Talk:British Airways Flight 9
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
British Airways Flight 9 is part of WikiProject Indonesia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template.
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
|
|
|
Contents |
[edit] Reversion of weather category
I'd consider volcanic ash a "weather" phenomenon, at least so far as aviation is concerned. After all, you hear about volcanic ash when you are receiving your weather briefing. And it sounds like it was the volcanic ash that caused the incident. Why do you (Scott) feel that isn't an appropriate category? —Cleared as filed. 19:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, volcanic ash is included in weather briefings, but that's more because there nowhere else to put it, rather than because it is weather. If the category was accidents caused by atmospheric conditions or something similar, then fine, but ash is hardly bad weather. --Scott Wilson 19:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Weather is typically defined as something like "the specific condition of the atmosphere at a particular time and place". It usually includes visibility, smog, and dust storms where these are significant conditions. Pyroclastic ash clouds are a significant atmospheric condition and would seem to qualify as weather. We don't often think of them that way perhaps, but presumably only because they are uncommon in our experience. -R. S. Shaw 04:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
KLM is in fact Royal Dutch Airlines, not Royal Dutch Airways as it is mentioned here - Aishah Bowron 18:51, 21 February 2006
[edit] not original material
some of this text is copied verbatim from [1] Miken32 18:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- It may look like that (as I initially thought), but the evidence is that the IFALPA bulletin copied from this Wikipedia article without attribution (and in violation of terms of the GFDL). This 8 Jan 2006 version has the common text, whereas the IFALPA bulletin is dated 26 January 2006. (The text probably goes back almost to the original article version of Aug 2005.) Amusing that the bulletin says "All reprints must credit IFALPA". The passages I found resembling the article are:
- Diverting to Jakarta, and despite reports of good visibility, the crew found it hard to see anything, and had to make the approach almost entirely on instruments, although the runway lights could be made out through a small strip of the windscreen undamaged by abrasion from the ash. After landing, the crew then found it impossible to taxi, as glare from apron floodlights made the windscreen opaque.
- Although the airspace around Mount Galunggung was closed temporarily after the incident, it reopened and it was only after a Singapore Airlines B-747 was forced to shut down three of its engines while flying through the same area nineteen days later that Indonesian authorities closed the airspace permanently and re-routed airways to avoid the area. Subsequently, a watch was set up to monitor clouds of ash.
- In a nearly identical incident in 1989, a KLM flight from Amsterdam to Anchorage, Alaska, flew into the plume of the erupting Mount Redoubt, causing all four engines to fail due to compressor stall. Once the flight cleared the ash cloud it was able to restart each engine and then made a safe landing at Anchorage, though, like the BA flight mentioned above, the aircraft was substantially damaged.
- I had added a reference entry for the IFALPA bulletin, but will now remove it. -R. S. Shaw 20:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought some of the bulletin sounded familiar! Although you've only my word for it, I'd never heard of IFALPA at that point, let alone seen the bulletin: the initial revision was mainly me paraphrasing Betty Tootell's book. --Scott Wilson 22:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Time zones
some of the times are in gmt. should they not be in either utc or jakarta time? or is it gmt because the aircraft is registered in britain?
- Firstly, GMT is the same as UTC (give or take a few fractions of a second). In the initial version, I used GMT because that's what my primary source (Tootell) used. Secondly, in aviation in general, because aircraft cross timezones so frequently and with such ease, UTC/GMT is used (even for flights staying in one timezone) to avoid any possibility of confusion - local times are generally only for passengers. --Scott Wilson 16:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Captain on flight deck?
Some time ago (Feb 25 in my time zone), someone made an edit that looks like vandalism (and no one acted on it until just now, when I reverted it, so it looks like no one noticed). However, if I remember the Air Crash Investigations episode correctly, they were actually removing a false statement. Can someone more familiar with this please check it? Brian Jason Drake 08:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC) [edited to add italics on the series title - Brian Jason Drake 10:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)]
- I've consulted the sources available to me, including Job's Air Disaster vol. 2 and the Air Safety Week June 28, 2004 article (both substantial), and the Daily Mail article, and none of them indicate that Moody left the flight deck after the visual symptoms had begun. He had returned before any of the engine failures and didn't leave. This is also my memory from reading Tootell's book two years ago.
- The sentence in question was added last Sept by a one-day anon editor. The same edit removed text saying that Moody had told Greaves to declare the emergency, but the sources indicate that he did do that. Taking the anon's edits all together, they seem to have a bit of anti-Captain bias, sort of sour grapes flavor. From other accounts, the captain's time away from the flight deck was nonexistant during the period the aircraft was having engine trouble.
- I'm going to again remove the sentence. Whether the original removal by User:Eric Moody was actually by Captain Moody or not we don't know, but I don't dismiss the possibility. -R. S. Shaw 20:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ascent over mountain
After restarting all the engines, the aircraft ascended back into the cloud to cross the mountain, causing one engine to fail again. If ascent is not necessary to cross the mountain ([2]), what is it necessary for? The introduction gives no clues. Brian Jason Drake 03:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- The intro gives no clues because no sources explain. Job's Air Disaster says that the copilot radioed " 'All four engines running - level at 12,000.' On the captain's instruction, he added, 'Request higher level.' " with no explanation of the reason for the request.
- I would speculate that the captain simply wanted more altitude in case of further engine flame-outs, since that would give them more time to deal with a new problem before descent from lack of power had critical consequences. Remember they had just gone through 20 harrowing minutes of powerless descent with their high starting altitude giving them precious time. They didn't know there was an ash cloud to reenter and that ascending was dangerous. The lowest safe altitude to cross the mountains was 11,500 ft, so it was adequate to be at 12,000, at which they started the ascent, and to which they quickly returned for the crossing.
- But Wikipedia is not the place for speculation, so such guesses shouldn't be in the article. -R. S. Shaw 04:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have Betty Toottell's book on the incident in front of me. On pg 135 (Pan books 1985 edition) it confirms Job's account stated above, and adds the following statement after Jakarta 'cleared to 150': "Immediately Captain Moody put the aircraft into a climb back towards 15,000 ft, only too well aware of the mountains beneath, and wanting to have a reserve margin for clearance over them." So the supposed reason for the climb can be linked to a references, which I'll do when I get a chance. --Zamphuor 14:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Landing and Taxi
I just recently watched a documentary on the incident. It cited that the cause for the opaque windshield was because of the blasting of the sand particles (sand blasting) against the windscreen, not because of light glare. Can anyone confirm this? --Zachdouglas 21.16, 20 April 2007
It was both. The light reflecting off the sandblasted windscreen made it opaque, just like frosted glass. --Scott Wilson 15:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Please explain engine 'searchlight' appearance
The article says: "Those looking out windows also noticed that the engines were unusually bright, as if they each had a searchlight in them, shining forward through the fan blades." That doesn't fit with St Elmo's fire which is a soft glow and not at all like that description. What is the explanation for that engine visual effect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.45.165 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 22 April 2007 [moved by User:Scott Wilson 16:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I honestly don't know, though I don't think it was St Elmo's fire - if the article implies it was, it ought to be changed. I can't remember if Tootell gave an explanation in her book (my main source on this subject), or if it's still a mystery. --Scott Wilson 16:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The glow is indeed St. Elmo's fire and is experienced regularly by pilots who fly through weather conditions where Ice crystallization has occurred in the atmosphere. This is often seen as a glow extending forward from the nose of the airplane, or at the inlets of the engines. It varies in degree depending on the amount of friction causing elecrtostatic charge and ionizing the air around the sharp edges of the airplane.
[edit] Flight (article) name
Flight name was BA009 - see foot of article. Should this article be renamed?Mjroots (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can remember when at LHR last time, this flight was called the BA Zero Zero Nine, over the tannoy and on the flight information screens, I agree that is should be renamed. Benny45boy (talk) 11:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
