter how this isn't redundant? Just because it has been used in articles x, y, and z doesn't mean a discussion was ever held on the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

1) WP:OSE - what precisely do you refer to? Something that is described there, such as "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid"? 2) The discussion should be held at Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence, not here. WikiHannibal (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to adding "all" next to the 66 as it makes the extra "survivors" parameter redundant in this case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

"All" is not an appropriate appendage. What it suggests to the reader is that all of the fatalities were fatalities, clearly absurd. Akld guy (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

If everyone died, then everyone died. It is also absurd to put "0" if nobody survived when it says everyone died. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Putting "0" tells readers nobody (unfortunately) survived. I don't see how this is absurd. This makes the article clearer, at a glance, the reader is able to take in the information without having to "think a little bit". This makes it extra clear that no one survived the ill-fated EgyptAir Flight 804. Guysayshi (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)Guysayshi

I believe that Survivors should be an entry and it should indicate 0 or preferably 'None'. An editor above has said that the number is derivable from the number of passengers and fatalities, but the reader should not be expected to do the math and the number of survivors should be explicitly stated. This may not seem important while the topic is currently in the news and everyone knows there were no survivors, but think of 6 months, a year, a couple of years into the future when this will be just another accident. The number should be explicitly stated for those who will read at that time. Akld guy (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I second that survivors=0 should cover that. Also, when I see 66 (all) in the fatalities field I feel like Wikipedia editors are assuming that I'm stupid. I'm aware that many different aviation accident articles do have this annoying feature, but it seems unnecessary most of the time. Geogene (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

That's why I proposed replacing "66" with "all" instead of adding "all" to it. Tvx1 21:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

That would make the embedded data harder to scrape. Not a huge priority, but an issue. Geogene (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Why? Tvx1 22:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a need to engage in such discussions over this small matter. Just state the survivors. Is it false that there are no survivors? No source to prove otherwise. Is it notable? Why not? Given in template. Is it redundant? Yes to most people, but no to some readers that are not as privileged to be able to immediately comprehend some facts. Wikipedia is for everyone, including blind people (using speech synthesis), people with disabilities and so on. We as editors should not be choosing what is redundant and what is not for readers. I think we should be more focused on improving the article as a whole, rather than concentrating on small matters like this one. Guysayshi (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)Guysayshi

That's where my "All" proposal comes in handy again. If you simply put fatalities "All", it addresses all your concerns while using just one parameter. Tvx1 12:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

"People on board" table caption

The People on board by citizenship table has a caption reading Counts are based on preliminary data and do not total 66. The counts total exactly 66, so I'm not sure what this caption means. Perhaps it should be deleted, but maybe I'm missing something Tonywalton ^Talk 22:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Aircraft age

I find it funny for an aircraft that's 12 years 10 months old to call it 12 years old as if it was a person who did not celebrate their 13th birthday. I find it funnier to use an external "reliable" source to back this, as if the approximation (towards the closer or the smaller whole year) is a matter of fact. This may be a cultural problem but where I am from, when you try to approximate something (age, length, weight, anything) you use the closer unit so that you introduce the least error. If you need to fill a form where a certain length needs to be specified in feet and you want to enter 3'10", it is more accurate to say 4' instead of 3'.

Anyway, I don't think it is so much of an issue, but I'd really like to hear what other editors think. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I think bringing this issue to our attention - again - is a waste of time, especially as it is sourced now. WikiHannibal (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree, pointless argument. The plane was not yet 13 years old so we can't round it up to 13. Get over it. Akld guy (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

What I am saying is not rounding up; it is approximating. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

If you approximate you have to point that out in the text. For instance, in this case you could write: "The plane was nearly 13 years old". Simply stating "It was 13 years old" is plainly wrong . Tvx1 18:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

But then a different user will come along and tell you that "nearly" is a WP:WEASEL word... Firebrace (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

And then I will respond to that user they are wrong. It doesn't even come close to being a weasel word. WP:WEASEL deals with giving vague attribution to a claim instead of presenting a clear source (e.g. "Some say" it was an act of terror).Tvx1 01:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the OP is right. There is no need to give the same information twice. I propose to remove this. There is no evidence that it is of any relevance to the crash. --John (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Who is the "OP"? What is reported twice? Please explain ... Regards, WWGB (talk) 10:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The OP is Rentzepopoulos, the Original Poster. We are reporting the age of the plane twice, once accurately (...made its first flight on 25 July 2003) preceded by the same information rounded inaccurately downwards (The aircraft involved was a 12-year-old[2] Airbus). I propose we take out the inaccurate rounded version and leave in the accurate date of first flight. --John (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation of OP, John. There is nothing "inaccurate" in expressing an age as the whole years transpired to date. It is universal in Western civilisation. I object strongly to removing an accurate fact, which is cited, because someone thinks it is "closer" to 13 years. Everyone/everything is 12 until their/its 13th anniversary. Fact. Regards, WWGB (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Everything? I think. --John (talk) 11:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, the exchange between WWGB and John clarifies the cause of friction (between well-intended editors) on this minor issue. As WWGB says, when saying that someone is 12 years old this shows the number of complete years, not the approximate age of the person. This is of course completely different than saying that someone is 6 feet tall or 200 lbs heavy, even if the three statements look very similar. It seems, as I noted in my original post, that this is indeed a cultural issue. Not all people that speak English may understand this in the same way and since the English Wikipedia is de facto universal, I would agree with John's proposal to remove the text. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

If my daughter is 12 years and 10 months old, I would call her a 12-year-old. If I was selling a car this age, I think it would be more honest to advertise it as being almost 13 years old. I think a plane is more like a car than a person in this respect. --John (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

And you in that sentence you wrote the car is "almost" 13 years old. It is ok to approximate, but you HAVE to make it clear in the prose that it is an approximation. We can't present the aircraft being 13 years old as if it were a fact while we know it isn't a fact at all. Tvx1 20:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I have removed this entirely. If the age of the plane becomes a factor in the investigation we could maybe reopen this discussion. --John (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

"Crew" in the nationality table

Is it time to declare that the crew members were Egyptian citizens? – Jwkozak91 (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Is there an RS saying so? I saw that you made the change in the table; however you should back this with a reference. On the same subject, I read in the text that there were 56+10 on board from 13 countries. However, the table shows 46+10 from 12 countries. Even if the table footnote shows that this is "preliminary data", the discrepancy is significant. I believe that the table and the text should be aligned and supported by RS. As I do not have access to such at this time, could someone please make sure that we are not inventing news in this aspect? Rentzepopoulos (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I corrected the data on passagners acc to the source; nationality of crew memebers still needs a source. WikiHannibal (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I reverted the addition of the crew members nationalities. We cannot not declare occupants nationalities ourselves. We must reflect what has been reported by reliable sources and no source was provided for the crew members' nationalities. The "missing" thirteenth country would probably be Australia for the one dual British-Australian citizen. We don't display that country explicitly as the person in question travelled on their British passport. Similarly we list one each of the Canadian-Egyptian dual citizens for Canada and Egypt respectively according to the passport they were traveling on. A footnote has been provided to explain the situation. This correctly reflects the reliable sources, as you can see in the below reply. Tvx1 11:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

[2]: "10 were Egyptian crew members"; [3] and [4]: "The Egyptian crew included two cockpit crew, five cabin crew and three security officers." 86.149.211.100 (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

With reference to your second link, a reference to the "Egyptian crew" cannot be considered evidence of nationality. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

[5]: "... as well as 10 Egyptian crew members." Plenty more sources available. What's the problem? You think it is somehow unlikely they were all Egyptian nationals? What are we waiting for? 217.38.89.34 (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we can add nationality to the crew members. WikiHannibal (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

In all of those sources, it's not 100% clear that the intended meaning is "Egyptian nationality" and opposed to "staff of the Egyptian carrier EgyptAir". Yes, it's very likely they were all Egyptian nationals, but I'm surprised we can't find a official announcement from the company confirming this, or even something clear in the Egyptian press. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on EgyptAir Flight 804. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/06/17/world/middleeast/ap-ml-egypt-plane.html

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

Y 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Daily Mail

IMHO, the Daily Mail is reliable enough to be used here. That said, and paying attention to the above discussion, I have tagged it with {{better source needed}}, which is better than leaving it uncited. This claim referenced, if true, is likely to be reported elsewhere, such as Aviation Herald, Flight International, Aviation Safety Network, all of which easily meed WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 06:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Citations in the lede

Why is there really a need for any citations in the lede? It's best if we keep it simplified and up to WP:CITELEAD standards. Parsley Man (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Because there is a quote in the lede that is useful and quotes must be cited. If you read WP:CITELEAD it specifically says "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation" and "there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." Pretty clear, that. - Ahunt (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I view quotes in a lead and oftentimes elsewhere in an article as clue that an article needs work. Editor's sometimes quote as a way to get around WP:COPYVIO and I had wondered if that's why the seemingly unnecessary "signs of high temperature damage and soot" was in the lead. That statement not did not seem like something that needs to be retained in the WP article as an exact quote and so I replaced it with a sentence that summarizes the issue which is already covered in the body. FWIW, It appears from Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Egypt that works from the Egyptian government are not in the public domain meaning we can't do direct copy/paste of content.

I also did not see it as an item likely to be challenged. If someone wants to claim that statements from the Egyptian Ministry of Civil Aviation are false/mistaken, etc. then this talk page does not seem to be the place to do that. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Fire issue

When digging into how to improve the wording in this article about attempts to extinguish a or the fire I got the sense that the sources we used for statements are not reliable. I'm unable to track down a better source but have left the article alone for now.

The lead has "Conversation recorded by the cockpit voice recorder indicated one of the pilots had tried to extinguish fire in the cockpit before the crash." The phrasing was a little awkward and so I was thinking about if it should be "extinguish a fire in the cockpit" or "extinguish the fire in the cockpit".

The body of the article has "one of the pilots had tried to extinguish the fire in the cockpit".

The lead's source has "desperate staff tried to extinguish a fire on board" in the title and body.^{http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3675457/EgyptAir-voice-recorded-reveals-desperate-staff-tried-extinguish-fire-board-MS804-crashed.html} It just says "staff" and not "one of the pilots" and does not indicate where in the aircraft the extinguishing efforts took place.

The body's source has "EgyptAir pilot tried to put out fire on board plane" in the title and "One of the pilots on board EgyptAir flight 804 tried to put out a fire before the crash" plus "Information from the flight's cockpit voice recorder suggests the pilot tried to extinguish a fire in the cockpit, Le Figaro reported."^[6] While the last sentence is fairly precise this article is citing another article and so I thought I'd better check there. Unfortunately, it's behind a paywall but the abstract that's available includes 'Reportedly, the second black box, the CVR (cockpit voice recorder), indicates that one of the two pilots present in the cockpit of Egyptair flight MS 804 tried to extinguish a fire before the disaster.' (that's my translation of the French).

As it starts with "Reportedly" this abstract is citing an unknown source and while it identifies that one of the pilots was the person attempting to extinguish a fire it does not say if it was in the cockpit or elsewhere in aircraft. The article lists several primary sources in the external links section

• Airbus' page has not been updated since 23 May.^[7]
• BEA's page continues to be updated but for the most part are mentioning Egyptian authorities and does not go into details.^[8]
• EgyptAir's page has not been updated since 22 May 2016.^[9]
• The Egyptian government's civil aviation department^[10] has numbered progress reports. #21 is from 3 July and is about recovery of human remains at the crash site. #22 is from 5 July basically says "do not pay attention to rumors".

I suspect a pilot's attempts to put out a fire is one of the rumors. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, today's MS804 news seems more in the rumor category but the New York Times has a sizeable article that includes "Crew members were playing music and chatting amiably when the pilot, Capt. Muhammad Shoukair, 36, suddenly said there was a fire on board and asked the co-pilot, Muhammad Mamdouh Assem, 24, to get an extinguisher. That was the last human sound the recorder captured."^[11] The article also mentions the aircraft breaking up but that seems to be speculation from people not directly involved with the investigation. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

TNT traces

Reuters citing Le Figaro has reported traces of explosives on the debris. Not sure whether add now or wait for official sources. Brandmeister^talk 08:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

It was added to the article today but I have not seen any other media making it a topic, it is based only on the Figaro source... --WikiHannibal (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Debris found

At present the article does not have anything about possible EgyptAir Flight 804 debris that has been found by others. For example, on 7 July 2016 there were reports of possible debris recovered from a beach in Netanya Israel.^{[12][13]Egyptian Ministry of Civil Aviation report #23} Even if this material is confirmed I don't see a clean way to work it into the WP article. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

"Possible debris" probably isn't notable, unless confirmed as coming from the flight, especially because the aircraft is not missing, it has been mostly located. If it is confirmed as coming from the aircraft, then it could be added. - Ahunt (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Egypt's Civil Aviation Ministry says traces of explosives have been found on some of the victims of an EgyptAir flight from Paris that crashed in the Mediterranean Sea in May. [14]- Buckley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.95.1.11 (talk) 12:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

ELT again

I just want to note that the recent additions by 199.38.101.2 in section "investigation" about the emergency locator transmitter partially overlap with info in "Search area" so someone might to have a look into that and merge/ce them. The new additions are more detailed; the old ones provide, I think, a chronological point of view and context. WikiHannibal (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on EgyptAir Flight 804. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160804025933/http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/world/saskatoon+born+businesswoman+canadians+aboard+downed/11931382/story.html to http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/world/saskatoon+born+businesswoman+canadians+aboard+downed/11931382/story.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Source doesn't check out

The bit about the BEA being raided and not knowing they had a backup of the deleted data isn't in the cited source. It seems be here though. I'm sorry, I'm not getting into making a proper citation out of it right now. -- jhf (talk) 05:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)