Talk:Pan Am Flight 7

Probable Cause

I have looked at this crash and many other Stratocruiser accidents, and I have guessed happened. The engines may have failed and leaked carbon monoxide, while the crew was preparing to ditch due to the engine failiures. Be in mind that this is a guess and not the actual story.--707 (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting hypothesis. If you can find a reliable third-party source putting forth this idea, it might be possible to include it in the article. Otherwise, sadly, it's just "original research" and not eligible for inclusion according to Wikipedia's policies. Richwales (talk) 04:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The most common source of CO was in fact faulty cabin heaters that burned aircraft fuel and which were subsequently found to have caused a number of accidents that were the result of pilot and crew incapacitation due to carbon monoxide poisoning. IIRC, a number of DC-4 accidents were the result of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.161 (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The dreaded Original Research killer. Would purusing reliable and authoritative Civil Aeronautics Board accident reports constitute the dreaded "Original Research"? CAB Accident Report SA-326 File No. 1-0119 is already accepted as a reliable source for this Wikipage.

Yet some might challenge citation of CAB Accident Report File No. 1-0121 which involved the ditching of Pan Am Boing 377, N90943 besides Ocean Station November a year before as dreaded "Original Research." The same goes for CAB Accident Report File No. 1-10091 which reported upon the near loss of Pan Am Flight One, a Boeing 377, N90947, between Honolulu and Wake Island. Where a prop blade was thrown from engine 4 resulting in the engine suddenly departing the aircraft. Control was lost and the aircraft was rapidly decending towards the ocean. Limited control was recovered after fuel was dumped from tank 4 and a variety of power, control and airspeed variations applied. The aircraft made an emergency landing on Johnson Island.

Would it be the dreaded "original research" to mention CAB Accident Report SA-264 File No. 1-0080 concerning the demise of Pan Am Flight 202 Boeing 377 N1039V near Carolina, Brazil on April 29, 1952? In that instance the B-377 had disintigrated before impact however almost all important components were within a short distance of one another except for the No. 2 engine and propeller. The remains of the No. 2 nacelle evidenced "that separation from the application of forces beyond that which it was designed" (CAB 1-0080 page 23). The CAB Report went on to state "Similar separations of engines from B-377 aircraft in flight, due to excessive loads being applied to the engine mount, are known. In all cases where engine and propeller were recovered, examination disclosed that separation resulted from a propeller blade failure and the resulting distructive load due to propeller unbalance" (CAB 1-0080 pg 23). CAB 1-0080 found that the No. 2 engine and propeller separated from the aircraft in flight. That the aircraft, "for reasons undetermined, became uncontrollable following the separation of No. 2 engine and propeller, resulting in the loss of the left wing and tail asssembly." Despite Flight 202 having a Radio Flight Officer, L. R.Holtzclaw, no emergency communications was recieved from Flight 202.

The problem of maintaining quality in Wikipages is understood. Yet it remains unclear where the line is to be drawn upon "original research." I have in my posession an exceeding large quanity of official accident reports from the CAB and NSTB as well as other nations accident investigations. I read my first CAB Accident investigation report in the spring of 1958. Am I guilty of the dreded "Original Research" or simply "thorough research" on similar instances of similar accidents to Boeing 377 aircraft? Would it be proper to include on this wikipage some mention of the extensive record of B-377 propeller/engine separation problems? Particularly as the CAB report on Flight 7 stated "There is a record of previous emergencies involving Boeing 377 aircraft which were accompanied by serious directional control difficulties. Emergencies refered to, except one, followed complete seperation of a powerplant from the aircraft" . . . "Common to all of these occurrences was heavy buffeting in flight and in the case of powerplant separation, great difficulty in simultaneously maintaining altitude and directional control. Such occurrences bear striking resemblance to what appears very likely to have occured to 944" (CAB Accident Report SA-326 File N0. 10119, page 10).

I have revisted the Boeing 377 accidents, particularly Flight 7, as I was given a copy of a book written by Ken Fortenberry, the son of the navigator on Flight 7, for Christmas. In his book "Flight 7 Is Missing: The Search For My Father's Killer" The author has done a great deal of "original research" and has to his satisfaction determine exactly who, why, and how. A great deal of his "research" is arguable, as well as many conversations reported exactly in content 60 years after the fact. Some communicated apparently from the great beyond. I am glad for Ken Fortenberry that he is satisfied. I would be very reluctant to cite much in his book even though it might be accepted by many Wikieditors as it is a published book.

Would I be correct in mentioning the extensive record of the Boeing 377 propeller/engine separations?

I raise this question as I have been informed that on the Wikipage concerning the British airship R.101 that using the proper legal designation was wrong because a Wikigod, whom had their beloved cat die, prefered the airship be called R-101 thus it had to be so designated in the Wikipedia.

Do I "know" for certain what caused the accident to Flight 7? No. The CAB reported they could not ascribe a probable cause and neither may I. The chances are high though, given the record of B-377 aircraft, that a propeller and engine separated from the aircraft resulting in a descent barely under control until the aircraft attempted a ditching. Should the sustantial record of the powerplant separaation of the Boeing 377 be included in the article?

Mark Lincoln (talk)

Mark, yes, mentioning just about all of those other cases to postulate a possible cause of this accident would, indeed, be original research. However, similarities with other accidents in the same type of aircraft is already mentioned in the "aircraft" section, including Flight 6, Flight 202, and others under the description of problems with runaway propellers. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I was not proposing to postulate on a possibile cause for the accident. Rather I was propsing to merely bolster the veracity of the CAB accident report. I accept your position that any research whatsoever constitutes "original research." Which raises the question what is not "original research"? Must it come from above, by a booming voice from the sky? I accept your dictat as I have too little life left to waste it arguing the number of angles dancing on the head of a pin.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Sabotage?

The article on the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser has this uncited information regarding this particular flight ...

"There is speculation that two passengers had a motive to bring the plane down. Eugene Crosthwaite, a 46-year-old purser, had shown blasting powder to a relative days prior to the flight, and had cut a stepdaughter from his will only one hour before the flight. William Payne, an ex-Navy demolitions expert, had taken out large insurance policies on himself just before the flight, and had a $10,000 debt he was desperate to pay off. The insurance investigator later suspected him of never being on the plane. His wife received at least $125,000 in payouts."

Is there any basis to that?

--23.119.204.117 (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

From my investigation, there is only one credible source of the accusations of Eugene Crosthwaite, based upon that reporter's searches of the Pan American Airlines archives. The name never made the newspapers and everything you see about him stems from that one source. I've minimally mentioned the theory in my most recent revision of the article, limiting the coverage to the fact that Pan Am suspected him, but the FBI did not see any link. The primary source mentioned that he was suicidal and erratic, but failed to mention that his wife had died a month before Pan Am Flight 7, so that could have explained some things. It could also explain the writing out of his deceased wife's daughter from his will shortly before the flight. So I'd be cautious about mentioning Crosthwaite too much. The other, person, William Payne, was more widely reported across multiple sources, so I have included more information about him, but investigators never tied him to the crash, even though his body was never recovered. RecycledPixels (talk) 07:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The "Reporter's" book "Flight 7 Is Missing: The Search For My Father's Killer" is more than slightly suspect. It is published by the "Fayetteville Mafia Press." While I am not posting this as a review I must warn that while it is resonably well written and makes an emotional argument for the supposed "solution" perhapse it says more about the author than the accused. As it is a published book it is therefore accorded the credibility which makes it a "acceptable source" for many mavins of the Wikipedia. The FBI is an initial participant in every airliner crash until no evidence of a crime has been detected. No evidence of a crime whatsoever was detected in the case of Flight 7. Mark Lincoln (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the book, which I have not seen, I was referring to a 2017 article in Air & Space magazine by the same author of that book. From what I could tell, the magazine generally seems like a reliable source, but the article's conclusions as to the cause of the crash struck me as too speculative and without supporting evidence. Perhaps there is more solid evidence presented in the book. RecycledPixels (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I am a subscriber to Air & Space as well as a bit of a Boeing Stratocrusier buff. The article in Air & Space was co-authored by Gregg Herken who is the author several books which I have. Dr. Herken had a personal interest in Flight 7 as well as having been a senior historian andd curator at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. I empathasize with Ken Fortenberry, the author of "Flight 7 Is Missing," as one morning in January 1960 I arose to find my mother weeping at the dinningroom table, with a copy of the Virginia Pilot, the headline story being the crash of a Capital Airlines Viscount at Charles City, Virginia with all killed. My father, John Merriman and John Perkins, all Capital copilots were to have dead headed home from Washington on the flight only to be bumpped off by payng passengers. Those on Flight 20 were killed by a combination of bad weather and a defective Flight Manual for the Viscount 745D. The crash investigation resulted in CAB Accident Report SA-353, File No. 1-0001, which gives the details. The final moments of the flight resulted in the airliner being impailed upon five trees, as well as other trees bracketing the aircraft. It was descending vertically with virtually no forward velocity. Captain Fornasero, Copilot Cullom, Hostesses O'Donnell and Jort, as well as 46 passengers including two infants were all killed. The last communications from the crew was an acknoledgement of Norfolk Center's instructions clearing them to the ILS Norfolk Outer Marker with instructions to report over Hopewell. Nothing more was heard from Flight 20 though witnessess reported the airliner executed two left circles withing a two mile area of impact. Witnesses believed the airplane was experiencing engine trouble. The report CAB stated that "application and removal of power, or cutting off of the engines, occuring at least three times. There wes a final roar of power just before impact . . ." What ever happened to Flight 20 the crew, like that of PAA 7, had no time to communicate. As Grandpa Pettibone observed the problem is to aviate, not communicate. Capital Flight 20 arrived 6.3 miles off the centerline of the airway Victor 213. PAA 7 went further off course but then they had 12,000 feet more to descent. It is almost certain we shall never know what happend to flight 7 as most wreckage was lost. I have extensive documentation of airliner accidents, including several involving pilots I knew. They never reported their problems before impact either. I also have edited Wikipedia and understand that well intentioned editors following Wikipedia standards might well admit a book published by the "Fayetteville Mafia Press" as a valid source. And perhaps it should be. But it also should be questioned for a number of reasons.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 26 May 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Closing per WP:SNOW. This is also clearly not appropriate while the article is today's Featured Article. As a non-admin closer, I have never voted in any discussions regarding the naming dispute, either on this article, or others, and consider myself not involved. Anyone is free to revert the close if they deem my closure improper. (non-admin closure) Seloloving (talk) 08:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

---

• Pan Am Flight 1104 → Pan American World Airways Flight 1104
• Pan Am Flight 121 → Pan American World Airways Flight 121
• Pan Am Flight 923 → Pan American World Airways Flight 923
• Pan Am Flight 1-10 → Pan American World Airways Flight 1-10
• Pan Am Flight 151 → Pan American World Airways Flight 151
• Pan Am Flight 526A → Pan American World Airways Flight 526A
• Pan Am Flight 202 → Pan American World Airways Flight 202
• Pan Am Flight 845/26 → Pan American World Airways Flight 845/26
• Pan Am Flight 6 → Pan American World Airways Flight 6
• Pan Am Flight 7 → Pan American World Airways Flight 7

– Even though "Pan Am" is arguably more commonly used, the usage must also be synchronized with the history of Pan American World Airways. Though Pan American World Airways has always been the airline's official name after it's rename from Pan American Airways, the phrase "Pan Am" did not exist until sometime just before the jet-age per the liveries used on the aircraft. Back then, it was only known either as Pan American World Airways or PAA. Since PAA is not a very recognizable and uncommonly used abbreviation unlike something like TWA, the title names for all of the pre-jet age accidents should be "Pan American World Airways Flight xxxx" and post jet-age accidents should be "Pan Am Flight xxxx". Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE (two sections of the same document). RecycledPixels (talk) 07:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@RecycledPixels: Yes, I did mention that "Pan Am" is more commonly used and is distinguishable from other airlines but there was no such thing abbreviation known as "Pan Am" at the time of these accidents and is clearly incorrect to be used. WP:COMMONNAME should only be applied wherever appropriate. That's also why I haven't requested every Pan Am accident here to be moved. At most, if an abbreviation is required, use PAA but not "Pan Am" for these accidents. Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq (talk) 07:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. It would be strange to add "World Airways" to the title as the article about Pam Am is just Pan Am. It was moved to that title in 2020, after a formal move request here. I see no reason to create confusion. The Banner talk 08:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

This is a Pan American World Airways article. If not acceptable could this be PAA Flight 7? Pan Am was an abbreviation used later on. Again, yes, Pan Am is the more common name but at the time of the accident, the airline was always known as Pan American World Airways not Pan Am since "Pan Am" was adopted much later since it's initial debut. Also, why is it strange to add "World Airways" may I ask? Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq (talk) 10:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

And to add further, I absolutely support the move to Pan Am since, that's how the airline last branded itself. Here, the airline did not brand itself at all "Pan Am" in the 1950's but instead "Pan American World Airways". Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. ww2censor (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMANNAME Taxin609 (Talk To Me) 00:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per common name. We don't care much about how any institution or person "branded" themselves, quite the opposit: we don't even included legal parts of names. I also oppose having started that while the article is Today's featured article. Hope for a snow close, - the tag is a disgrace. I'll make a redirrect, just to avoid thousands of readers being annoyed by a red link, on top of a tag. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose and support a WP:SNOW closure - WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE are both relevant here. Pedantically extending the title is likely to reduce the WP:RECOGNISABILITY of the articles even further. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

insurance section

Why is The Purser not mentioned in the "insurance" section? But they are mentioned in 377's list of accidents 49.184.173.249 (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Lack of reliable sources. See discussion above in the "Sabotage?" section. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)