Talk:Indonesian court overturns Garuda pilot's conviction over air disaster

Review of revision 921676 [Passed]

Revision 921676 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 921676 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

NewsTrust

Submitted this one to NewsTrust.net to see how it goes; came up on their main page, but I don't know if that's an influence from me being logged into an account on their site. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Shows for me too, and I've no account. Let's wait and see... Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I just got CC'd a review because I put it in:

Factual report about a recent Indonesian court decision to free an airline pilot accused of wrongdoing in a March 2007 air crash. This short article fairly presents credible evidence about this news event, along with perspectives from some of its stakeholders. However, it does not cite comments from the pilot or its crew, and sources were not contacted directly by the anonymous authors of this article.

Full review: http://newstrust.net/stories/509516/reviews/121328

I kinda think this is the obvious stuff we'd like to do but aren't considered important enough to answer if/when we find contacts. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not bad considering. We might do better with an update if we get some OR, then. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• You're sitting alongside a Washington Post piece on their main page and, although only one review, scored higher. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Cool. I can't look, though, it won't display and traceroute indicates that a Sprintlink server is dying so I guess there's little I can do without trying to brave some buggy web proxy. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Good article

Good read. One question though, according to this article, "The investigation by the National Transportation Safety Committee (KNKT) found no mechanical defect and stated that fifteen activations of the Ground proximity warning system had been ignored, but international law made this inadmissible as evidence" I'm kind of curious why this would be inadmissible. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't in the sources so I can't add it, but it's because these investigations are meant to be from a safety standpoint. The International Civil Aviation Organisation has mandated that investigations be conducted for purely safety purposes, independant of any other investigation (such as police probes or a public inquiry). There is a great fear that if there could be repercussions of talking (getting fired or jailed) then people won't talk, the accident sequence will remain a mystery and it will happen again because we couldn't try to stop something we never understood. The idea is that safety is paramount above everything else. Accordingly, reports produced for this purpose cannot be introduced in court except in estraordinary circumstances; neither can black box readouts or interview transcripts with the safety investigators. Of course, this generates harsh fights and much controversy, especially nowadays with a number of prosecutions here and there. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

One year on talks about that some more; in fact it's one of the key points to the interview. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)