Jump to content

Talk:Tenerife airport disaster/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Tenerife airport disaster

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by WOSlinkerBot (talk | contribs) at 11:52, 12 September 2021 (add missing italics in discussion close to reduce lint errors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Initial comments

An event in this article is a March 27 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

Is there really a need for "the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 not taken into account." - Well, of coruse they're not taken into account, given they were not an accident?

--

What were the flight numbers of these planes? -- Zoe

This article sure reads like it was written for some other purpose than an encyclopedia. Ortolan88 sa

so the PanAm first pilot survived - what happened to him in the end? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PMA (talk • contribs) 09:47, 29 March 2003

I met him in a hotel lounge in Madrid, Spain in 1981. He had eyeglasses with lens like the bottom of pop bottels (a result of the accident of course). He said he saw the KLM plane approaching and was in shock - couldn't believe he had lived. For the rest of his life he is able to fly for free but will be effected for the rest of his life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.99.96 (talk) 07:47, 31 December 2004

The top says this was the greatest plane disaster till Sept. 11, 2001; the bottom says this was the greatest plane disaster till 1996... which is it? -- Chinju It was certainly the greatest plane accident. To me it is still the greatest plane disaster as well (and I am Dutch).

I believe the 'The Tenerife tower watched helplessly...' paragraph from the original article is totally false, based on this [http://www.panamair.org/Accidents/sectenerife.htm Secretary of Aviation Report]. According to that, the tower continued handling other planes and waiting for a reply from the Pan Am, not knowing anything was wrong until they got reports of a fire on the field from other planes and u are quite right, Greg. (And welcome to the 'pedia.) It's on my "to-do" list - but that list is (at last count) 10,497 items long, and growing by the day. Why not hop in and do it yourself? What's the worst that can happen? Someone crosses out what you wrote and you feel silly? Don't worry about it! be bold in updating pages.) -- Tannin 12:15, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

There is something hazy about the following snip from the page

"Air traffic control gave the KLM plane an airways clearance, signifying that the way was clear for the aircraft once it was in the air, however, the KLM plane mistakenly thought they had heard the tower grant them permission for the take off itself.. "

ATC gave KLM clearance for what? To proceed to the takeoff /hold area? Does the word it apply to the Pan Am plane? If it does then we should say so to make it clear. Moriori 03:05, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

By airway clearance they are refering to an IFR Clearance. Which involves checking with all the different controllers monitoring the airspaces through which an aircraft will be passing to verify flying a particular course at this given altitude will allow sufficent seperation from other aircraft. This is usually received through clearance delivery. Prior to taking off the tower will issue a clearance to takeoff, which involves instructions to fly a heading to some fix. Usually ending with "as filed" so long as the IFR flight plan has not been amended. None of these clearances however are a clearance to take-off. Only a clearance to fly a particular route. The haziness and confusion that you get by reading the CVR transcripts is believed to be a causual factor that lead to the take-off roll and forced takeoff of the KLM aircraft, which inevitably led to the accident. The confusion is also due to the use of non-standard phraseology. i5xswipe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.142.56.201 (talk)

It is the KLM plane, ATC told them that the route was clear, once they had been given permission to take off. (Barry m 03:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC))

Canarian politics

Who were those Canary Islands separatists? The MPAIAC?

As far as I know the bombthreat came from the seperatist movement of ETA. BramvR

From poking around it was reported as Canarian separatists at the time. The acronym I found was "MIACA" but I could not determine what this stood for, or if it's the same as MPAIAC, or if there are translation difficulties. This may need to be resolved with a Nexis search. --Dhartung | Talk 10:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I've checked some old info about the disaster. The bomb came from MPAIAC. AFAIK, ETA has never put a bomb at the Canary Islands (where I'm from)
Heimy 00:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, Air Traffic Control did give KLM permission to take off. Capt Van Zanten was an experienced pilot but had done most of his recent work in the simulator, so wasn't used to even asking permission and had begun his take-off run without it until reminded by another crew member. On being told 'you have permission to take off' he immediately put on full power and didn't listen to the rest of the message. Dbiv 14:25, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What exactly was the Pan Am plane doing? Was it taxiing after landing? The article didn't quite make it clear. Dukeofomnium 20:47, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Both aircraft where back-taxiing the active runway for takeoff, which in short means they were taxiing down the runway going in the opposite direction of the way you will takeoff using the same runway. This was to position the aircraft at the proper end of the runway to takeoff. They were back-taxiing because other aircraft where parked on the paralleling taxi-way. Back-taxiing however is not an uncommon practice. No aircraft should be taking off while another aircraft is on the runway. In this accident the KLM aircraft got to the end of the runway and turned around to takeoff and inevitably did so while the Pan American aircraft was still on the runway taxiing toward them. The Pan American aircraft was suppose to turn onto the paralleling taxiway before it did, but for unknown reasons they continued to back-taxi the runway toward the next exit to the taxi-way. I5xswipe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.142.56.201 (talk)

I deleted the part saying the KLM misinterpreted the Tenerife towers instructions. I've clarified that part to imply what really happened - that an ATC clearance had been given, but for some reason the captain was convinced that this was also a takeoff clearance.

The PanAm pilot

In the AP newswire in 1977, Victor Grubbs, the pilot of the Pan Am jet at Tenerife, expected to return to flying. Does anyone know if he was able to? In 1981, he would have been 61, and thus a year past retirement age. I wonder if his eyesight was too damaged for him to have been able to fly again after the accident.

"Airplane manufacturers began installing equipment that helped planes see through fog." Sound fascinating! Can someone elaborate what equipment we are talking about?

Pan Am flight, take-off date?

The article says Pan Am flight 1736 took off On March 27 from LA. If the accident took place at around 5pm Spanish time on March 27, can that be true? 5pm Tenerife time is 4pm GMT. LA is GMT -8, so that means the crash occurred at 8am LA time on March 27. There is no way the plane could have reached Tenerife, and landed and refuelled, in this time. This page [1] says flight 1736 took off at 1.29am GMT, or 5.29pm LA time on March 26. This page [2] agrees, saying the flight departed LAX "late the previous afternoon]. Therefore I am changing this.

the aeroplanes

its probably just me but i wondered if anyone knew if both of the aeroplanes were boeing 747's, i cant seem to find out whether they are, it doesn't seem to be very clear, thanks anyway, ≈≈≈≈louise

Hi Louise,

Both planes were 747 Jumbo Jets. KLM flight 4805 was named Rhine River and PanAm flight 1736 went by the name of Clipper Victor.

Deborah

Fog equipment?

Airplane manufacturers began installing equipment that helped planes operate in fog.

The article should be specific: What equipment exactly? Tempshill 22:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not know so i delete it. {{Marminnetje 13:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)}}

The talk page isn't that long. If you go up a few you'll see someone has clarified it's infrared tech. It would be helpful if you could read the talk page perhaps? I agree, it should be included in the article but since it's in the talk page, no reason someone couldn't add it rather then asking again or deleting it... Nil Einne 18:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The article also doesn't even mention the fog to begin with (a very significant factor in the accident, I recall), yet it's depicted in the image.Daniel Case 04:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The article mentiones low clouds, which is actually fog.. for what I have read these low clouds, coming from the sea, can appear in no time at all on the airport. {{Marminnetje 20:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)}} EDIT: 'During taxiing, low clouds had appeared, limiting the visual range to 1000 feet (approx. 300 meters).' I think the visual range is the most important factor here. {Marminnetje 20:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)}

Standard/non-standard phrases

The causes of the incident claim one of them was the use of non-standard phrases. Later it is said standard phrases were developed and enforced as a result of this incident. If there was no such thing as standard phrases before this incident, this need to be clarified... Nil Einne 18:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


afaik, there were indeed standard phrases before the accident; in this case they were not strictly followed.. [quote: it is said standard phrases were developed and enforced as a result of this incident] I can't find that passage that in the article.{Marminnetje 03:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)}

http://www.benjamins.com/jbp/series/LPLP/27-3/art/0002a.pdf results in a 404 error - does anyone know where the transcript might be found online? Bridesmill 16:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sensational additions

I've noticed that here are some contributors to the article, who seem to have the sole purpose of adding sensational content and/or links. I'd like to ask all Wiki editors to watch the page carefully, and remove the spam as needed, without hesitation. Thank you. (anynomous editor) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marminnetje (talk • contribs) 18:48, 24 April 2006

Why sign anonymous when you're logged in? i added Template:Unsigned to your message. --80.63.213.182 14:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
because I Choose to. See it? Choise. We live (still) in a free world, dude Marminnetje 16:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

CVR recordings

Hello. On 1001crash.com's Tenerife crash page 5 and page 6, it is stated that the pilots said respectively "the son of a bitch is coming" and "oh shit". Is that correct? On this page it is not written. --80.63.213.182 14:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I know the first expletive is true. Notice that in most CVR's expletive remarks are shown with [expletive], see expletive. Rightly so i.m.o. Marninnetje.

KLM Survivors

Is it true that all passengers of the KLM died? I just watched that documentary, Crash of the Century and it said that one of the passengers was left behind in the terminal. If this is true, then it means that there was one survivor. 203.215.116.181 00:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

A person not aboard the plane when it crashed is generally not considered as a survivor. Asa01 09:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

discovery doc

To me, not significant to the article. There are lots of documentaries made about the disaster. 'crash of the century' says it all. :D Marminnetje 19:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

This article failed the GA noms due to lack of references. Might I also suggest using footnotes to cite your sources as well as transwiking the "Final radio transmissions" sections to Wikisource? If you have any questions feel free to contact me. Tarret 20:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Essentially all weve got is the CVR and the Accident reports. Finding Trusty, accurate references for the article will be most difficult. There are not a lot books written on this. And as time goes by finding trusty sources will be even more difficult. But, anyone who is dedicated to make footnotes, etc. , please proceed.

I'm pretty convinced the article is 70-80%correct. How can we protect the article from adding worthless content if no one is watching it?Marminnetje 16:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Airport location

In my opinion it is erroneous to state that Reina Sofia Airport aka Tenerife Sur was built because of the supposedly poor location of Los Rodeos aka Tenerife Norte. This may have been one of the factors, but surely just as important or more important was that when Los Rodeos was built only the northern part of the island where it is located was heavily populated. The South is infertile dry scrub and desert where the tourist resorts have only sprung up in recent decades. The Santa Cruz de Tenerife - La Laguna urban area next to Los Rodeos is still by far the largest conurbation on the island and when I saw it last weel Los Rodeos was still busy. Booshank 18:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are some points to consider!!!!!

1./ Why does the captain of the KLM flight refuel (55 tons) just prior to leaving after waiting for 4 hours on the tarmac? 2./ Why did the same captain clearly decide to take off without the towers permission? 3./ If the KLM jet never took on 55 tons of fuel would this disaster just be another near miss?

And what if there was no bomb threat? Things would go like planned. There was , most likely , a great stress on the KLM crew. Speculation is that the refuelling was done to save time. If nothing happened, it would be all fine and no one would mention it. It's no factor. So much factors that were against them. Duty time, weather, deviation, small airport, maybe some personal factors also. In this case this went just wrong. People generally like to blame just one side. Or a few persons. it's just not possible. Take a look at the other side: If the Pan Am crew had paid more attention as to what exit they took, and not joking in the cockpit, nothing would have happened. Marminnetje 14:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The bomb threat is part of the reason why the planes were there in the first place but it in no way accounts for what happened on that runway. If KLM had refuelled earlier in the day it would have clearly beaten the fog that was rolling down the valley toward the airport (30 mins to refuel) which greatly reduced the visability for all. Yes the KLM flight was due back in europe to avoid a change of crew and putting up all the passengers in a hotel for the night. The capatin of KLM was worried that if they waited too long they would exceed duty time under a newly introduced KLM company policy. As far as the comment based on the Pan Am crew joikng around is nonsense. Pan Am as a company were responsible for paving the way for many of the crucial safety procedures and technologys that revolutionised the avaition industry. They invented the rest followed. At the end of the day you dont merge into traffic on a freeway in thick fog with your foot flat to the floor or do you?

Recent additions

' After the explosion of the terrorist bomb, the threat was contained and the authorities reopened the airport. ' this is confusing. Maybe could be changed to ' After the detonation of the terrorist bomb by the authorities, the threat was contained and the airport reopened. '(However, no sources provided). Secondly the addition of the Pan Am plane was a senior citizen charter - i remember this is correct. Is there are source for this. Marminnetje 18:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Mistake

As I know there was at least 1 survivor from KLM flight ( beacuase he/she don't borded on )

See the "KLM survivors" section for why this isn't a mistake. Clipper471 22:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

KLM fuel edit

I can fully understand the fact that KLM fuelled more than needed at the airport.

It seems a fully logical, and sane, decision by the captain. I think the captain was not paranormal as to any accident, he was not aiming to cause any harm. He was doing the best he could for his company and his passengers.

Therefore -- I propose to delete it from the speculation section as to this date.(see my tag) Reason: it has nothing to do with the accident. If you obnject please state it here, otherwise it will be deleted , soon, and Permanent Marminnetje 19:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The overfueling caused many events to happen.
1. When the KLM was refueling, the Pan Am 747 could not move out of the way, causing longer delays.
2. It's heavy weight meant that the pilot needed more runway length to successfully takeoff.
3. This extra amount of fuel created a large firey explosion.
Although this was not a direct factor of the accident, this contributed to the events that led up to the accident. Yes, the KLM pilot wanted save time by completing this flight before reaching his maximum flying time, but I don't understand how refueling early would save time. The plane does need to stop at Gran Canaria and deplane/enplane passengers + clean/service, right? Starcity ai 16:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality?

This article seems to point that it was the fault of the KLM plane. Where it says- KLM plane overfueled, KLM plane tried to take off w/o clearence from ATC, KLM plane used non-standard communications terms.

Is this neutral? Smith230 16:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality apart, this disaster is the child of gross miscalculations and errors of judgment by all the three concered (the Rodeos tower, Captain Grubbs and Captain van Zanten). It would be unfair to attribute the responsibility singularly to one party.Anil 01:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • In a way, there is much more study of the behaviour of the KLM captain than the behaviour of the Pan Am crew and/or the tower. Him being preoccupied by: Company regulations. Weather. He overfueled. He spent too much time on the simulator. He didn't listen to his co-pilot. He was an authority figure. I think the article is definately biased. I'd even suggest placing a tag on it. Maybe the speculations section is not a smart idea anymore. Heck, I created it! Marminnetje 20:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The article is written correctly. It was the KLM captain that took off believing the Pan Am jet was somewhere else. The disaster is ultimately his fault. If he didn't take off the disaster would have been avoided. Fighting for Justice 20:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

As it was the KLM plane was the one to move on the runway, it is pretty easy to point the finger at Captain van Zanten. Poor guy! Anil 02:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


As it was the KLM plane was the one to move on the runway, it is pretty easy to point the finger at Captain van Zanten. Poor guy1 Anil 02:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider it pointing fingers at him, but you gotta call things for what they are. He made the mistake in assuming the Pan Am jet was not on the runway. He didn't listen to his co-pilot. He took off without permission and it caused the accident. Fighting for Justice 03:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

How do we react to the episode of Pan Am missing the third exist? To their lewd conversation in the cockpit? To the Spaniards in the tower who went ahead with opeating live planes on the runway amid a disasterous fog 61.1.250.72 07:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Simple there was dense fog and the Captain of the Pan Am jet missed it. It's a forgivable mistake. It didn't kill anyone. All the more reason to be cautious if you ask me. Captain Van Zanten proceeded to take off when he didn't have permission. He made the fatal mistake. You can't pussy foot around it, because of a lewd conversation. That's not what killed a bunch of people. Fighting for Justice 07:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The speculations section is definately not neutral: it only takes in account the faults of the KLM crew and not the others.Marminnetje 10:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of questions of neutrality, the speculations section needs to be sourced, like any other - more so because it's controversial - otherwise it may as well be considered original research. I'll add some citations where I can find them, others might like to do the same. Cheers, Ian Rose 11:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Roger. I answer to your contentions in the affirmative, Ian. A good advice for anyone who is interested in actually digging out what really has happened on that fatal day Anil 18:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of you need to read this then Undue Weight. Wikipedia is suppose to be neutral, but it doesn't mean you have to include opposing viewpoints on a equal level to the prevailing viewpoint. Majority of the investigators blamed it on the KLM crew. Fighting for Justice 03:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Quite correct. If the article mentioned nothing but the KLM crew's errors, then there would be a problem with its neutrality. That's not the case - see Probable Cause. As for the speculations, they're mostly cited now, reflecting the thoughts of a number of commentators. Cheers, Ian Rose 04:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
OK. The only thing that should be stressed is that there was a mistake from everyone concerend (may be in varying degrees, but a mistake in aviation environment, however small and minute it may seem, is so unforgiving, you should remember!). Not just only with Capt van Zanten.Anil 13:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

According to this article [3] there are witnesses who claim that there was a soccer game on in the tower. They had not come forward because of fear of the authorities, just a few years after the death of Franco.

KLM Advert with Captain Van Zanten's picture

Found the picture here [4]. I think it might add to the article. What do you guys think? The heading is quite freaky indeed... "KLM. From the people who made punctuality possible." Aratoda 05:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the article has now too much pics. Too much pictures don't add but distract from the text. The crew picture that was added doesn't add anything at all but takes up space. The KLM ad might be ok in it's current small window. However, these new pics have no valid tags so they might be deleted amnyway. Marminnetje 16:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree the crew pic is too much and suggest we delete it. We may as well have a pic of the Pan-Am crew as well if we keep it and that'd be way over the top. However I think the KLM ad is useful (if a tad dark) and have just done a bit of rearranging in that section to place it better. Re. tags, I'd say the ad would be a safer bet to retain than the crew pic anyway. Cheers, Ian Rose 21:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

CVR transcript

There are some things in the CVR transcript that I have a problem with. For example, I understand the need to keep it consistent with the original accident reports, but the sentence "Is he not clear that Pan American?" is incorrect in terms of punctuation (it should be "Is he not clear, that Pan American?", especially when the original Dutch is written with a comma). Should this be corrected? Tony Myers 20:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I think you are nitpicking. Besides, this is English Wikipedia, not Dutch. Fighting for Justice 06:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
That intra-cockpit communication was in DUTCH. It should be presented verbatim from (one of) the actual accident report(s), punctuation included. This confusion is another reason why the transcript needs a reference(s). The transcript should not be anglicized; if it was, it would read "Is the Pan Am not clear?" Lipsticked Pig 07:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

rewrite rename

i think after 30 years the page could be rewritten taking in account the comments above and renamed TENERIFE AIRPORT DISASTER, as there is no ref in the title is aircraft or airport..

I agree 'Tenerife disaster' is an awkward name. Unfortunately in the 30 ys since the crash it's become known like this and most people will immediately know what it's about. But.. if enough people want to change it to your proposal then, why not. It's a free encyclopedia so I suggest to state all your opinions below this text. Marminnetje 12:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Salon Article

The Ask the pilot article in Salon.com "A look back at the catastrophic chain of events that caused history's deadliest plane crash 30 years ago." By Patrick Smith had a couple of interesting points, one is that Jacob van Zanten,... "is the airline's top 747 instructor pilot and a KLM celebrity. Passengers may recognize him .... Later, when KLM executives first get word of the crash, they will attempt to contact van Zanten in hopes of sending him to Tenerife to aid the investigation team."

The other point is "They are tired, annoyed and anxious to get going. The irritability in the pilots' voices, van Zanten's in particular, has been duly noted by the control tower and other pilots." KAM 15:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

CGI Image of Collision

There are a couple of complaints for that screenshot. I've uploaded one from Crash of the Century [5]. You can use that one if you like. Stoikiometry 21:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Final radio transmissions" section

I'm tagging this section; someone needs to do an hour or so on it. There is the bold statement "This section of the radio transmission is taken exactly from the original CVR transcript." at the top, which is not true. This section of the radio traffic is taken directly from http://aviation-safety.net/investigation/cvr/transcripts/cvr_kl4805.php

And that transcript is wrong. If the transcript is to be a big part of the article (which I think it should be), it needs to be referenced and accurate. http://www.project-tenerife.com/engels/rapporten.htm has the Dutch, Spanish and ALPA reports which have the official CVR transcripts. I looked at 2 lines of the ASN transcript that is up there now, and both had mistakes in them. There is some pretty intense stuff at the end of the Pan Am CVR that is worth adding to the transcript as well. Lipsticked Pig 08:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

One issues with most of the transcripts is that they seem to copy the Pan Am 1736's chatter almost verbatim, but do not include much of the conversation from the KLM 4805 cockpit. For example, most websites with copies of the CVRs don't include the statement from 4805's first officer, telling the captain to check the throttles, as takeoff permission has not yet been given (see http://www.airmanshiponline.com/fall99/articoli/05a99-tenerife.htm, for example, along with Spanish incident report noted above). I'm adding some of it. Sacxpert 20:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I think this line: "Is hij er niet af..." is suppossed to be "Is hij er niet of..." (according to the Spanish official report CVR transcript); obviously a speaker of Dutch would be helpful. Lipsticked Pig 19:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
"Is hij er niet af..." is actually the correct Dutch phrase even though it says 'of' in the official Spanish CVR transcript. There are a few more mistranslations in the official transcript. Wolbo 21:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I had put a "dubious" tag on this section, but thanks to Sacxpert and others I've removed it. Lipsticked Pig 02:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Collision Diagram

The collision diagram has a red star indicating the location of the collision as being half way between taxiways C-3 and C-4 while the diagrams in the references have the location of the collision as being approximately at C-4. Could the original author please correct this or do we need to draw a new diagram?Excimer3.141597 08:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits: Hey Excimer, another editor removed some of your recent edits with the comment "many good updates previously but removed a number of bits of uncited editorialising/speculation" which I think I agree with. Especially the "good edits" part, however as much as I agree with many of the actual statements/analysis you put in they need to be cited otherwise its just your (and my) opinion or original research. Still, good work that improved the article, many thanks! Lipsticked Pig 02:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi LP, thanks for the heads up, yes I realize that the references need to be added. I initially focused on studying the references and sifting through the various errors in the content of the article. Also the references at the bottom of the article are listed as links and apparently not in the proper Reference format. The parts that were removed were somewhat editorialized but were based on my reading of the accident reports and the interpretation that they convey...not my interpretation. Nevertheless I'll look back over it and look forward to discussing how the viewpoints can be expressed. PS: I considered adding a section to the article title "unanswered questions". The first one that comes to mind is: Why were the aircraft not instructed to use taxiway C-4? Ive seen this discussed on a message board with no answers to be offered. Excimer3.141597 04:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys. Yes, I'm the "other editor" who removed what I saw as speculation, while praising other purely fact-based additions. Excimer, I don't doubt that the speculations can be cited but I'd question including them in the Chain of Events section in any case. I think it's preferable to concentrate on the events leading to the crash in a largely black-and-whie factual manner and save the speculations for later. There is after all a Speculations section where we go into this, and where we could add still more detail (cited of course). For that reason also I question the need for an Unanswered Questions section, although I'd reserve judgement on that till I saw what you had in mind as content. Keep up the good work. Cheers, Ian Rose 08:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I completely agree with the approach of first presenting the cold hard facts of the accident and then going into more detail about the interpretations and speculations later. However, as regards to the radio communications this would amount to only presenting the CVR (or composite CVR as it exists in the article) which by itself is difficult to interpret for a first time reader. This section in my opinion needs as much clarification as possible so long as it can be done by introducing interpretations from the references which are undisputed and transparent. Further interpretation of the communications and the presentation of the various viewpoints (which may or may not agree) in respect to these interpretations should be done as you said later in the article. Regarding the Unanswered questions, if for no other reason it might stimulate readers to investigate further with a resulting contribution to the article. Someone out there might have a clue for example as to why C-4 was not used or why an international airport didnt have taxiway signs (i wouldve guessed these were mandatory but Los Rodeos had a very simple system of taxiways). Another question is what were the winds like that day and was it possible for the airplanes to directly takeoff on runway 12 without having to jump through all the taxiing hoops. I was unable to find surface wind data in the official weather reports. However, this may be better discussed here on the talk pages. Thanks for the kudos.Excimer3.141597 06:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys, the Radio Transmissions section has gotten long...it is the amalgamation of 2 CVR transcripts and the ATC communications (as it should be). Considering the space it occupies now, if it could be formatted as 3 columns (alot like you see in many CVR transcripts in accident reports) with separate columns for the Pan Am, KLM, and ATC comms that would be great. Don't know if that is possible (?) however.
My personal preference is to present it without commentary; Excimer, I think I totally understand your desire to put "undisputed and transparent" clarifications in there, but if they could be placed in the section before the actual transcript so that the reader has then the ability to then read the transcript and understand what is going on I'd prefer that. However you guys are the ones working on the article so I defer to your judgement.
One thing to be wary of is too much original analysis (WP:OR); the questions you are raising are obviously good ones (what do you do for a living Excimer?), but I think "unaswered questions" such as "what were the winds like that day and was it possible for the airplanes to directly takeoff on runway 12 without having to jump through all the taxiing hoops?" has to be introduced through some referenced source/quote, otherwise we are in danger of not being an encyclopedic article, but rather a magazine article. Again, good work everyone. Lipsticked Pig 07:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Excimer, I think you nailed it with "this may be better discussed here on the talk pages". IMO Chain of Events is decent as is, and not completely devoid of (uncontroversial) elucidation. The Taxiing & Weather Conditions and Communication Misunderstandings subsections do offer illumination of the transcript that follows. As I say, no reason more can't be added to Speculation - 'Unanswered questions' can go there as long as a reliable source has posed them, as Lipsticked Pig suggests, and as is the case with the bullet points there at the moment (I added a few of those citations myself, so I'm prepared to put my money where my mouth is...!)
Lipsticked Pig, your idea of the three parallel columns for Radio Transmissions has possibilities and may have been done in other articles, just not sure where...
One question for the panel (Excimer, you might be best placed to answer with your recent research): Does the current CVR transcript in the article precisely follow one particular source? We claim that "These communications are taken from the cockpit voice recorders of both aircraft, as well as from the Tenerife control tower's tapes" but we don't name the actual source(s) that we've employed - this comment can be applied to a number of the air crash articles. Because many sources differ somewhat, we really ought to agree on one prime, cite it and stick to it, except if there are other versions/interpretations from other reliable sources, in which case we can use footnotes to highlight differences. WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose 15:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
As Wolbo pointed out there are errors in the "official" transcripts and when I compared them (Spanish, ALPA and Dutch) there were differences in interpretations of exactly what was said (not surprising or unusual for CVRs). Lipsticked Pig 16:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, my apologies for not looking further up to see that this had been touched on before. However, the recommendation that we cite our sources for the transcript still stands, as you yourself suggested above. When I get time I'll have a closer look at the versions you've noted. I might point out straight away, however, that the page http://www.airmanshiponline.com/fall99/articoli/05a99-tenerife.htm mentioned earlier is a direct copy of the Tenerife article in MacArthur Job's Air Disaster Volume 1, even down to Matthew Tesch's illustrations, and I daresay it's not been used with permission - I have my own copy which I've cited in a few places already. Cheers, Ian Rose 17:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

LP, I agree that columns might work better for presenting the "composite" CVR. A matrix in tabular format could convey all the information better. Also, differences in the various CVR transcriptions could be conveyed by color coding the entries (when there are multiple entries for a particular cell in the table). I also agree that there should be absolutely no annotation for this composite CVR (unless it is part of the official CVR and included in the transcription). Ian, I think that the existing approach of presenting a "composite" of the verifiable CVRs is the best, with the references to each of the CVRs of course being cited. Excimer3.141597 02:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Matrix in tabular format seems ideal. I too though color-coding would be a great idea, but I think that is not wikistyle unfortunately (is that the case?). Lipsticked Pig 04:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Not sure on the colour-coding myself, but as for a composite view in tabular format and citation for those used, I think we're in agreement... Cheers, Ian Rose 08:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the style guide its use is discouraged for conveying information unless specific colors are used. Also after additional thought it occurred to me that while the matrix would much better convey the info, in order to preserve the linear flow of the conversation it would still take as much space (if not more). If you still think its an improvement let me know if either of you wants to knock it out else Ill do it.Excimer3.141597 03:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Go for it! I'm way too busy working on Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography Lipsticked Pig 07:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


the word "UH"

below the article of "final Transmissions" (or something like that), the word "uh" was used a couple of times. in the other articles, i see no "uh" in there. did someone vandalized this page? XU-engineer 15:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


the word "still"

"The accident still has the highest number of fatalities ... in aviation history"

better be changed into:

"The accident has the highest number of fatalities ... in aviation history"

- because "still" asks for more disasters in the future. Alexander0807 03:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Needing Summary

Taken from article. Here's text of the Final radio & flight deck transmissions. This needs summary. KyuuA4 16:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Final radio & flight deck transmissions

These communications are taken from the cockpit voice recorders of both aircraft, as well as from the Tenerife control tower's tapes.

1705:22.0
PAN AM CAPTAIN That's two. [Captain Grubbs is identifying the second turn-off from the runway as the Pan Am continues to back-taxi]
1705:36.7
[KLM first officer completes pre-flight checklist. KLM 4805 is now at the end of the runway, in position for departure.]
1705:41.5
KLM FIRST OFFICER Wait a minute, we don't have an ATC clearance. [This statement is apparently a response to an advancing of the throttles in the KLM.]
KLM CAPTAIN Nee, dat weet ik, vraag maar. [No, I know that, ask for it.]
1705:44.8
KLM (RADIO) Uh, the KLM ... four eight zero five is now ready for take-off ... uh and we're waiting for our ATC clearance.
1705:53.4 - 1706:08.9
TENERIFE TOWER eight seven * zero five uh you are cleared to the Papa Beacon climb to and maintain flight level nine zero right turn after take-off proceed with heading zero four zero until intercepting the three two five radial from Las Palmas VOR.
1706:07.4
KLM CAPTAIN Yes.
1706:09.6 - 1706:17.8
KLM (RADIO) Ah roger, sir, we're cleared to the Papa Beacon flight level nine zero, right turn out zero four zero until intercepting the three two five and we're now (at take-off / uh..taking off).
1706:11.1
[KLM brakes released.]
1706:12.2
KLM CAPTAIN We gaan ... check thrust. [We're going ... check thrust].
1706:14.0
[Engine acceleration audible in KLM cockpit]
1706:18.19
TENERIFE TOWER OK.
1706:19.3
PAN AM (RADIO) No .. eh.[This message was not heard by the KLM crew due to a radio heterodyne.]
1706:20.08
TENERIFE TOWER Stand by for take-off, I will call you. [This message was not heard by the KLM crew due to a radio heterodyne.]
1706:20.3
PAN AM (RADIO) And we're still taxiing down the runway, the clipper one seven three six. [This message was not heard by the KLM crew due to a radio heterodyne.]
1706:19.39 - 1706:23.19
TENERIFE TOWER Roger alpha one seven three six report when runway clear.
1706:29.6
PAN AM (RADIO) OK, we'll report when we're clear.
1706:31.7
TENERIFE TOWER Thank you
1706:xx.x
PAN AM CAPTAIN Let's get the hell out of here.
1706:xx.x
PAN AM FIRST OFFICER Yeah, he's anxious, isn't he.
1706:xx.x
PAN AM FLT ENGR Yeah, after he held us for half an hour. Now he's in a rush.
1706:32.43
KLM FLT ENGR Is hij er niet af dan? [Is he not clear then?]
1706:34.1
KLM CAPTAIN Wat zeg je? [What do you say?]
1706:34.15
KLM UNKNOWN Yup.
1706:34.7
KLM FLT ENGR Is hij er niet af, die Pan American? [Is he not clear, that Pan American?]
1706:35.7
KLM CAPTAIN Jawel. [Oh yes. - emphatic]
1706:40.0
[Pan Am captain sees landing lights of KLM Boeing at approx. 700 m]
PAN AM CAPTAIN There he is ... look at him. Goddamn that son of a bitch is coming!
PAN AM FIRST OFFICER Get off! Get off! Get off!
1706:43.4
KLM FIRST OFFICER Vee-one.
1706:44.0
[PH-BUF (KLM 4805) started rotation.]
1706:47.4
KLM CAPTAIN [Exclamation/expletive]
1706:50
N736PA (Pan Am 1736) records sound of collision.

Worst Air Disaster

I saw that Discovery Channel or the History Channel dubbed this the Worst Air Disaster in Aviation History? Or something to that extent? I'm pretty sure it wasn't due to September 11th but it may have been the Worst Air Collision in Aviation History. Something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.17.208 (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's still considered the worst 'air disaster' given that that term is generally employed for describing aviation accidents. September 11 was not an accident. Cheers, Ian Rose 01:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Last Stopover

Would Los Rodeos be considered the last stopover for the Pan Am and for the KLM? They technically "stopped over" there and were continuing to Las Palmas. --Vreddy92 (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

One survivor of KLM plane

How come the article mentions that all 234 passengers and 14 crew members died (see Collision section) but it also mentions that 1 person of the KLM plane survived ('Robina van Lanschot', last sentence in Collision section). The television program I saw yesterday also mentioned that there was 1 survivor of the KLM plane. - Simeon87 (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is worded accurately. It says that van Lanschot "avoided the disaster" by not reboarding the plane, not that she "survived" the crash. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, that makes sense - Simeon87 (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Two 747s begin journeys uneventfully

this title sounds very unencyclopedic to me. Should be reversed asap. Remember- Neutral and objective articles. Not- like an adventure is going to happen. Therefore, I suggest placing a tag 'not in encyclopedic style' if this is not corrected. Marminnetje 18:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC) edit: to explain myself better: the article should not be written like it's a story. Now it is. What about 'terrorist bomb thead', why was this reversed. Marminnetje 18:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Actually, I'd already removed some of the story-like elements/headings after they were added in recently but apparently they made their way back in. Have now had another go at getting a more encyclopedic tone to the article. Cheers, Ian Rose 21:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, this article has a tendency to be adventurous and sensational from the beginning. I'll watch it now and then/ It's all those re-runs of NatGeo so-called documentaries i guess ^^ Marminnetje 19:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
"So called" documentaries? ALL documentaries are "so called" documentaries. Asa01 (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Some remarks

1) In the intro, there's some information given about the Los Rodeos airport, i'd suggest moving it to miscellaneous .2) Where is the picture of the actual collision? It was a good picture and it was Certainly Fair use. And there was a few months ago, a new picture that was even better and I see it was removed again. Most pictures are Fair use if they are dedicated to the page, and have a low resolution, and have a good description. So, Why was it removed.Marminnetje (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Article name

This name is just terrible. "Tenerife disaster" is a well established name for the event, within the aviation world and in the wider media. The reason given by Yellowdesk for the move is to Conform more closely to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide manual of style for titles. Previous title "Tenerife disaster" is vague. I think that for this particular accident an exception can be made to deviate from the style manual, same as with the Kegworth air disaster. In what way is Tenerife disaster "vague"? Abc30 (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Although individuals knowledgeable in the history of aircraft accidents may wish to call the article Tenerife disaster, the title is non-specific in the extreme, and presumes there was and will be one disaster for all time for the locale.
Then there is the question, disastrous what?
Conquest by Spain in the 15th century decimating the native population?
Oil tanker grounding?
Passenger ship sinking?
Cholera outbreak?
Terrorist suicide attack?
Volcano eruption?
Tidal wave?
Accidental water poisoning?
Naval Battles?
20th Century emigration?
...This is the reason for having an aircraft accident naming guideline, so that articles are not named in a needlessly vague manner. For those readers searching for the article under "Tenerife Disaster", the several already existing redirects are found by search engines and point the reader to the article just fine. And the other 99.9 percent of the readers (there are tens of millions) who are unaware of the topic will be informed about the contents of the article via the title.
Here is a list of the redirects to the article as of this date, and part of the reason I did not include the flight numbers was that the flight numbers already redirect to the article.
  1. Pan Am 1736
  2. Pan Am Flight 1736
  3. KLM Flight 4805
  4. Flight 1736
  5. Conversation of pilots of KLM 4805 and Pan-Am 1736
  6. Tenerife Disaster
  7. Tenerife Airport Collision
  8. Tenerife Airport Disaster
  9. Tenerife disaster
  10. Los Rodeos disaster
  11. Tenerife Runway Incursion
  12. Karen Anderson (Pan Am Flight 1736)
  13. Robert Bragg
  14. Erma Schlecht
  15. Suzanne Donovan
  1. Warren Hopkins
  2. Sachiko Hirano
  3. Mari Asai
  4. Victor Grubbs
  5. George W. Warns
  6. Klaas Meurs
  7. Willem Schreuders
  8. George Warns
  9. Carla Johnson
  10. John Cooper (Pan Am Flight 1736)
  11. Juan Antonio Murillo Rivas
  12. Dorothy Kelly (Pan Am Flight 1736)
  13. Kim Fox
  14. Frances Hamann
  15. Joan Jackson (Pan Am Flight 1736)
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
How about a compromise, like "1977 Tenerife aircrash"? Surely you must agree that the current title is too long. Abc30 (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The guideline is useful in most cases (e.g. to distinguish 1979 Garuda Fokker F28 crash from 1982 Garuda Fokker F28 crash). But for an event as unique (hopefully) as the one in Tenerife, it is wrong to slavishly follow the guideline - a more considered approach is called for. 82.1.63.238 (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
How about 1977 Tenerife airport disaster then? Abc30 (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
That's no different to Tenerife airport disaster (1977), which, as far as I am aware, is unnecessary disambiguation (there not having been any other Tenerife airport disasters). MickMacNee (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
True, but I just thought that maybe including the 1977 part would be a compromise between a sensible name and the "DATE LOCATION AIRCRAFT TYPE crash" format. Abc30 (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought the previous title, "Tenerife Disaster" was perfectly good. But just about any two, three or four words from "1977 Tenerife Airport Disaster" would be fine by me - anything but the current title. 82.1.63.238 (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirects for the proposed titles have been created. No proposal has been put forward for why the guideines fail to be desirable, so far, except for "long name." The long name is actually the standard. Please respond to the topic modifying the guideline, since the redirects exist.
    Yellowdesk (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
    • First off, the 'long name' you have chosen is not in compliance with any standard as yet, as the guide says nothing about what to do with incidents involving multiple aircraft, and you have used the airline names not the AIRCRAFT names, and you have not even used the full AIRCRAFT name. But, ignoring that petty lawyering for the sake of argument, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide is not an official guideline, it is a rather badly worded third level style guide, which does not need to be adhered to when its use contravenes the very things it seeks to implement for its topic: the second level article disambiguation guideline and first level article naming policy. In these situations, you do not call for a change in the guide every single time it is found lacking, you ignore it. The guide's lead section even acknowledges this fact. With respect to the higher level guideline and policy, when compared to "Tenerife airport disaster", which concisely describes the article and conflicts with no other existing topic (and is a perfect google match to this event), the current 'long title', whether it currently meets the style guide or not, serves no purpose and solves no problem. It is merely a dogmatic obstacle to the reader and editor, who both have to deal with it: the reader in taking the extra seconds to figure out he has arrived at the Tenerife airport disaster article given he is never going to find this link in its full glory anywhere in an article (or type it as a search term), and the editor who has to go and pipe all those redirects where they now appear in articles, and keep coming back to this article to see its full correct title for piped use in the future. If all of this is not sufficient opposing argument beyond 'its too long', then I guess it will have to go to WP:RM as an opposed move. MickMacNee (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
1977 Tenerife airport disaster sounds to me like a perfectly clear and precise title that does not have the disadvantages of the current title. Wolbo (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok well I think this has been discussed enough now. Can someone with the necessary skills please make the move. Abc30 (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I still disagree. The 1977 is wholly unnecessary as there are no other comparable events in the history of Tenerife Airport (The Dan Air holding pattern mountain collision hasn't even gained an article yet, and is not specifically linked to the airport itself, and when created can easily be named to meet the style guide for a single plane). It also completely negates the point of the search box, as nobody is ever going to search for this article by typing "1977...." first, they would start "Tenerife...." MickMacNee (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the awkwardness of the title. Say 1977 Tenerife aircraft collision or some variation of that. The airlines are assumed. All of the precedent says to have less, but at the same time the present title looks awkward. And with redirects, it would not be confusing. Moreover, that naming convention is for one-plane incidents, not two-plane incidents (where it is in fact awkward.)--Vreddy92 (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, someone please make the move already. There is clearly enough consensus. Abc30 (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It needs an admin as all the redirects are created. I will list it at WP:RM. MickMacNee (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Done. MickMacNee (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Tenerife airport disaster. JPG-GR (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As per above section, this article was moved without discussion from Tenerife disaster to 1977 Tenerife KLM-Pan Am 747 runway collision, citing the vagueness of the name and the aviation project Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide. It has been discussed above and I believe agreed that the guideline is at best misguided and at worst innapplicable in this case, and should be ignored. Further, it has been agreed that a better name is either 1977 Tenerife airport disaster or Tenerife airport disaster, to clear up the confusion about what disaster was being referred to. To bring the issue to a close, I request a move to Tenerife airport disaster, as a date qualifier is not needed for this event, and including it hampers possible search terms. MickMacNee (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I support MickMacNee's request for a move to Tenerife airport disaster. Abc30 (talk) 01:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I continue to desire to put a temporal location on the article. It does make a difference that this did not happen yesterday, nor in 2007, 1997, and also not in 1987, and it should be clearly stated in the title. It was a big deal, but it's not like World War II, to pick out another temporally featureless title. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 06:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • That's all well and good, but does this personal opinion on what should be in a name have any grounding in either an official policy or guideline? (as opposed to just the aviation style guide, already shown to be somewhat irrelevant in this case) MickMacNee (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Well yes, a perusal of the initial conversation indicates the location for the guide for air transport articles, saying that it is desirable to indicate the year, location, airline, and model number of the incident. Having the year is standard according to the guide, and I'm content to drop the airline and airplane model. The claim that the guide is irrelevant is rather categorical. That there are two aircraft and two airlines not obviate making use of the suggested convention. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • See above discussions, the guide is not relevant here as it is currently worded. And we only disambiguate names if there is a reasonable expectation of confusion, the fact there has been no notable disasters at the other airport means there is no possibility for confusion by just saying tenerife airport, and thus there is no need to mention rodeos in the title. MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name of the plane

  • I've noticed an error in the name of the KLM 747 PH-BUF, I went onto airliners.net and searched the regestration and got this result-[6] that is the same regestration but the name on the aircraft is The Flying Dutchman, please correct me if I am mistaken, Thanks Kingeorge (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC).
The Flying Dutchman is a commercial nickname for KLM. The plane was called Rijn, Dutch for Rhine River. The name was (as is common) painted on the front of the plane, not on its tail. See this picture on Airliners.net (it's the second search result when searching for PH-BUF). Richard 07:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting me, I didn't notice that when I found my picture. George 11:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.204.135 (talk)

Well known?

Someone has added J. Monte Johnston to the paragraph Notable people killed in the disaster. Originally with the remark well-known pediatrician.

  • How well-known is he? I've never heard of him but I'm not from the US so maybe that has something to do with it. On the other hand, there is no article on Wikipedia on him - at least, not an article I could find.
  • Should he remain in that paragraph? Is he more notable than the other victims?
  • On the passenger list he is called Johnston, Monty. Should he remain in the article, which name should be used?

Richard 08:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

User Fighting for Justice removed this entry 20090303T0818. Richard 07:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"We are now at takeoff"?

I believe that all sources I have read about this accident say that the KLM crew's transmission after reading back the ATC clearance was "We are now at takeoff". The Spanish report here says "We are now at take-off." The official report in English here, already cited in the article, has "We are now at take off" on pages 46, 50, and 62 (PDF numbering), although on pages 7 and 60 it adds parentheses as if there was some uncertainty: "We are now (at takeoff)".

However, the article itself currently says:

...the statement "we're now at takeoff" or "we're now, uh, taking off" (the exact wording of his statement was not clear)

I'm adding a "fact" tag; if there are conflicting versions of what was said, they both should be sourced. --70.48.228.48 (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Dutch comments on the Spanish report mentions both possibilities. See: [7] page 6 and 9. --Wolbo (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The ALPA report als mentions both options on page 16. [8] --Wolbo (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In Jan Bartelski's Book "Disasters In The Air" (pg 261 in the 2001 edition) he points out that Meurs had already reported to the tower that they were lined up ready for departure a few seconds earlier (immediately before asking for ATC clearance) and so to say 'We are at take-off' would be repeating himself, which Bartelski says '...does not appear to be a rational deduction'. He then points out that Meurs had a habit of slipping 'ahs' into his messages, there are other examples of this in the CVR transcript. He claims that what Meurs 'most likely said' was: "and we're now...ah...taking off".

Bartelski was an ex KLM Captain who knew Van Zanten and had flown many times with Meurs as his first officer. After retiring from KLM he became the President of IFALPA for seven years and after retiring from this position research air crashes before writing his book. It seems this work, "Disasters In The Air", ISBN 1 84037 204 4 meets the wikipedia critearea as a published reliable source and provided care is taken to distinguish between Bartelski's speculation and his factual content (the book itself is well sourced) then IMHO this should be included in the references for the article. SAHBfan (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Deceptive CGI

The picture appears to identify a head on collision! Furthermore the caption is misleading suggesting the Pan am was moving. --Thelostlibertine (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Just prior to the collision the planes were facing each other. The Pan Am was moving and tried desperately to get off the runway (that's why the impact was not head on). The caption reads Pan Am 1736 about to be hit by KLM 4805 (not: about to hit) so it should be clear that the KLM was the faster moving plane. Richard 07:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Pictures of crash?

I was surprised to see no pictures of the crash, especially since they are so readily available on the net. Can we add some? Wildonrio (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There ARE no pictures of the crash itself. Most pictures of the aftermath that I know of have restricted use in some way. Richard 09:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And what's with these retarded CGI renderings that keep creeping up on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.65.119 (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I propose merging Jacob Veldhuyzen van Zanten here. Other than the disaster, he probably wouldn't meet WP:N. See WP:1E. --76.117.164.50 (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Red XN Though I agree with your reasoning, I don't agree with your solution. This would cause contamination in the article on the disaster since Van Zanten's biography has nothing (or at least, not much) to do with the subject. It would be comparible (though not identical) to merging William Booth into The Salvation Army. That too is something which is in my opinion undesirable. Richard 07:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment I had a look at Booth's article. It seems there is a lot more to say about him than there is to say about van Zanten. I therefore disagree with the comparison you make, though I understand it. --76.117.164.50 (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Red XN There are many people who meet WP:N only because of one single event or disaster. Perhaps a better example than William Booth might be Barings Bank and Nick Leeson. Leeson would be totally unknown if it were not for bankrupting the bank. Arguably the Leeson entry could be merged into the Barings entry, but with both Leeson and Veldhuyzen van Zanten these people are of interest because they are pivotal to the disasters that made them notable, but whose life stories are not directly relevent to the main subject. I do think the VVZ's biography needs licking into shape. It is largely based on a single source (In Dutch) and several of the references for statements made do not actually link to any supporting evidence. (The Dutch article does not substantiate the claim that Van Zanten was described as 'Mr. KLM', for example). There are other statements about VVZ from reliable citable sources which could be included. SAHBfan (talk) 07:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Red XN Per SAHBfan's reasoning; his biography is not mostly focused on this crash, and much of the biography's information would not fit properly in this article. He seems notable enough to deserve his own separate article. -- CB...(ö) 02:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tenerife_airport_disaster/Archive_1&oldid=1043868644"