Talk:Northwest Airlines Flight 255

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

Aftermath[edit]

I removed this statement, because it was not accurate:

There was an electrical failure due to a circuit breaker being tripped, but post-accident testing did not reveal a malfunction of the circuit breaker.

The NTSB was not able to determine the condition of that CB, prior to the crash, becaus it was too badly damaged. They could not tell if the CB was open or closed. They could only determine that the CAWS was not powered. This is the replacement text I have inserted:

The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) provided the evidence regarding the flightcrew omission of the taxi checklist. The stall warning was annunciated. Using the CVR the investigators determined that the aural takeoff warning was not annunciated. The NTSB was unable to determine why there was an electrical power failure to the CAWS.
"The failure of the takeoff warning system was caused by the loss of input 28V dc. electric power between the airplane’s left dc. bus and the CAWS unit. The interruption of the input power to the CAWS occurred at the P-40 circuit breaker. The mode of interruption could not be determined."

Specifically, the NTSB could not determine if that P-40 CB had been tripped, or intentionally opened, or if electrical current failed to flow thru that CB, to the CAWS, while the CB remained closed.

"Because the P-40 circuit breaker was badly damaged during the accident, it was impossible for the Safety Board to determine positively its preimpact condition. There were three possible conditions that would have caused power to be interrupted at the P-40 circuit breaker: the circuit breaker was intentionally opened by either the flightcrew or maintenance personnel, the circuit breaker tripped because of a transient overload and the flightcrew did not detect the open circuit breaker, or the circuit breaker did not allow current to flow to the CAWS power supply and did not annunciate the condition by tripping." [Pg. 53 of the report]

EditorASC (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute[edit]

The NTSB report lists a few injuries among the many fatalities, and the link showing that the crash killed "all the passengers except for a four-year old girl" is dead. Could somebody clear this up? Also, the contributing (not immediate cause) electrical malfunction cited in the NTSB report should be listed. Bayerischermann 21:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a true deal. The MD-82 was on the flight when it crashed on takeoff. When it went down, it crashed onto a freeway just outside of the airport. Of all the passengers and crew aboard this flight, the sole survivor of this crash was a 4-year-old girl who was more or less smothered by the mother at impact. Because of this, she was shielded from the explosive imapact when the plane hit the ground. I can't remember if she lived through the recovery and is alive today, but I do remember that Northwest was in pretty deep trouble because of the accident for about 2-3 years. In the end, Northwest completely revamped pre-flight checklists on all aircraft. 

                                                                              Jonathon, Bethel, AK 9.16.05

I believe that the three other injuries were probably people in vehicles along the freeway, while the four-year-old girl was the fourth injury, and the only survivor of those who were actually onboard the aircraft. Alex, Prescott WI 9.25.05

Actually the full NTSB report indicates that the mother was found 30 ft from the 4 year old girl and had NOTHING to do with saving here. This was make up by the media to be a feel good story.

-Regarding the previous entry about little Cecelia's Mom being found 30 feet away from her at the scene...(bless her soul), I could not find that fact in the NTSB report (AAR88-05) as you mentioned. I may have simply missed it - Can anyone verify this? -And please state your information source(s). Thanks, Russ, Tempe, AZ 2.3.06

We can safely remove the dispute here. This NTSB link confirms 154 passenger/crew fatalities, 1 passenger survivor, 2 fatalities on the ground, 5 injuries on the ground. http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1988/AAR8805.htm

As to the question above about the sole survivor, Cecelia Cichan, the article correctly states that she is still alive today. In fact she appears to have corrected the spelling of her name in a few wikipedia articles in 2004. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=68.220.220.149

Other links that confirm the stats can be found on this page: http://www.flight255memorial.com/thecrash.html

I thought Cecelia was only 2 yrs old at the time. 9-25-06

RE: "...the sole survivor of this crash was a 4-year-old girl who was more or less smothered by the mother at impact. Because of this, she was shielded from the explosive imapact when the plane hit the ground."

There was no explosion, just rapid breakup of the structure, as it impacted the ground and obstacles, and then fire, after the fuel tanks ruptured. There is no way to know that the girl was shielded by any one or anything. She had rather severe injuries, from both impact trauma and fire.

RE: "Actually the full NTSB report indicates that the mother was found 30 ft from the 4 year old girl and had NOTHING to do with saving here. This was make up by the media to be a feel good story."

The NTSB report mentions the child in 5 places. The word "girl" is never used. In one of those 5 passages, the child is identified as a female. The report says nothing about the relative positions of the bodies of the child or mother and makes no comments about the mother's body saving the child. It only says this, on page 48: "The survival of the 4-year-old female child can only be attributed to a combination of fortuitous circumstances."

EditorASC (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orange County[edit]

i remember reading somewhere that the crew was in a big hurry because of a curfew at john wayne airport in orange county, california -- they were borderline to arrive there in time and would have been re-routed to LAX had they not made it, which was evidently a major hassle. in their haste to get airborne, they screwed up.

anyone have anything on this? 68.108.16.108 (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Annunciated?[edit]

"Annuciated" is a rather arcane word, which seems to mean "foretold", "presaged". Did the writer mean "announced" (or "enunciated"?). In any case, none of these seems quite right, but it needs someone with more knowledge of the incident to clarify e.g. how were the warnings given, were they not acknowledged? 84.92.241.186 (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word "annunciated" is standard aviation nomenclature. That word is used 9 times in the NTSB accident report. It refers to the method by which warnings or information are given to the pilots, when certain systems parameters are exceeded.
The plane had an overhead annunciator panel, which displayed various systems lights which annunciate, when certain conditions exist for various systems.
For example, when the engines are shut down, and the hydraulic pumps are no longer running, the annunciator panel lights for the various hydraulic systems will turn on. In flight, they should be dark, but will annunciate, if the pressure drops below a certain parameter limit. That way, the pilots' attention's are called to that abnormal situation inflight, which will cause the pilots to then take appropriate actions.
There are also audible forms of annunciators too. Horns, bells, warblers and even a female voice, can all be heard by the pilots, if some safety parameter is violated. The stall warning system will annunciate with a "stick shaker" on the control column, and by triggering a voice warning of "stall, stall, stall" in some types of aircraft.
See Annunciator panel EditorASC (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an FYI - I spoke with a pilot about this crash; I was told that the airline, with that type aircraft, at that time taxied out on one engine to save fuel. That one engined taxi required high revs - the alarm would sound for improper configuration for takeoff with the high engine speed as the trigger. The crews would disable the alarm would sound for improper configuration. Add the failure to extend flaps/slats to no alarm (disabled) ..... 112.203.247.168 (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard that too, from various pilots that flew some of the smaller twin-engine jetliners. If they advanced the thrust lever for the one engine, that was still running during taxi, they often got that horn warning, because they had to move it further forward, than they would if both engines were running. So, some idiot pilots would pull the CB for that warning system, just so they wouldn't have to listen to that horn. Those who did that, apparently didn't bother to think of the potential consequences, if anyone forgot to reset that breaker, before the next takeoff. While a speculation like that can never be proved, I think it is a reasonable speculation ---- as speculations go....
That is probably why it was UAL policy to have both engines running, on twin-engine aircraft, at all times during ground taxi. EditorASC (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC) (Retired UAL captain).[reply]

A review of the MD-82 systems and cockpit layout suggests that the above speculation is not based in fact. The P40 circuit breaker is located at the outboard edge of a breaker panel located behind the Captain's seat. Why would a flight crew member get up from his seat, spend time looking behind the Captain's seat looking for the P40 breaker and pull it, when all that is necessary to silence the horn is to retard the power setting once the aircraft starts moving? It's not like TOGA power on one engine is necessary for the entire taxi time. Nor is there any indication in the CVR/cockpit area microphone transcript (available in the public domain) of single engine taxi being used, a warning horn sounding, or any discussion about pulling a circuit breaker, any one of which might be normally expected if the intentional opening of P40 had occurred.

Nor does the article include sufficient information from the NTSB final report about the failure modes of P40 and the associated circuit other than intentional opening. The NTSB report goes into great detail about how tests from Douglas and Klixon (the subsidiary of Texas Instruments that manufactured the circuit breaker) showed that there was a failure mode where the breaker could open without any visual indication. Twominutesinverted (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of Cecelia Cichan[edit]

I propose that the Cecelia Cichan be merged here. The article is very short and could be accommodated as a section or subsection here without undue weight. It is also encouraged by the fact that Cichan is an individual notable for one event. 86.41.93.214 (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is also fair to ponder that the survivor herself does not like undue publicity, as stated in the References. Aldo L (talk) 02:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree ~ that's why i've nominated Cecelia Cichan for deletion here. In fact, in theory, it's already been merged here once before, a couple of years ago; most or all of the information that ought to be saved in Northwest Airlines Flight 255 is here already. Cheers, LindsayHi 16:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth deadliest accident in American history?[edit]

What about Korean Air Flight 801, which crashed in Guam with 228 casaulties? Yeah, I know Guam isn't a state, but it's still United States territory.76.6.155.76 (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is the fourth Deadliest, because as you just said, Guam is a US territory. It's the fifth-deadliest if you include the September 11th attacks. Tigerdude9 (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy[edit]

"The MD-82 went into a stall and rolled 40 degrees to the left when it struck a light pole near the end of the runway", this is the way the article reads now but nowhere in the NTSB report does it state 40 degrees, it does say the wings rocked back and forth 35 degrees. Opinions? --Daffydavid (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(I've read the NTSB report, in case you were wondering.) You could always change so it says: "The MD-82 went into a stall and rolled 35 degrees to the left when it struck a light pole near the end of the runway". If you make these edits, explain what you read the NTSB report. That is the the least disruptive way you could edit that part, if you even want to edit it, that is.Tigerdude9 (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on Northwest Airlines Flight 255[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Northwest Airlines Flight 255 which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.robertankony.com/blog/flight-255
    Triggered by \brobertankony\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probable inappropriate image added[edit]

Someone who has more interest in this article than me should review the addition of the image File:McDonnell Douglas MD-82, Republic Airlines JP6652136.jpg. Aside from a typo in the caption it seems unnecessary. I have reverted a lot of this users images from articles today but I want to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. Arbalest Mike (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that someone has updated the typo but that there is no comment regarding the photo being here at all. I am removing it on the grounds that 1) there is already one suitable photo 2) this photo is not suitable as it is clearly for a different airline (despite a later merger). Arbalest Mike (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly related, someone keeps adding in info about the plane's livery. I'd rather not battle over its inclusion, but I found an appropriate supporting source and cleaned up the description for clarity. IMO it's not necessary, but if it's going to be there it should at least be there properly. Shelbystripes (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should we just call Cecelia Chichan by her maiden name?[edit]

It feels like we just started calling Cecelia by her married name with only a small warning that I specified but still looks confusing. We should have segued into it. Should change the article and refer Cecelia by her maiden name, Chichan, to make it sound less confusing and more clear? Or keep the article the same and just continuing referring to her by her married last name? I suggest the first option but I'm just saying! And to be safe, I'm not taking action until I receive answers. Tigerdude9 (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Use the name by which she was known at the time of the accident. 80.2.41.198 (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my late response (I went to summer camp, and then I likely forgot to check back here when I returned from camp, (if I did, then I might vae decided to wait because I still felt unsure) then I started school I'm in 12th grade, and then I finally remembered this section and checked the talk page) but as you can see I finally did it! Tigerdude9 (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We need photos of N312RC[edit]

I went on airliner.net and asked everyone who had a photo of N312RC if it was ok with them to use it, but I have gotten no response from them in a month,so I asked them again, and I still have no response. I could ask the ASN, but I usually save them as a last resort. What should I do? Tigerdude9 (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldnt worry about it, although it would be nice to have an image of the actual aircraft it doesnt really matter and one of the sister ship 311RC is OK to illustrate what it looks like. MilborneOne (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, except checksix.com has a photo of N312RC [[1]] from airliners.net but they removed the copyright stuff, isn't that theft? Tigerdude9 (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just because others ignore copyright rules doesnt mean we will, wikipedia takes a strong stance against copyright violation. MilborneOne (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CVR recording[edit]

So on check six there a link that downloads the final seconds of the CVR recording in WAV. format. Is that considered free (though i doubt it) and should it be uploaded? Tigerdude9 (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should Cecelia Cichan be mentioned by name?[edit]

Alright, we've been having a bit of an edit war over whether or not sole survivor Cecelia Cichan should be mentioned by name. So I wanted to create a place where everyone who would like to help improve this article can discuss this. LearyTheSquid (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. naming of passengers in an accident article was addressed just very recently here.[2]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, it has been almost 3 months and we have had nothing other than constant reverted edits. I want all of us to have an actual discussion so we can come to a consensus on this issue beyond the context of the 1943 Gibraltar B-24 crash. So allow me to start.

Personally, I think that the rule of not naming any dead or survivors unless they are Wikipedia notable, while good intentioned, is too strict, or at least is being too strictly enforced. When we are talking about articles on historic events, sometimes there are people involved in those events that, in telling the story properly, it would make sense to name, even though they are only notable for that event and it isn't enough to warrant an entire Wikipedia page.

Why do we name the pilots in most crash articles even though they aren't Wikipedia notable? It's because the pilots are a notable part of any plane crash. I mean, that's obvious, they're the ones flying the plane that crashed, but this shouldn't be limited to the pilots. Sole survivors like Cichan are a good example of this as their survival often becomes one of the most infamous parts of a crash like Northwest 255. Just look at something like the film Sole Survivor to prove that.

Again, these are just my thoughts. If you agree with me feel free to expand upon my arguments. If you disagree with me feel free to counter my arguments civilly. Let me know if I made some sort of mistake, too. I'm still quite new here but I think this is something we really need to sort out. LearyTheSquid (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the survivors of other accidents are mentioned by name on most other articles, even non notable ones so why not here?

  • No. I tend to agree with the standing practice of including the names of passengers only if they are notable enough to have their own articles on the English Wikipedia. I don't think that the understanding of the subject of this article would be significantly enhanced by changing the article's present writing as "a four-year-old from Tempe, Arizona" to "a four-year-old girl named Cecelia Cichan..." unless it was to include a link to a related article. Perhaps if notability arises later because of a notable book or film about her, she will get an article of her own. (I doubt that her mention in Sole Survivor (2013 film) would survive a deletion challenge of a standalone article at this point.) RecycledPixels (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • One other factor is whether the person agrees to an interview by news media or writes a book about the case. If the person chooses to keep his/her privacy and does not talk about the incident to the media, the value of naming him/her is nil. If the person appears on TV shows publicly, there may be value in naming him/her. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • No per augments made above by RecycledPixels. Also for simplicity. No article, no name. Otherwise we need to start a lengthy discussion for each passenger to gain a consensus. - Samf4u (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It is worth noting that the above neither led to a consensus on a general policy, nor was discussed in a location appropriate for adopting general policy. Discussing inclusion or exclusion of a specific person on this page makes sense for this Talk page; however, any Wikipedia editor who uses discussions on this Talk page to justify deletions made on another page with other rationales for keeping, without being willing to discuss on that article's Talk page, is not engaging in good faith editing behavior. I'm referring specifically to Talk:Galaxy Airlines Flight 203, where considering WP:BIO1E and WP:LASTING notability for the sole survivor of that accident, circumstances are different for inclusion on that page than the person discussed on this one... Shelbystripes (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • A summons for interested editors was posted[3] at a appropriate location....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 03:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The summons was titled, "Talk page discussion- Should Cecelia Cichan be mentioned by name?" Thanks for demonstrating, to my point, that no summons calling for broad policy discussion was posted. A summons for debate on inclusion of one person should, naturally, be understood to be about that person. Shelbystripes (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons, Episodes[edit]

This probably is an issue due to “Mayday:Air Disasters” being syndicated internationally, but Smithsonian Channel lists the episode for this incident, “Alarming Silence”, as Season 2, Episode 5, first aired in 2012. Revbayer (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Northwest_Airlines_Flight_255&oldid=1207956771"