This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of the
Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of
open tasks and
task forces. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar and style: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please
add the following code to the template call:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
The article presents the NTSB's conclusion as to the cause of the accident. Flight attendant Kay Chandler gives a different story (see
External links), and claims that the NTSB ignored both physical and documentary evidence pointing to a structural failure, in favor of the “human error” explanation. Perhaps the article should include both points of view.
DES (
talk)
13:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)reply
First off, does Kay Chandler have media attention to her viewpoint? As per
Wikipedia:NPOV we only represent significant minority viewpoints. Which media organizations reported on Chandler's ideas? How did the NTSB respond? - If these conditions are satisfied, simply say "The NTSB concluded A. Chandler said B. The NTSB responded by saying C."
WhisperToMe (
talk)
12:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Google reveals very little, unfortunately. Upon closer investigation, there are aspects of her story that puzzle me, such as her claim that NTSB characterized the flight attendants as confused and hysterical, when in fact the report clearly states that "the performance of the flight attendants during the emergency was exceptional and probably contributed to the success of the emergency evacuation", "the emergency evacuation of the airplane was accomplished in an exemplary manner" and "both the flight attendants and the flight crewmembers, as well as the off-duty crewmembers, performed exceptionally well in the evacuation".
That being said, the article claims that "the NTSB attributed the crash to pilot error and TWA training and maintenance issues" but fails to mention "design deficiencies in the stall warning system that permitted a defect to go undetected". Also, what the article calls "pilot error" would be more accurately described as "poor
CRM", or as the NTSB puts it, "inadequate crew coordination between the captain and first officer that resulted in their inappropriate response to a false stall warning".
DES (
talk)
14:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)reply
For Chandler's story see what Google News brings up - use all dates. If it doesn't get anything I wouldn't include Chandler's stuff. Anyway, as for the other stuff, that is what Being Bold will help accomplish. :)
WhisperToMe (
talk)
17:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Yes, the way the article is written does not put the NTSB in the best light. Perhaps this is as it should be, and this really wasn't the NTSB's finest hour. But perhaps the wording in the actual NTSB report was more nuanced.
2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:3453:7AF8:7F0:AFDF (
talk)
08:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Local KTVU News interviews with survivors may conflict with NTSB and support pilots. Stunned passengers noticed an orange glow before they saw first flames. Note: orange glow may not be the same as the flicker of fire and flame.
One eye witness, Tim Joyce, said the airplane dropped onto its right side, big huge orange flame, lot of smoke, it continued down runway on fire a bit, it came to a stop, the nose collapsed, tail on fire, the doors opened, chutes opened, they evacuated quickly. Several saw glow of flames.
One female passenger: we landed, thought it was over, then saw flames. Another female passenger: it wouldnt stop bouncing. Madeleine Austin, passenger: the plane was on fire while we were in the air, I saw reflections of the fire in the movie screen.
KTVU consensus description: plane lifts off for a moment like a 'hop', orange glow of flames in engine, pilots hard land, tires blow, plane veers left and burst into flames. Madeleine Austin, passenger: the landing took an eternity when you know your plane is on fire.
This overtly conflicts with official NTSB report that claim a normal safe takeoff could have occurred. NTSB blamed faulty sensors and pilots for flawed takeoff abort routine, and according to wikipedia (which may need a big edit) made no reference to any 'engine fire' witnesses/passenger claim they saw as causal. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
96.68.141.83 (
talk)
20:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Is the previous incident section worth including considering it happened 17 years before and did not result in damage to the aircraft?
MKFI (
talk)
13:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)reply