Talk:Lauda Air Flight 004

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clarification[edit]

I changed the word "explosion" to the word "accident." While the plane did catch fire, before hitting the ground, that occurred only after the plane began to break up from severe G-forces, rupturing the fuel tanks as wing parts began to break away. The word "explosion" is not proper nomenclature, to describe that kind of accident disintegration sequence. EditorASC 09:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flight number[edit]

Shouldn't the flight number be 4, not 004? 82.181.0.205 09:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

No, the correct flight number is 004. That's how it was given. And003 21:06, July 27, 2007 (UTC)

Only non-human interred accident of a 767?[edit]

EgyptAir Flight 990, though disputed, claims otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.5.2 (talk) 03:18, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Location[edit]

There are two errors here: 1) concerning the name of the 'nearby village' and the province, and 2) concerning the coordinates given.

The site of the crash is actually in Phu Toei National Park (not created until 7 years later, in 1998), Dan Chang district, Suphanburi province (not Uthai Thani). I can attest this because I was there yesterday and the way to the site is signposted. This is indeed quite close to Uthai Thani province, but still some 4-5 km away from the provincial border.

Now, the strange thing is that the accident report states the names correctly (though it's right on a sub-district border and seems to be Tambon Wang Yao, rather than Tambon Huai Khamin, as given in the report) but has the latitude value wrong. Quote:

1.12 Wreckage and Impact Information

The wreckage site was generally located at 14 degrees 44 minutes North latitude and 99 degrees 26 minutes East longitude. This was in mountainous jungle terrain approximately 3 nautical miles north northeast of Phu Toey village of Tambol Huay Kamin in the Ban Dan Chang district of Suphan Buri Province, Kingdom of Thailand. The average elevation of the wreckage area was estimated to be 600 metres.

Most of the wreckage was found in a one square kilometer area, but some lighter weight components were found up to 2,000 metres from the initial impact point. The horizontal stabilizer was the first major component found in the debris pattern, which was along a generally northwest/southeast track. Thrust reverser actuators from the left engine (both sleeves) were found in the fully deployed position. A diagram of the wreckage spread is included in this report as Appendix B.

The correct (rounded) coordinates are 14d57'N, 99d27'E (= 14.95N, 99.45E in decimals), not 14d44'N, 99d27'E (which is about 25 km to the south, on the border of Suphanburi and Kanchanaburi provinces, and not in forested mountainous terrain 600m above sea level, but in an agricultural plain with an elevation of approx. 200m, as a look at Google Earth/Maps shows). Quite a stunning mistake for an offical report (which subsequently got copied into all website sources about this crash).

For proof, compare the road shape from the map in the appendix with Google Maps at 14.95N, 99.45E.

Also, the area is really quite remote and not near any village. In fact, I could not find any evidence that there even is a "Phu Toei village", or the location of the supposed "Ban Nong Rong" (Nong Rong village) in Uthai Thani province that is now mentioned in the Wikipedia article, so this information should better be left out.

I will make changes to the article accordingly.

--Dekthep (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

incorrect statement about the investigations - reverse thrust deployment in the air not recoverable[edit]

Lauda:

"It took about eight months to discover what had caused the crash. The flight recorder was damaged and only the voice recorder survived, along with some of the engine software. When the manufacturer Boeing eventually analysed everything it was clear the reverse thrust had deployed in the air. Everyone thought that an aeroplane could continue to fly under those circumstances - but it couldn't. What really annoyed me was Boeing's reaction once the cause was clear. Boeing did not want to say anything. There was a funeral in Bangkok for the last 23 unidentified passengers and I went there to pay my respects. Then I flew straight to Seattle to try to have this dealt with properly. This was a very difficult time for me.

I asked to fly the simulator myself with it programmed the way they thought the aeroplane had behaved. At first they refused. But I said: 'Listen, this was my aeroplane, my name, my damage ... so let me do it.' They agreed. I tried 15 times to recover the aircraft, but it was impossible. It was absolutely clear why the plane had crashed. But the legal department at Boeing said they could not issue a statement. They said it would take another three months to deal with the wording. I asked for a press conference the next day in Seattle. I said: 'Take a 767, load it up like it was with two pilots, deploy the reverse thrust in the air and, if it keeps on flying, I want to be on board. If you guys are so sure that people can continue to fly these aeroplanes without being at risk, then let's do it.' Immediately they came to my hotel and told me they could not do it. I said: 'OK, then issue a statement!' And they did. This was the first time in eight months that it had been made clear that the manufacturer was at fault and not the operator of the aeroplane."

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2006/oct/29/features.sportmonthly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.91.123.71 (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/FBW.html#B767-Lauda WhisperToMe (talk) 08:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thrust reverser and Lauda[edit]

As per the above link and the Guardian section quoted above, it sounds like the description of Niki Lauda's views and role are incomplete, as with Boeing's views. Also the warning business is somewhat unclear. From the above link, it sounds like it wasn't actually a warning that thrust reverses may deploy in flight but a warning the thrust reverse hadn't locked properly which makes sense since the above also suggests Boeing initially denied it was possible for them to deploy in flight (which wouldn't make sense if they had a warning for such a condition). Nil Einne (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are many things incomplete about this article. I am trying to fill in some gaps. And it turns out Boeing did insist that it wasn't possible, but even if it was, Boeing did a test where it seemed like a thrust reverser deployment in flight wouldn't be so bad. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found more about Niki Lauda's position WhisperToMe (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Mayday episode (Niki Lauda: Testing the Limits) says that Boeing only tested low speed, low altitude cases. Lauda tested high speed high altitude where the consequence was unrecoverable. Lauda was a key figure in solving the case (notable for his article). These items are partially, but not clearly stated in the article. TGCP (talk) 11:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OE-LAU, sister ship of OE-LAV[edit]

From: Job, Macarthur. Air Disaster, Volume 2. Aerospace Publications, 1996. p. 204. ISBN 1875671196, 9781875671199:

  • "Sistership OE-LAU [23765] "Johann Strauss" was the airline's first widebodied type and, consequently, the most photographed of Lauda's aircraft. With the 6.42m (21 '1") stretch of the basic 767-200 fuselage, Boeing offered its - 300 customers a choice of midship exits to meet regulatory requirements for the additional passenger capacity. Roughly half (including Lauda Air) have opted for an extra pair of full-size doors just forward of the wing leading edge, the others choosing overwing window exits instead."

I'm not sure if this will fit into the article, but I have the info anyway WhisperToMe (talk) 04:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clemens August Andreae stuff[edit]

In German, From: Parschalk, Norbert and Bernhard Thaler. Südtirol Chronik: das 20. Jahrhundert. Athesia, 1999.

"Sechs der zehn Südtiroler Opfer sind Studenten der Innsbrucker Fakultät für Wirtschaftswissenschaften aus Klausen, Gröden, Olang, Mals und Kiens, die unter der Leitung von Clemens August Andreae an einer Exkursion nach Fernost teilgenommen hatten. Die anderen vier Südtiroler Todesopfer - alle aus Bozen - sind zwei Beamte sowie ein Berufsmusiker mit seiner chinesischen Frau und dem in Bozen geborenen Töchterchen der beiden. Tragisches Ende für Expedition 7. Mai: Die Südtiroler[...]" WhisperToMe (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Names of officials[edit]

According to: "More Than 200 Believed Killed As Plane Crashes in Thai Jungle." Associated Press. May 27, 1991.

  • Prakob na Songkhla - manager of the Thai office of Lauda Air
  • Martin Mullner - Lauda official
  • Charan Palung - Thai police sergeant major

WhisperToMe (talk) 11:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory Statements in Article[edit]

In one place this article says:

"[Lauda] made simulator flights at Gatwick Airport which appeared to show that deployment of a thrust reverser was a survivable incident. Lauda said that the thrust reverser could not be the sole cause of the crash."

Just below it, this article says:

"Lauda attempted the flight in the simulator 15 times, and in every instance he was unable to recover. ... he asked Boeing to issue a statement saying that it would be not survivable ..."

Which of these two contradictory claims is true?

--JCipriani (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are both true. When Lauda ran the test at Gatwick, the flight simulator did not accurately recreate the effect of thrust reverser deployment. (It had not been designed to simulate circumstances outside of normal operation). When he repeated the test at Boeing, the flight simulator had been reprogrammed. But you're right that the article does not make this clear. 86.5.176.168 (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lede[edit]

The second paragraph includes the statement "It was the third serious accident involving an Austrian aircraft". This is a meaningless sentence as it does not define what is meant by a "serious" accident. It needs to be either clarified or removed. 86.5.176.168 (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the photos to the article 'Lauda Air Flight 004'[edit]

Please help. I have received photos from a friend who want to share information of the memorial at Wat Sa Kaeo Srisanpetch. I don't know how to add photos to the article. Here are the URL of the photos. You can do whatever with the photos as no copyright involved.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Hgiu_07TBng/VazV4FEZauI/AAAAAAAAOeA/zs5yVDFVghs/s640-Ic42/Lauda%252520Air%252520-%252520Wat%252520Sa%252520Kaeo%252520Srisanpetch%252520%252520%2525284%252529.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Mc1sslcFF9g/VazV51azRHI/AAAAAAAAOeQ/7kN4MY1ox_k/s640-Ic42/Lauda%252520Air%252520-%252520Wat%252520Sa%252520Kaeo%252520Srisanpetch%252520%252520%2525282%252529.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Hhgvqd6_crU/VazV6VpTO5I/AAAAAAAAOeY/5JmATxwL7FQ/s640-Ic42/Lauda%252520Air%252520-%252520Wat%252520Sa%252520Kaeo%252520Srisanpetch%252520%252520%2525281%252529.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-V7wlQtZ0HC0/VazV3ZG9wmI/AAAAAAAAOd4/l89zWyggmKk/s640-Ic42/Lauda%252520Air%252520-%252520Wat%252520Sa%252520Kaeo%252520Srisanpetch%252520%252520%2525285%252529.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/--9nOUJVWUhs/VazV5GjFJQI/AAAAAAAAOeI/q61svcU8kHI/s640-Ic42/Lauda%252520Air%252520-%252520Wat%252520Sa%252520Kaeo%252520Srisanpetch%252520%252520%2525283%252529.jpg

Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Komsonp (talk • contribs) 11:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lauda Air Flight 004. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 14:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South Tyrolean victims[edit]

It isn't clear to me why the places of origin and occupations of the 10 South Tyrolean (Italian) victims are specified, whereas the same isn't done for the numerous other nationalities involved, and - for obvious reasons of space - is seldom done in articles on air crashes generally (except in the case of notable victims, who are already mentioned separately in the very next section). The fact that the place names are given in both German and Italian almost suggests a political motive on the writer's part, relating to the forced Italianisation of South Tyrolean names following Italy's annexation of the region after the First World War. There are even links to the articles on the places concerned, almost as if to advertise them. Since the airline was Austrian and the plane crashed in Thailand, what is the possible relevance of all this?188.230.248.85 (talk) 12:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me to just be an effect of the availability of sources discussing that group. The paragraph was added in this edit; you might want to ask WhisperToMe. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@188.230.248.85: - No political motive. It was simply because I found a reference that gave that exact detail about the Italian citizens. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"public officers"[edit]

In good English this should surely read "public officials", since "officers" usually has military connotations. To me this strongly suggests that the article wasn't written by a native English-speaker. As so often, I wish non-native users of English would have articles checked by a native speaker before posting them on Wikipedia!188.230.248.85 (talk) 12:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@188.230.248.85: It must have been a direct translation from the German term (as I had inputted the words into an online translator). I was the one who wrote the section.
Even though this is a case of a native speaker writing the section, it's too much work to have all non-native speakers submit everything they write to a native speaker before they post it. Wikipedia:Articles for creation and the like are backlogged.
WhisperToMe (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Lauda Air Flight 004. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"However"[edit]

Hello, I found the use of "However" as just reverted to be editorializing, per WP:WTW. Let us not insert our personal opinions into the article, as Wikipedia is written in a neutral tone. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Using "however" is not prohibited; it should be fine if it is used to link sentences with clearly contradictory statements. It is when its use constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS that it becomes a problem (see example there). In this case, though, the relationship of each statement is rather unclear, and the paragraph could probably be better written. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The insertion of the word "however" is not editorialising in this instance; it is being used to link sentences with clearly contradictory statements. The sentences in question are:
As evidence started to point towards the thrust reversers as the cause of the accident, simulator flights were made at Gatwick Airport which appeared to show that deployment of a thrust reverser was a survivable incident. Lauda said that the thrust reverser could not be the sole cause of the crash. The accident report states that the "flightcrew training simulators yielded erroneous results" and stated that recovery from the loss of lift from the reverser deployment "was uncontrollable for an unexpecting flight crew".
The Third sentence contradicts what is said in the first and second sentences. I see the first and second sentences as initial thinking whereas the third sentence is what was eventually concluded. Hence the use of the word "however" seems justified. Any objections to putting it back in? If so, please explain. Thanks. Zin92 (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No objections and so "However" re-inserted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zin92 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third-deadliest including 9/11[edit]

According to the ASN, this was the deadliest crash of a Boeing 767 at the time. It's now the third, behind the two aircraft that were flown into the twin towers on 9/11. Which were American Airlines Flight 11 (the deadliest 767 crash) and United airlines flight 175 (the second-deadliest 767 crash). Change it? Not trying to cause controversy. Just being respective. Tigerdude9 (talk) 02:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just took it out. That it was the deadliest at the time is kind of self-evident, as it was the first. We could have a discussion on how to count the "deadliness" of the 9/11 flights, but I guess it's not worth it. There were apparently only 6 fatal incidents all in all, so being the second or third isn't much of an achievement. Averell (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Averell23: (I'm sorry that I did not reply for several months. This because of school and other reasons.) Maybe it could go in the aftermath section? I've seen it done a few times. Tigerdude9 (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flags[edit]

@Jay D. Easy: There have been many consensus discussions at WT:AIR about flags. Dead airline passengers are not in any way representing their country and the use of flags is therefore not appropriate. I think the latest discussion was here. Please also see "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams" at MOS:FLAG. Also WP:FLAGCRUFT states "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason". Cheers - Samf4u (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samf4u: figured that's what you were talking about, but wasn't sure. Personally I'm against the use of decorative and unnecessary flags or icons as well, but I don't mind them all that much in case of passenger lists such as these. Indeed, passengers aren't representing their country, but also, that's not what I take it to mean in this case. I get your standpoint when unnecessary flags are used in biographical articles, but here, where it's just used to accentuate statistics, I don't mind all that much. In any case, I don't mind omitting them either. However, if we do omit flags, I also propose we don't unnecessarily link them as per MOS:OVERLINK. Take care! Jay D. Easy (t • c) 17:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that sounds good. I'll remove the links I added to other articles. Happy editing! - Samf4u (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation involving this article[edit]

There’s been a few users adding their own twisted version of events promoting Iranian interests. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iran Turkey war. Thanks, Fork99 (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lauda_Air_Flight_004&oldid=1208107341"