Talk:British Airways Flight 009: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:31, 17 May 2010

at the time of the incident i was dispatching a flight from jugoslav airlines from singapore to sydney (i recall) and having received the notam advising of the ash cloud, diverted the flight south of jakarta to avoid it....wasnt the ba009 crew advised of the notam? if so, why they did not divert from the cloud? Rojas950 (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)rojas950[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+at the time of the incident i was dispatching a flight from jugoslav airlines from singapore to sydney (i recall) and having received the notam advising of the ash cloud, diverted the flight south of jakarta to avoid it....wasnt the ba009 crew advised of the notam? if so, why they did not divert from the cloud?
-{{WikiProjectBannerShell |1=
+[[User:Rojas950|Rojas950]] ([[User talk:Rojas950|talk]]) 10:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)rojas950
-{{disaster management|class=B|importance=mid}}
-{{WPAVIATION|class=B|Accident-task-force=yes}}
-{{WP Indonesia|class=B|importance=mid}}
-{{WikiProject United Kingdom}}<!--The aircraft was British-->
-}}
-{{reqphoto|in=UK}}
-==Reversion of weather category==
-I'd consider volcanic ash a "weather" phenomenon, at least so far as aviation is concerned.  After all, you hear about volcanic ash when you are receiving your weather briefing.  And it sounds like it was the volcanic ash that caused the incident.  Why do you (Scott) feel that isn't an appropriate category? —[[User:Cleared as filed|Cleared as filed.]] 19:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
-*Yes, volcanic ash is included in weather briefings, but that's more because there nowhere else to put it, rather than because it is weather. If the category was accidents caused by atmospheric conditions or something similar, then fine, but ash is hardly bad weather. --[[User:Scott Wilson|Scott Wilson]] 19:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
-::Weather is typically defined as something like "the specific condition of the atmosphere at a particular time and place".  It usually includes visibility, smog, and dust storms where these are significant conditions.  Pyroclastic ash clouds are a significant atmospheric condition and would seem to qualify as weather.  We don't often think of them that way perhaps, but presumably only because they are uncommon in our experience. -[[User:R. S. Shaw|R. S. Shaw]] 04:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
-KLM is in fact Royal Dutch Airlines, not Royal Dutch Airways as it is mentioned here - [[Aishah Bowron]] 18:51, 21 February 2006
-==not original material==
-some of this text is copied verbatim from [http://www.ifalpa.org/sab/06SAB008.pdf]
-[[User:Miken32|Miken32]] 18:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
-: It may look like that (as I initially thought), but the evidence is that the IFALPA bulletin copied from this Wikipedia article without attribution (and in violation of terms of the GFDL).  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Airways_Flight_9&oldid=34357655 This 8 Jan 2006 version] has the common text, whereas the IFALPA bulletin is dated 26 January 2006.  (The text probably goes back almost to the original article version of Aug 2005.) Amusing that the bulletin says "All reprints must credit IFALPA".  The passages I found resembling the article are:
-::Diverting to Jakarta, and despite reports of good visibility, the crew found it hard to see anything, and had to make the approach almost entirely on instruments, although the runway lights could be made out through a small strip of the windscreen undamaged by abrasion from the ash. After landing, the crew then found it impossible to taxi, as glare from apron floodlights made the windscreen opaque.
-::Although the airspace around Mount Galunggung was closed temporarily after the incident, it reopened and it was only after a Singapore Airlines B-747 was forced to shut down three of its engines while flying through the same area nineteen days later that Indonesian authorities closed the airspace permanently and re-routed airways to avoid the area. Subsequently, a watch was set up to monitor clouds of ash.
-::In a nearly identical incident in 1989, a KLM flight from Amsterdam to Anchorage, Alaska, flew into the plume of the erupting Mount Redoubt, causing all four engines to fail due to compressor stall. Once the flight cleared the ash cloud it was able to restart each engine and then made a safe landing at Anchorage, though, like the BA flight mentioned above, the aircraft was substantially damaged.
-:I had added a reference entry for the IFALPA bulletin, but will now remove it. -[[User:R. S. Shaw|R. S. Shaw]] 20:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
-I thought some of the bulletin sounded familiar! Although you've only my word for it, I'd never heard of IFALPA at that point, let alone seen the bulletin: the initial revision was mainly me paraphrasing Betty Tootell's book. --[[User:Scott Wilson|Scott Wilson]] 22:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
-== Time zones ==
-some of the times are in gmt. should they not be in either utc or jakarta time? or is it gmt because the aircraft is registered in britain?
-:Firstly, GMT is the same as UTC (give or take a few fractions of a second). In the initial version, I used GMT because that's what my primary source (Tootell) used. Secondly, in aviation in general, because aircraft cross timezones so frequently and with such ease, UTC/GMT is used (even for flights staying in one timezone) to avoid any possibility of confusion - local times are generally only for passengers. --[[User:Scott Wilson|Scott Wilson]] 16:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-== Height Units ==
-This article has fallen foul of the metrification zealots (which would usually include me, but not for aviation), leading to such absurd statements as the crew deciding to try to stay above "3,650 metres (11,980 ft)". It's an absolute certainty that the original source would have said 12,000 feet, the calibrated figure on the altimeter, so Wikipedia has now been infected with statements which are factually incorrect.
-I'd be perfectly happy with the primary figure always being in metres, even though, technically, it's inappropriate for aviation, as long as the accompanying measurement in feet hasn't been subject to a double conversion and rounding, rendering it incorrect.
-I'm not going to fix this myself, because to do a proper job it would mean veryifying figures from the original sources. I'm just going to complain about it.[[User:Stephen G Graham|Steve Graham]] ([[User talk:Stephen G Graham|talk]]) 10:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
-:That might have been my doing - sorry about that. In the original text metrical and imperial units were both included in the text, but some numbers were clearly inconsistent with eachother. Therefore I have consistently implemented the {{tl|convert}}-template. In inputting the numbers to the template I worked left to right. In distances that didn't cause problems but in heights it would have been better to use feet as primary numbers. Using the original figures (as they were before my edit) I have done so now.
-:By the way - what (if any) is the reason you put this section in the middle of the talk page and not at its bottom?
-:[[User talk:Richardw|Richard]] 07:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
-== Captain on flight deck? ==
-Some time ago (Feb 25 in my time zone), someone made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Airways_Flight_9&curid=2528948&diff=110655857&oldid=110352905 an edit that looks like vandalism] (and no one acted on it until just now, when I reverted it, so it looks like no one noticed). However, if I remember the ''Air Crash Investigations'' episode correctly, they were actually removing a false statement. Can someone more familiar with this please check it? [[User:Brianjd|Brian]] [[User talk:Brianjd|Jason]] [[Special:Contributions/Brianjd|Drake]] 08:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC) <span style="font-size:smaller;">[edited to add italics on the series title - [[User:Brianjd|Brian]] [[User talk:Brianjd|Jason]] [[Special:Contributions/Brianjd|Drake]] 10:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)]</span>
-:I've consulted the sources available to me, including Job's ''Air Disaster'' vol. 2 and the ''Air Safety Week'' June 28, 2004 article (both substantial), and the ''Daily Mail'' article, and none of them indicate that Moody left the flight deck after the visual symptoms had begun.  He had returned before any of the engine failures and didn't leave.  This is also my memory from reading Tootell's book two years ago.
-:The sentence in question was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Airways_Flight_9&diff=73301355&oldid=73152793 added last Sept] by a one-day anon editor.  The same edit removed text saying that Moody had told Greaves to declare the emergency, but the sources indicate that he did do that.  Taking the anon's edits [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Airways_Flight_9&diff=73302114&oldid=73152793 all together], they seem to have a bit of anti-Captain bias, sort of sour grapes flavor.  From other accounts, the captain's time away from the flight deck was nonexistant during the period the aircraft was having engine trouble.
-:I'm going to again remove the sentence.  Whether the original removal by [[User:Eric Moody]] was actually by Captain Moody or not we don't know, but I don't dismiss the possibility. -[[User:R. S. Shaw|R. S. Shaw]] 20:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
-::I don't discount the possibility either, but I consider it extremely unlikely and I can understand if anybody does discount the possibility without thinking to do anything else. [[User:Brianjd|Brian]] [[User talk:Brianjd|Jason]] [[Special:Contributions/Brianjd|Drake]] 10:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
-== Ascent over mountain ==
-After restarting all the engines, the aircraft ascended back into the cloud to cross the mountain, causing one engine to fail again. If ascent is not necessary to cross the mountain ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Airways_Flight_9&diff=prev&oldid=123037904]), what is it necessary for? The introduction gives no clues. [[User:Brianjd|Brian]] [[User talk:Brianjd|Jason]] [[Special:Contributions/Brianjd|Drake]] 03:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
-:The intro gives no clues because no sources explain. Job's ''Air Disaster'' says that the copilot radioed " 'All four engines running - level at 12,000.'  On the captain's instruction, he added, 'Request higher level.' " with no explanation of the reason for the request.
-:I would speculate that the captain simply wanted more altitude in case of further engine flame-outs, since that would give them more time to deal with a new problem before descent from lack of power had critical consequences.  Remember they had just gone through 20 harrowing minutes of powerless descent with their high starting altitude giving them precious time.  They didn't know there was an ash cloud to reenter and that ascending was dangerous.  The lowest safe altitude to cross the mountains was 11,500 ft, so it was adequate to be at 12,000, at which they started the ascent, and to which they quickly returned for the crossing.
-:But Wikipedia is not the place for speculation, so such guesses shouldn't be in the article. -[[User:R. S. Shaw|R. S. Shaw]] 04:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
-::I have Betty Toottell's book on the incident in front of me. On pg 135 (Pan books 1985 edition) it confirms Job's account stated above, and adds the following statement after Jakarta 'cleared to 150': ''"Immediately Captain Moody put the aircraft into a climb back towards 15,000 ft, only too well aware of the mountains beneath, and wanting to have a reserve margin for clearance over them."''  So the supposed reason for the climb can be linked to a references, which I'll do when I get a chance. --[[User:Zamphuor|Zamphuor]] 14:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
-==Landing and Taxi==
-I just recently watched a documentary on the incident. It cited that the cause for the opaque windshield was because of the blasting of the sand particles (sand blasting) against the windscreen, not because of light glare. Can anyone confirm this?
---[[User:Zachdouglas|Zachdouglas]] 21.16, 20 April 2007
-It was both. The light reflecting off the sandblasted windscreen made it opaque, just like frosted glass. --[[User:Scott Wilson|Scott Wilson]] 15:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
-==Please explain engine 'searchlight' appearance==
-The article says: "Those looking out windows also noticed that the engines were unusually bright, as if they each had a searchlight in them, shining forward through the fan blades."  That doesn't fit with St Elmo's fire which is a soft glow and not at all like that description.  What is the explanation for that engine visual effect? {{unsigned2|12:47, 22 April 2007|24.84.45.165}} <small>[moved by [[User:Scott Wilson]] 16:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)</small>
-:I honestly don't know, though I don't think it was St Elmo's fire - if the article implies it was, it ought to be changed. I can't remember if Tootell gave an explanation in her book (my main source on this subject), or if it's still a mystery. --[[User:Scott Wilson|Scott Wilson]] 16:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
-The glow is indeed St. Elmo's fire and is experienced regularly by pilots who fly through weather conditions where Ice crystallization has occurred in the atmosphere. This is often seen as a glow extending forward from the nose of the airplane, or at the inlets of the engines. It varies in degree depending on the amount of friction causing elecrtostatic charge and ionizing the air around the sharp edges of the airplane.
-==Flight (article) name==
-Flight name was BA009 - see foot of article. Should this article be renamed?[[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 19:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
-As far as I can remember when at LHR last time, this flight was called the BA Zero Zero Nine, over the tannoy and on the flight information screens, I agree that is should be renamed. [[User:Benny45boy|Benny45boy]] ([[User talk:Benny45boy|talk]]) 11:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
-:I think, leading zeroes in flight numbers are not mandatory. 009 or 9 – either is correct. Actually, with four digits nowadays, you wouldn't say 0009, but just 9. – --[[User:Suaheli|Suaheli]] ([[User talk:Suaheli|talk]]) 14:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
-== Unreliable reference ==
-''Brennan, Zoe (27 January 2007). "The story of flight 009 and the words every passenger dreads...", Daily Mail.'' – This reference should be deleted. E. g. statements like ''"There were huge flames coming out of all four engines"'' are greatly exaggerated and the illustration is plain nonsense, too – this is Hollywood movie level. --[[User:Suaheli|Suaheli]] ([[User talk:Suaheli|talk]]) 22:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
-== Something Wrong ... I fixed ==
-In ACI, the captain did not say we are doing our ****dest to get them going again, he said: we are doing our ****edest to get it under control.
-I fixed that! {{unsigned|66.30.30.53}}
-:So on top of everything else, Moody could pronounce asterisks! What a guy. *g* [[User:Loganberry|Loganberry]] ([[User talk:Loganberry|Talk]]) 23:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
-::I just was censoring the bad part of the word [[Special:Contributions/66.30.30.53|66.30.30.53]] ([[User talk:66.30.30.53|talk]]) 18:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
-== Incident Section ==
-To me it seems like the incident section is written more like a story than an encyclopedia entry, does anyone else feel this way? Also, I noticed that it states that the oxygen masks didn't work, however, if I am correct (and stop me if I'm not) the oxygen masks work by pulling the mask which pulls a pin on a chemical oxygen generator. Therefore, they will always work, regardless of what is happening around them as they are independant. Furthermore, many passengers in aircraft incidents and accidents ''say'' that they are not working because the bag doesn't inflate while in fact they still are.
-Just wondering what your thoughts on this issue are. Thanks, --[[User:Plane Person|Plane Person]] ([[User talk:Plane Person|talk]]) 08:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
-:I don't think the Incident section reads ''too'' much like a story, though I say this as one who's contributed to the section, if mainly to add quotes and citations. Personally I can do without ''The 747 had now become a glider.'' which does sound story-like, and I agree about the oxygen masks paragraph that follows the quote from Captain Moody - not only does the prose leave something to be desired, there's no citation for it. That para should go, unless it can be cited (in which I'd be happy to help tidy the wording). Cheers, [[User:Ian Rose|Ian Rose]] ([[User talk:Ian Rose|talk]]) 10:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
-::I admit I'm just a layman, but I've read some discussions on [[PPRuNe]], and I've gathered there are two things that typically happen after a de-pressurisation: a) the pilot goes in a somewhat steep dive (1800m/min sounds about right) because the oxygen supply doesn't last all that long and b) some passengers think the oxygen masks don't work, even if they do, because the plastic bag on the mask doesn't inflate. (And never mind that it plainly says on that bag that it won't inflate.) Until I see some references I'll think the masks worked all right.--[[User:Ospalh|ospalh]] ([[User talk:Ospalh|talk]]) 11:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
-I'll rewrite the section and post it in the article, then you can look at it and change it if you like. Thanks, --[[User:Plane Person|Plane Person]] ([[User talk:Plane Person|talk]]) 16:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
-This is the original. My version is in the article so change that if you want to.
-The first sign of anything amiss occurred shortly after 13:40 UTC (20:40 Jakarta time) above the Indian Ocean, south of Java, when [[first officer|Senior First Officer]] Roger Greaves and [[flight engineer|Senior Engineer Officer]] Barry Townley-Freeman noticed an effect on the windscreen similar to [[St. Elmo's fire]], as if it were being hit by [[tracer ammunition|tracer bullets]].<ref name="Black Box"/> The phenomenon persisted after [[Captain (civil aviation)|Captain]] Eric Moody, who had left the [[cockpit]] to use the [[lavatory]], returned. Despite seeing nothing on the [[weather radar]], they switched on engine anti-ice and the passenger seat belt signs as a precaution.
-In the passenger cabin, smoke started gathering in the air. At first it was assumed to be cigarette smoke, but as it grew thicker, alarm spread. Those looking out windows also noticed that the engines were unusually bright, as if they each had a headlight in them, shining forward through the fan blades and producing a [[stroboscopic effect]].<ref name="Air Disaster">{{cite book | last=[[Macarthur Job|Job]]| first=Macarthur | title=Air Disaster Volume 2| publisher=Aerospace  Publications | year=1994 | isbn=1875671196 | pages=96–107}}</ref>
-At approximately 13:42 UTC (20:42 Jakarta time), engine four surged and then [[flameout|flamed out]]. The first officer and flight engineer immediately performed the engine shutdown drill, shutting off fuel and arming fire extinguishers as the Captain added some rudder to counter the uneven thrust. The passengers also spotted long yellow glows coming out of the remaining engines. Less than a minute after the first engine failed, engine two surged and flamed out. Before the flight crew could begin the engine failure drills, engines one and three shut down almost simultaneously. The flight engineer exclaimed, "I don't believe it – all four engines have failed!"<ref name="Air Disaster"/>
-The 747 had now become a glider. Since a 747 has a [[glide ratio]] of about 15, Captain Moody calculated that, from its flight level of {{convert|37000|ft|m}}, Flight 9 would be able to glide for 23 minutes and cover {{convert|91|nmi|km}}.<ref name="Air Disaster"/> At 13:44 UTC (20:44 Jakarta time), Moody told First Officer Greaves to [[Distress signal#Aviation distress signals|declare an emergency]] to the local [[air traffic control]] authority, stating that all four engines had shut down, but Jakarta Area Control misunderstood the message, believing that only [[engine number]] four had shut down. It was only after a [[Garuda Indonesia]] flight relayed the message that it got through.
-The loss of power was immediately obvious to the passengers, and they reacted to it in many different ways. Some became resigned, while others wrote notes to their loved ones, such as Charles Capewell's "Ma. In trouble. Plane going down. Will do best for boys. We love you. Sorry. Pa XXX" scrawled on the cover of his ticket wallet.<ref name="Falling from the Sky"/> Some passengers cried out that they were going to die, and still others attempted to calm down the more panicky ones.<ref name="Air Disaster"/>
-On the flight deck the crew attempted to contact Jakarta for radar assistance, but could not be seen by Jakarta, despite their [[Transponder (aviation)|transponder]] being set to 7700, the international "general emergency" code. Due to the high Indonesian mountains, an altitude of at least 3,500 m (11,500&nbsp;ft) was required to cross the coast safely. Captain Moody decided that, if the aircraft was unable to maintain altitude by the time they reached 3,650 m (12,000&nbsp;ft), he would turn back out to sea and attempt to [[Water landing|ditch]]. The crew began the engine restart drills, despite being well above the recommended maximum engine in-flight start envelope altitude of 8,500 m (28,000&nbsp;ft), but they were unsuccessful.
-Despite the lack of time, Captain Moody made an announcement that has been described as "a masterpiece of [[understatement]]":<ref name="Air Disaster"/>
-{{cquote|''Ladies and Gentlemen, this is your Captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get it under control. I trust you are not in too much distress.''}}
-As pressure within the cabin fell, oxygen masks dropped from the ceiling - an automatic emergency measure to make up for the lack of air. But some did not work.
-Moody took drastic action: to prevent his passengers dying of oxygen starvation, he went into a nosedive, dropping 1,800 m in one minute, to an altitude where there was enough oxygen in the outside atmosphere to fill the cabin once more.
-At 4,100 m (13,500&nbsp;ft), the flight crew attempted one last engine restart procedure before turning for the ocean and the risky prospect of a [[ditching]]. Although there were guidelines for the procedure, no one had ever tried it in a 747 – nor have they since<!-- (as far as I know) -->. Number four engine started, and at 13:56 UTC (20:56 Jakarta time), Captain Moody used its power to reduce the rate of descent. Shortly thereafter, engine three restarted, allowing him to climb slowly. Shortly after that, engines one and two restarted as well. The engines were able to restart because one generator and the batteries were still operative; generator or battery power is required for ignition of the engines.<ref name="Stewart">{{cite book | last=Stewart | first=Stanley | title=Emergency: Crisis on the Flight Deck| publisher=The Crowood Press | year=2002 | isbn=978-1840373936 }}</ref> The crew were amazed at their change of fortune, and requested an increase in altitude to 4,500 m (15,000&nbsp;feet) to clear the high mountains.<ref name="Tootell">{{cite book | last=Tootell | first=Betty | title=All Four Engines Have Failed| publisher=Andre Deutsch | year=1985 | isbn=0-330-29492-X }}</ref>
-As the aircraft approached its target altitude, the tracer effect on the windscreen returned. Captain Moody throttled back, but it was too late: number two engine surged again, and had to be shut down. The crew immediately descended to 3,600 m (12,000&nbsp;ft).
-At last Flight 9 approached Jakarta. Despite reports of good visibility, the crew found it difficult to see anything through the windscreen, and had to make the approach almost entirely on instruments. They would have to fly the ILS. However, the glideslope was inactive, so they flew the localizer as the first officer monitored their DME. He then called out how high they should be relative to their distance from the runway, creating a virtual glide slope for them to follow. It was, in the words of Captain Moody, "a bit like negotiating one's way up a [[badger]]'s arse".<ref name="Black Box"/> Although the runway lights could be made out through a small strip of the windscreen, the landing lights seemed to be inoperable. After landing, the flight crew then found it impossible to taxi, as glare from apron floodlights made the windscreen opaque, and ''City of Edinburgh'' had to wait for a tug to tow her in.
-== April 2010 Airspace Closure ==
-I have added a section title (as above) to make this rather unusual event a bit more obvious. Right now no one is flying(by jet) in or out of England. Not too much coverage of Europe in Oz news. If this doesn't eruption clear soon the effects will likely flow on worldwide, to some extent.
-Other parts of the Aftermath section need a bit of work ie the [[US Airways Flight 1549]] Hudson ditching seems a bit out of place, though relevant as far as gliding a large aircraft. '''--[[Special:Contributions/220.101.28.25|220.101.28.25]] ([[User talk:220.101.28.25|talk]]) 10:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)'''
-== What's the actual route for BA009? ==
-According to Job's Air Disaster Volume 2, the route appeared to be LHR-BOM-KUL(now SZB)-PER-MEL-AKL. Can anyone confirm whether the flight stopped at Madras(Chennai)?  <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:N73713|N73713]] ([[User talk:N73713|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/N73713|contribs]]) 11:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->