Talk:ValuJet Flight 592

Comments

I moved a lot of the text from the Valujet article relating to the crash and merged it with the text already posted. WhisperToMe 01:36, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

592 didn't really destroy ValuJet, just forced the transformation into the AirTran of today. Perhaps that text should be editied. 129.21.143.179 04:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Should it matter mentioning the false "empty" status of the canisters? I was taking a Hazardous Materials course right after the crash, and we discussed the crash (still in the news) at length as a rolling practical exercise. The canisters were supposed to be marked for cargo aircraft only. The canisters are also classified to be treated the same if they are empty or full. As you may know, some chemicals are more dangerous as vapor than liquid, so an "empty" container may contain the vapor making it more dangerous. Regardless, the empty/full status is irrelevant when handling oxygen generators. BenWilson 14:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• The investigation program from Seconds to Disaster clearly said that the canisters were labeled as "empty" when they were not, and that contributed to the accident. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, the 'empty' reports arose from an early mis-reporting of the oxygen canister types involved immediately after the accident. It was initially assumed by some that the 'oxygen' carried in the cargo hold was stored in pressurised bottles, however it was later discovered that the devices were chemical generators used in the passenger emergency overhead mask system. The generators were time-expired, and not empty as has been stated, they had been removed from an aircraft during maintenance so they were probably still functionable and therefore still dangerous.

The cannisters were supposed to have had a safety pin inserted for transport but the pins were not available and so the actuating cords were cut and taped to the sides of the cannister. At some time in the hold a cannister actuated creating the heat that lead to the igniting of the other cannisters in the box, which being oxygen-fuelled created much higher than normal temperatures, above those which the cargo hold was able to contain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Rolled On It's Side & Crashed Nose First Contradicts Accompanying Illustration

I was baffled by the illustration which shows the aircraft in a level flight attitude before impact compared to the text which reads "Flight 592 disappeared from radar at 2:13:42 pm. It rolled onto its side and crashed to the ground nose-first in the Francis S. Taylor Wildlife Management Area in the Everglades, a few miles west of Miami, at a speed in excess of 507 miles per hour (816 km/h)."

Incidentally, the following sentence from the one quoted above is somewhat confusing "The crew continued to fly the plane until seven or fewer seconds before impact, likely until the front left floor beams collapsed and caused failure of the flight controls." Is this consistent with a nose-down attitude? I suspect the pilots were suffering from severe disorientation and request that this conclusion should be included in the paragraph. 176.24.226.120 (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Alan Lowey

Spike the altimeter

The article mentions the altimeter "spiked" due to the sudden pressure increase presumably caused by one of the tyres in the cargo container bursting. Doesn't an increase in pressure mean a drop in height? So the altimeter would dip, not spike.

I realise the appaling pedantry I'm expressing here when a hundred people died. That's Internets! 188.29.165.202 (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)