# Talk:1947 BSAA Avro Lancastrian Star Dust accident

Any ideas guys? Probably the solution lies in morse code rather than a textual solution. Anjouli 09:28, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Anjouli's theory
stendec in morse is ... / - / . / -. / -.. / . / -.-
Assume there was a bit of drop out and it was really ... / - / .- / .-. / -.. / . / -.- which is stardec, a known morse abreviation for "starting descent".
Of course that does not explain why it was supposedly repeated three times. Anjouli

Well after 4 years I'm revising my theory. Stendec is so close to Stardust it seems likely it was just misheard. Sent three times? Was it really, or was that just a bit of story-telling after the fact? Stendec was only an interesting mystery because the plane was missing. If it had landed safely, no one would have cared. Anjouli 13:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I really doubt we'll ever know. The "on schedule" theory seems odd as well, if the plane flew a shortcut, should it not have arrived early? -- Nils Jeppe 19:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Despite intensive speculation, few plausible explanations of the word "STENDEC" have emerged. In fact the word does not correspond to any known telegraphic code or 'telegraphese' shorthand in use either at the time or now, and experts at the official enquiry failed to make any sense of it. Its meaning still remains a mystery to this day.

It is possible that when the "STENDEC" signal was sent, Star Dust had already crashed. It is therefore suggested that the signal was sent by an outside party. It may therefore well be a codeword, used for some completely disconnected purpose. The Santiago Operator maintained that it was repeated twice after a 'not understood' signal from Santiago. "STENDEC" possibly had nothing to do with Star Dust, and was purely a coincidence, according to some peoples' opinion.  But, this would also require another coincidence for the outside party's transmitter to be so precisely 'netted' onto Star Dust's frequency that the Santiago Operator would not notice any difference in the pitch, sending style or speed of the morse, to suggest a different hand on the key.
As the Santiago operator reported that the message was keyed very fast, a likely explanation is that the operator erred in the spacing of the Morse signals; "STENDEC" with alternate spacing could for example translate into "V END AR".
"V" (or more accurately "VVV") is either a 'testing' signal, or an 'idling' signal, which a station transmits (usually automatically) during periods when it is not handling traffic, to 'hold' the frequency and let other stations know that it is there and listening for any calls. "AR" is the 'end-of-message' code.
"STENDEC" in Morse code is:  ... - . -. -.. . -.-.; "V END AR" in Morse code is: ...- / . -. -.. / .- .-. (in the text, a 'space' signifies a pause the length of a 'dit', a 'space-slash-space' a pause the length of a 'dah'). This would mean that "STENDEC" was simply Star Dust notifying the end of Morse transmission, as (having just given an ETA only four minutes away) the crew thought that they were only 12 - 16 miles East of Santiago, and now in range for voice communication. The only problems with this theory are the presence of a 'testing' signal in the middle of a message (which is somewhat unusual) and the code "AR", implying that further transmission would be following (like 'over' as opposed to 'out' in voice communication), thus the phrase "V End AR" is contradictory in itself - the phrase "End VA" ("VA" means 'End of Contact') would still be unusual, but would at least make some sense. The radio operator also insisted the signal was repeated twice. If that actually happened, it would weaken the theory the crew switched to voice communication as someone was clearly listening on the Star Dust frequency.
The 'dit-dah' sequence within "STENDEC" is most likely correct. The Santiago Operator said that he queried it twice, and he described the receiving conditions as 'clear', making it unlikely that dit-dah confusions or omissions occurred. Erroneous lengthening or shortening of pauses within and between letters is more likely than insertion of false extra 'dits' or 'dahs'.
 Lycophron's Theory 
My theory is that people ought to at least give a passing attempt at looking something up, rather than endlessly speculating about it. Acronym Finder has had an entry on STENDEC for years:
http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?Acronym=stendec&Find=find&string=exact
"Severe Turbulence Encountered Now Descending Emergency Crash-Landing (WWII Morse code)"
A contributor to the PBS/Nova site referenced at the bottom of the article elaborates on the meaning and usage (the two sources are independent of each other, by the way):
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/vanished/sten_010208.html
And the online version of the Guardian comes up with the same definition:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,787181,00.html
At the very least, the sentence in the original article about how STENDEC corresponds to no known telegraph code should be scrapped (it assets a negative in any event).
Lycophron

Like I say below, 'STENDEC' is totally meaningless.  It is meaningless now, and it was meaningless then, otherwise the enquiry at the time would simply have said "Oh, it's one of those Stendecs again".  'Severe turbulence encountered....' is the result of modern-day backronym inventing, like 'Posh', 'Golf', 'Pommie', 'Chav' etc...none of which were originally acronyms.  The thought that anybody would pre-arrange a code meaning 'Severe Turbulence Encountered Now Descending Emergency Crash Landing' is ludicrous, as you would need literally hundreds of similar acronyms to describe any eventuallity.  You would need acronyms for 'Engine Failure Making Forced Landing Nearest Available Aerodrome', 'Medical Emergency On Board Have Doctor Standing By' and 'Icing Causing Loss of Control Emergency Descent to Warmer Air' etc...none of which ever existed.  Any distress call would have been preceded then (as now) by the well-known 'SOS', which would certainly have made the Santiago op's ears prick up, as well as anybody else who was listening.  The morse code as used to this day has hardly changed at all since 'Titanic' sank, never mind WW2.  The only acronyms in general use were, and are, the three-letter 'Q' codes, which will be familiar to CB enthusiasts etc, and a separate set of similar 'Z' codes used by the military to suit their different needs.  The only 'shorthand' ever used was (fascinatingly) very similar to the language of shortened words used by today's youngsters when texting each other on cellphones.  I am the nearest thing that you will find to a morse 'boffin' in 2006, there aren't that many of us left, but I am afraid that the answer (if there is one) is not to be found in morse code.  The plane was off-course, descending through cloud, and suddenly crashed into the side of a mountain killing all on board instantly.  When the wreck was found, that was the end of the mystery.ChrisRed 17:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
ChrisRed
1) I am not able to find a source I consider reliable enough to support my meaning of STENDEC and have deleted my paragraph. 2) One should avoid posting pet theories on Wikipedia, so I will retract mine. 3) In attempting to establish a negative ("'STENDEC' is totally meaningless"), which is a problematic enterprise to begin with, you make two assertions which, if seemingly plausible, are still conjectural. It is entirely possible, if unlikely, for a board of inquiry to miss something. Also, a vocubulary of acronyms may contain complex oddities with no requirement that all possible eventualities be dealt with (e.g., a striking feature of medical vocabularies is how many holes they have -- but such things grow organically, on an "as needed" basis). 4) Serves me right for posting to Wikipedia in the first place. ;)
Lycophron

Don't take it personally like that.  Wikipedia is supposed to be fun.  Don't forget that my theory is just a theory like any other.  It sounds great to me, but it might be a right load of old bollox, which is why I put it on the 'Talk' page rather than in the 'encyclopedia' :-).ChrisRed 07:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
ChrisRed
Right on all points (including the first). The mystery has been solved, as you point out, and the STENDEC issue is moot, anyway. Cheers.
Lycophron

Favorite theory
After reading through the large number of reader's theories on PBS's Nova website, I see that the most common was mentioned four times: STENDEC = Starting En-Route Descent. One of the contributors insisted that it was a standard BRITISH morse-code call from that period. --Farry 18:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I presume it also says that POSH means 'Port Out Starboard Home'; CHAV means 'Council Housed and Vicious', and GOLF means 'Gentlemen Only Ladies Forbidden'.  Good old PBS Nova.  It must be true then. So the message means "I am at 24000 feet and I am only now starting my en-route descent.  I will be with you in four minutes".  Go on...fire up MS Flight Simulator and see what a 6000 feet per minute descent looks like. (That's 100 feet per second. At 200kt it is a 1:3 / 33% nosedive - i.e. sooner you than me! :-)  As the plane hit the mountain at around 15,500 feet, it must have already been descending for some considerable time before the message was sent.  "One of the contributors" may insist that these were commonly used acronyms, but I actually KNOW that they were not.  If you want to see my British Radiocommunications Agency Class 'A' Radio Operator's Licence, then I will put an image of it up here if asked. (de G4PDJ) ChrisRed 07:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we will never know for sure, but as a former Royal Navy radio operator and radio ham for 24 years, I don't really see what the big mystery is about 'STENDEC'.  There is nothing mysterious about it at all.
'STENDEC' in telegraphic terms is totally meaningless.  So it's either a mis-send or a mis-read.
'STR' (... - .-.) = the callsign for 'Santiago Radio',
Then 'DE' (-.. .) which has always been everyday 'telegraphese' shorthand for 'from'. No telegraphist worldwide would ever send 'FROM', always 'DE' (a throwback to the early days when French was the international radio language) also 'DE' (-.. .) is much quicker to send than 'FROM' (..-. .-. --- --).   If any operator sent 'FROM' to me instead of 'DE', I would find that very strange.
'C' (-.-.) is the first letter of the flight number (CS59) (Interrupted presumably by the impact).
By the way, we can dismiss here and now any fanciful 'back-invented' or silly 'backronym' solution which includes the word 'Stardust'.  The Santiago operator would only be aware of the flight number, he would probably not even be aware of the aircraft's type - let alone any company 'pet name' that might happen to be painted on its nose.
As the aircraft just suddenly flew into an unseen near-vertical wall of snow, it is unlikely that the call was anything at all to do with the crash, but was instead a mundane bit of radio procedure that was terminated by the sudden impact. (The Radio Operator would be seated well-back in the cockpit, in what we would nowadays think of as the Flight Engineer's position.  He would probably only hear a terrified 'shout' from the pilots, and there would just be no time to send anything).
Many ex-military operators do have very quirky-sounding 'fists', (take it from me :-) and if the aircraft was bouncing around as it descended through swirling mountain cloud, this could have made Dennis Harmer's morse even more 'interesting'.
Any radio ham will tell you that 'R' (.-.) is still sent rather sloppily as 'EN' (. -.) literally thousands of times a day (especially when sent on its own, meaning 'Received' - it's a bit of an 'in-joke').
('R' corresponds to the well-known 'Roger' on voice - a throwback to the old 'Able-Baker-Charlie-Dog' etc. phonetic alphabet...we are talking about British ex-RAF flight-crew in the the 1940's after all).

So the probable answer is actually 'boring-but-true'.  It's just the two callsigns tagged onto the end of the message as required by everyday normal radio procedure, still used to this day by thousands of people on the Ham bands. i.e.  ...(Message).."ETA SANTIAGO 17.45.. (Callsigns) ..STR DE C(Impact)..............", or if you send (or copy) just one letter badly   "17.45 STEN DE C(Impact).....".

In the absence of an inconvenient lump of the Andes, the message was probably going to continue something like 'STR DE CS59 AR ('end of message') most likely followed by 'VA' ('end of contact') or 'QSY' 'I am re-tuning (to the control tower's voice frequency').
The only 'mystery' is: Why did the operator at Santiago insist that he queried the word 'Stendec' twice, when the uncompleted signal could only possibly have been sent once?.  I suggest that we have all been scratching our heads for so long because he thought it was more than his job was worth to stand in front of an enquiry and admit to his (military) superiors that he could possibly have mis-read even one letter.  He did 'prepare his defence' by saying that the signal was sent very quickly. Perhaps Harmer was just a bit too quick for the Santiago op.
To be fair to the Santiago operator, I would add that 100% solid perfect copy of morse is rare.  I have been on the air for decades, and I still miss the odd letter - an experienced operator's brain will normally just 'back-fill' the missing character subconsciously when it has heard the remainder of the word.  The Santiago op had no idea that he was listening to anything significant.  The plane had reported no 'peril' or anything to lead him to believe that this would turn out to be the historically-significant last transmission of a doomed flight.  It was just 'a normal day at the office' until the moment the plane's transmitter suddenly fell silent.  That said, I believe that if any operator fails to recognise his own callsign - no matter how badly sent - this must point a serious finger of doubt at his ability at the time.  I cannot say too much more, because the gentleman might, of course, still be alive.  
Some additional info...(According to www.worldaerodata.com) Santiago Los Cerrillos's VOR beacon still to this day sends its identity in morse as 'STI'.  Modern-day callsigns for the old Los Cerrillos (it's closing soon, by the way) airport are all in the 'SCTI' series, but these are a more recent development.  It would be great if some old timer could produce an old navchart, but logic suggests 'STR'-'Radio'; 'STT'-'Tower'; 'STG'-'Ground' etc. Morse buffs will have already spotted that you 'can' make a very drunken-sounding 'STEND' out of the chopped-up bits of 'SCTI', but that would be the morse of a barely-conscious man, and (although Tupungato is a formidable-looking mountain) [1] it just isn't high enough for oxygen deficiency to be a factor. ChrisRed 08:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
If nobody objects, I'll delete a few of the more fanciful suggestions from the 'STENDEC' section, but will not add any reference to the above myself (it is, after all, just another theory). I will leave that to somebody else.  I want to delete the last three.  1. 'SKED' is not applicable here, a 'Sked' is a pre-arranged time and frequency for a radio contact. 2. 'STarting ENroute DesCent....' (What? 23000 feet in four minutes?) and 3. 'Severe Turbulence Encountered....' (both products of a boring Sunday's backronym-inventing).   ChrisRed 11:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Nonetheless, someone should add some morse code solutions to STENDEC, since they are the most probable solutions to the STENDEC mystery.  As of this post, the only solutions recorded are alphabet based ones. Bradkoch2007 04:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but I think it's best if we just mention the puzzle and leave it there.  Let's be honest - none of us were there, and we will never conclusively 'solve' it in a million years.  Everybody has their own pet theory (including me, above) but as we don't have the benefit of modern cockpit recordings or 'black box' evidence, nobody is ever going to produce the one 'master' theory that is going to disprove all the others.  All we know now that we didn't know then is a) The plane hit Tupungato, and b) It wasn't carted-off by little green men. :-) ChrisRed 15:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Chris Red - I write as ex-aircrew who served with the Royal Air Force as an Air Electronics Officer. I take issue with your comment "...We are talking about British ex-RAF flight-crew in the the 1940's after all..." The phonetic alphabet you refer to was used by the British Army signallers, Royal Navy when using RT and spelling as in "I spell ..." and the Royal Air Force - my uncle was a telegraphist in the RN during WWII and he taught me Morse Code when I was about 10 not only to send and receive using a morse key, but to read and send it using a lamp. The current phonetic alphabet was introduced to standardise the spelling of words across the whole of NATO and eventually almost the rest of the world uses it.
Hypoxia - the lack of oxygen can affect the brain at altitudes as low as about 2000 metres or about 7000 feet and at 15000 feet - the altitude that Star Dust is assumed to have impacted with Tupungatu hypoxia is a very distinct possibility. More so if and this is conjecture the supply of oxygen to the wireless operator - remember they were using wireless telegraphy aka morse, was restricted, perhaps because he had taken off his oxygen mask, because they were "about to land." I was taught and this was emphasised by my military training not to insert letters into words or words in to sentences UNLESS YOU ACTUALLY HEARD IT. You requested a repetition of the whole or part of the message "Say again all after ... / all before ..." Therefore I do believe the operator at Santiago DID hear the word STENDEC, and that he heard it twice more. So given that conditions were good for radio reception at Santiago and assuming the same at the aircraft, the possibility is that the local geography around Tupungatu was causing diffraction and refraction of the transmissions. Given that the aircraft was supposedly on approach it would be slowing to about 120 MPH - 2 miles a minute or about 176 feet (about 54 metres) per second and as radio waves travel at 300,000,000 metres per second it is a possibility that the surrounding peaks were causing some local affect that neither the operator at Santiago or on board the aircraft were aware of.
I do agree that a probable meaning was STR DE CS59 but bouncing about, reflections etc caused the message to be misunderstood. Incidentally I have never in all my years flying ever heard the word STENDEC it is not in any manual for wireless operators, and in the event of any life threatening emergency the signal "SOS SOS SOS DE ..." is sent in Morse and in voice it is "MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY ..." the other term for a none life threatening emergency is "PAN PAN PAN ...," there is NO signal which would mean "We are about to crash!" 
I suspect that at the last seconds the pilot and co-pilot realised something was wrong and applied emergency power to the engines put it in to a steep climb almost approaching a stall angle and impacted the glacier. If the aircraft had hit head on the wreckage would have telescoped. We may have to wait for more wreckage to appear to discover if indeed it was a head on or a "high speed belly flop," what ever happened as you and others point out, none of us were there, as a grounded aircrew (due to age) my heart goes out to the victims and the families of Star Dust and indeed any who fail to make a safe landing. RIP.Grounded Flier (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia entry very nicely explains that "STENDEC" could have been a misheard message, "STR DEC". Apparently, the morse code sequence would be identical, except for the letter-break spacing being placed differently. It would mean "Starting Descent", a message in line with the rest of the information given in the radio traffic, and it could be repeated two times identically (ie, not a glitch in the transmission or a temporary blackout of the operator required). So, all in all, it appears to be a concise and valid explanation.
OTOH, I'm not enough of an expert in the field of airflight or morse. Would anybody more knowledgable want to investigate? (If there's a need for German/English translations, I'm happy to help.) --Syzygy 08:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm an expert in morse, but not an expert in aviation.  I've given up being the resident 'Snopes' on this article, because every time I 'put it to bed' morse-wise, somebody else comes along with another nugget of 'well known 1940's radio procedure' that nobody in the radio community has ever even heard of :-)  Like I said...'STR (oops) DE C...(Smash!) ChrisRed 07:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the STENDEC = STRDEC! Perhaps STR DEC would be an abbreviated code for Starting Descent. I'm an expert in sending and receiving morse code via radio. STENDEC and STRDEC are so similar, that they can easily be confused by any radio operator. Only a slight (1/10 to 1/5 of a second) difference in timing gap between E to N, and it changes to R. The morse fist or sending personality of the airborne operator or the ability of the receiving operator to recognize and interpret their fist is always an issue when communicating by morse code via straight key. Top this off with the fact that sending morse with an old straight key on an old aircraft in turbulence might change the cadence easily. Sometimes the morse key was strapped to the leg of the pilot or co-pilot. Expeditionradio 13:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I've rewritten the section on STENDEC to remove the detailled and apparently quite pointless discussions about acronyms or misreads. Please, check it out and tell me what you think! --Syzygy (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe someone could copy the morse codes from Wikipedia German. It looks nice and everyone can make up his/her own mind.
I too find the STR DEC theory most convincing, it is the only thing that makes sense. When Stardust broke the clouds, they were seemingly unaware of the danger. After that everything must have happened too fast to get off an SOS. 88.217.66.243 (talk) 12:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
It has been more than 10 years... Can anyone give a reference if "STR" for "start" and "DEC" for "descend" were used, especially in Argentina? 178.215.105.1 (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed that "STENDEC" is an anagram of "DESCENT"? I'm just putting it out there.
John D. Coughlan
An interesting coincidence, but nothing more. It's not really possible to *accidentally* scramble a word around in Morse. Admiral Rupert 17:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- The message was sent two times, so maybe the pilot was trying to say DESCENT DESCENT? He started keying really rapidly and somehow managed to miss the first few letters and mixed them up.. twice. STEN_DECSTEN_DEC.. I don't think so, because it's not plausible to make the same error twice, or even put a T before E and N. But hey, just a thought. I think ChrisRed's theory is the most convincing one. HeadCheese 11:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

But don't forget it's only a theory, just like all the others.  My theory is physically plausible, but so are others, so don't start spreading it around as a fact.  Somebody was telling little porkies, and we don't have a recording to analyse, so really we will never know for sure. (ChrisRed - Who's Keyboard tilde has gone missing...now there's a mystery!)

The rest of the English-speaking world accepts that Americans spell some words differently to the rest of us.  It doesn't really matter, we can still understand you, and although the result can often appear 'juvenile' to us, we don't let it get on our nerves.  BUT...when an American comes along and CORRECTS standard English spelling into American spelling (as though it is us who can't spell) then that is a different thing altogether.  Sorry, but the language is not called 'American'.  This was a British aircraft, with no Americans on board, which was travelling with two 'L's until it crashed into a lump of Argentina. We don't need English lessons from you... ChrisRed 07:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Just note that many of us Americans have no clue that Brits spell things differently. It very well could be some perfectly amiable chap who just thought that somebody had made a spelling mistake and was taking the opportunity to fix it. WP:AGF and all that. A mild pointer to the Wikipedia (or should I say Wikipædia?) guidelines on the subject in question is all that's really needed. Cheers. 70.17.196.162 05:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate to bring this up given that a fellow countryman (the CEO of BSAA) was at the root of the problem, but there is something disturbingly non-NPOV about the article's glowing endorsement of the Star Dust crew:

"The flight crew of the aircraft were highly experienced Royal Air Force veterans of World War II, with hundreds of flying-hours' experience in both war and peace; the captain was also an experienced navigator.  The aircraft was less than two years old."
This does not gibe with http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/s2.cfm?id=367622002

"The loss of the Star Dust, on the final leg of a three-and-a-half day journey from London to Santiago, finally forced the ministry to study the company’s record in detail. Statisticians compared BSAA to the other British airlines. BOAC had, by then, lost one passenger for every 18,900 flown. BEA had carried 342,502 and suffered no losses at all. BSAA had lost one passenger for every 385 flown. It is the equivalent of one person on every full Boeing 747."
Would you fly on a 747 if you knew that every flight was going to claim a passenger?
The article continues,

"Today Don Mackintosh says most of the crew, having come from wartime experiences, accepted the losses as merely part of the job. 'Looking back I can see now that our mindset was very similar to that in the war,' he says. Planes flew, some of them crashed and some people died. At BSAA it was just business as usual: there were to be another three crashes, claiming 51 lives, before Bennett was given his marching orders and, in 1949, BSAA was finally merged into BOAC."
The problem with the Wikipedia article is its implication that with such a qualified crew the passengers were in good hands.  What the statistics show is that those very qualifications had put BSAA passengers at 50 times the risk of BOAC passengers and far more compared to BEA passengers.  --Vaughan Pratt 19:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that even without the evidence you've suggested, the article could use some WP:NPOV massaging. Xihr 21:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The sort of routes that BSAA flew were to put it unkindly, 'backwoods' ones compared to the other 'big' airline name's ones, that is to say, their routes usually had almost none of the then-modern electronic aids to navigation (such as GEE, LORAN, DECCA, etc,) and so navigation was almost completely by dead reckoning, and in addition, many of the routes involved long distances, often over water or other featureless and inhospitable terrain, jungle, etc., and without 'modern' meteorological information, i.e., information on winds, and wind direction, that affect drift. In short, the routes were probably some of the most difficult of any scheduled air service and higher-than-normal aircraft losses might reasonably have been expected. In addition, many areas over-which BSAA flew were unpopulated and had not even been properly mapped, especially some of the more remote parts of South America, and it is probable that the majority of BSAA's aircraft losses were due to getting lost and running out of fuel.
Comparing passenger death statistics with the likes of BEA and BOAC is to put it bluntly, misleading, as they were operating under much more favourable conditions, and the people then-doing it should have known better. Although unfortunate, the losses were probably inevitable at the time, due to the nature of the routes and limited facilities available.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.249.225 (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Here's a link to a site that attempts to correct some factual errors made about BSAA and their safety record: [2] - specifically it mentions a BBC Radio 4 programme on the disappearance of the two BSAA Tudors, 'Star Ariel' and 'Star Tiger', which the site alleges contains many factual errors.
BTW, Donald Bennett's help was enlisted by BSAA especially because he was a first-rate navigator (he had been the leader of the RAF Pathfinders), that says how difficult the BSAA routes were. Most of them had never been flown before the war and so were at the time, unproven. Also, some of the legs flown were VERY LONG, (especially on the London - Buenos Aires route) which was why BSAA used the Lancastrian, as it had a 4,000 mile range. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.51.238 (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Just a FYI, the approximate distance from London Heathrow to Buenos Aries, via Hamilton, Bermuda, is around 8,100 miles, so allowing for varying winds the flight was only just possible at the time (1946).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't it say (airplane) to stay with the US dialect that is used around Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.253.47 (talk) 19:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC) 

Your premise is incorrect- see WP:ENGVAR. Jooler (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you're probably right.  I don't know the history of the article enough to know why it's spelled aeroplane. Xihr (talk) 20:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Generally Wikipedia attempts to accomodate both American and British spelling variations - the most common rule I've seen is that the original editor sets the tone.  So if this article was originally written with British spelling, then it should stay that way.
That being said, according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, this could be seen as an opportunity for commonality, and the title could be changed to "Star Dust (aircraft)".
On the other hand, as ChrisRed pointed out above (though I wish he could have done so in a more diplomatic manner), this was a British aircraft with British crew & many British passengers, with no ties to the US in any way, which could make this article fall under the Wikipedia Manual of Style's "Strong national ties to a topic" category.
I personally don't care either way...I was able to understand the article just fine and get the information I was looking for with no problems.  So rather than initiating a ton of drawn-out discussion or inadvertently causing an international incident, I vote for leaving it as-is. -Rhrad (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I started the article (although it was originally called "Stendec") and I'm British, for what that's worth. I could live with "Star Dust (aircraft)". It's a fine title. Anjouli (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
And I've moved it! Well, they say "be bold". Anjouli (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you want to be bolder still and move Kaleva (airplane) and Looking Glass (airplane) and Ehécatl (airplane) and any other similarly titled article. I don't believe there was anything wrong with this article being at Star Dust (aeroplane) and there was no need to move it. Ref WP:ENGVAR - Retaining the existing variety If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. Where an article that is not a stub shows no signs of which variety it is written in, the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety is equivalent to the first major contributor.  Jooler (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually aeroplane is the original 'correct' word for what you Americans refer to as an airplane. The Wright Brothers called their flying machines aeroplanes, as did a number of early US manufacturers. - see Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company, etc. The word airplane is probably the result of some newspaper or periodical journalist mis-hearing the American pronunciation of aeroplane in aviation's early years, indeed, if you listen to some US accents then it's very hard to tell which of the two variants is spoken. I've heard the well-known actor and aviator James Stewart speak the word as aeroplane on a number of occasions in interviews.
I am surprised that a US contributor on aviation-related matters would be unaware of the spelling differences, as a Brit myself, I'm no expert on US spellings but don't go around 'correcting' spelling on US-related articles. I am well aware what an 'airplane' is and it really shouldn't be beyond the means of the average American reader to make some effort in widening their knowledge of variations in the English language, to at least know what an 'aeroplane' is.
This might be a good place to start for anyone unaware of spelling differences: American and British English spelling differences.
BTW, to the original query poster - don't let this reply of mine put you off editing UK or Commonwealth-related articles - it wasn't meant to.
For a good laugh at what problems regional spelling variations cause on Wikipedia take a look at the talk page for Aluminium (Aluminum).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.248.15 (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
God, I've just read it.  I don't know about 'a good laugh'; the argument almost went Nucular :-) 86.148.252.237 (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I know - I've just put a little encouragement to them on the talk page (at the bottom Talk:Aluminium/Spelling#Very_Well) just to show that we do care.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.84.207 (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
James Stewart clearly says 'aeroplane' in an early scene in the 1955 film Strategic Air Command.

The image Image:Lancastrian-3-G-AGWH-Star-D.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Why have the names of the aircrew been deleted from the article?  It used to list the pilot, co-pilot, flight engineer, radio op and 'stargirl' (stewardess) along with their wartime decorations.  As this was an accident (i.e. the crew didn't 'murder' their passengers) surely they deserve to be listed and remembered as victims of the tragedy too? 86.148.252.237 (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I wondered the same thing and found this explanantion at Talk:Galaxy Airlines Flight 203 - which notes that “Project Aviation seems to have a general consensus not to include names of non-notable people other than flight crew on aviation accident/incident articles…” I have reinstated the name of the flight attendant - she was a member of the crew; Other editors had reinstated the names of other crew members in the interim. Newwhist (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I just finished a major rewrite of this article.  Hopefully it's better organized now, and with better inline sourcing.  I'm planning to try getting it recognized as a "Good Article".  Please note that it's in British English (that's how it was before my rewrite, and it's only right considering that the topic is definitely British) — but since I'm an American/Canadian, it's quite possible that I slipped up in spots, so any Brit who sees a spelling or turn of phrase from the wrong side of the pond is welcome to jump in and fix it.  Thanks.  Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to create a better lead section that summarises the article, the lead shouldnt be the largest section. Some of the detail in the lead should be moved down into the article. The article goes from Background to Discovery really needs a section on what happened during the flight, the body of the article makes no real mention of the accident. MilborneOne (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
It's good to see an improvement to the article, but I agree with MilborneOne that the lead isn't really a WP:LEAD at present, and there are sections missing. There have been several books written about this subject such as Stardust Falling by Jay Rayner and Fly with the Stars, which also has an accompanying website here. I suspect these would provide a lot of the detail that currently might prevent it from passing GA. Bob talk 17:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for these good comments.  I trimmed the lead somewhat just now, and I added some more material to the middle (though I still need to go look up and add citations).  I've ordered a copy of Star Dust Falling, which I should hopefully have within the next week.  I'll also see if I can get my hands on Fly with the Stars, or perhaps find enough useful tidbits from the web site.  Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added some more information, based on Star Dust Falling.  I'd be grateful if people could have another look at the article now and offer any comments.  Once again, I would like to get this article up to GA quality, so any constructive suggestions are welcome.  Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

And a few additional pieces of information from a half-hour History International TV program (in the Vanishings! series).  Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is about an air accident. The aircraft is only notable because of its involvement in the crash. Are there any objections to renaming the article BSAA Star Dust crash (i.e. same as infobox), along the line of almost every other air accident article? This would also solve the spelling dispute. --Giuliopp (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Disagree nothing wrong with current name, not sure what the spelling dispute is the aircraft was named Star Dust. Need a move request if you want to move it. MilborneOne (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I meant vocabulary dispute (aircraft vs. airplane). What is wrong with the current title is that it's doubly inconsistent: with the infobox and with virtually every other article about air accidents. BSAA Star Dust crash sounds more logical to me. --Giuliopp (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, articles about two other vanished BSAA aircraft have the titles G-AHNP "Star Tiger" and G-AGRE "Star Ariel".  This might suggest renaming the Star Dust article to G-AGWH "Star Dust" — or, alternatively, giving all three articles new titles including "crash" or "incident".  Another article (about an airliner which had once belonged to BSAA but belonged to another carrier at the time of its disappearance) is called 1953 Skyways Avro York disappearance.  Richwales (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Good point. This is how I would make the lot more consistent:
BSAA Star Dust crash
BSAA Star Ariel disappearance
BSAA Star Tiger disappearance
doing away with the registration in the title (apparently not used for any other crash) and the year (since all occurrences are specified well enough by airline + ship name). Note also the ship name in italics without quotation marks, as per MoS. --Giuliopp (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Some good points, not sure why we have a problem with aircraft as it is an aircraft, the term airplane is not normally used in wikipedia because it is americanism and the aircraft project suggested that aircraft was a more neutral term than airplane/aeroplane. That aside I dont have a problem with a change to include disappearance as that is where the notability lies, so I would support Giuliopp latest suggestion but they should all include disapearance. (not sure if BSAA should be expanded to the full name?)  MilborneOne (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
All three should contain disappearance? Unlike the other two, with Star Dust a wreckage was eventually found, so now we know that it was indeed a crash and it makes sense to me to have that reflected in the title. --Giuliopp (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I would still argue the notability is the disapearance and radio messages but would go with accident as a compromise rather than crash as it seems a bit tabloid. MilborneOne (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The following was added to the end of the article by an IP editor:  On page 75 of "Can anyone see Bermuda" written by Archie Jackson (ISBN 0-9515598-5-0) he records, as a Captain for BSAA, the efforts he took part in to find the wreckage / survivors. He comments "(Stardust)...was being flown by a Captain on his first command". "We had all been warned not to enter cloud over the mountains as the turbulence and icing posed too great a threat".  This material can't simply be tacked onto the end of the article in its current form, but it may very likely be useful with some augmentation and cleanup.  I'm going to try to find a copy of the book.  — Richwales 16:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Finally done.  — Richwales 03:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

using the term "even alien abduction" implies that alien abduction is implausible or ridiculous, this violates WP:NPOV Zer0n888 (talk) 04:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The way the idea is treated in the one currently cited source mentioning it seems, to me, to support the idea that this is a fringe theory, which should not be given undue weight in our attempts to maintain a neutral point of view in the article.  — Richwales 04:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

(I passed my Morse test for the Australian Ham licence in 1961, callsign VK2AUA for a few years thereafter.)  By far the most plausible solution I've seen is the one posted by Brian (second message) at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/vanished/sten_010202.html, which he suggested was ETA SANTIAGO 1745 ST ENDAR with ST meaning "Standard Time" and AR meaning End Communication.  However it was missing the following four quite relevant corroborative details that I think tighten up his argument considerably.
1.  Harmer's prior Andean experience.  According to the official report at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/vanished/sten_report3.html Harmer had had his P.M.G. (Post Master General, i.e. civilian) licence for only nine months, but had the benefit of six previous trans-Andean crossings so he was not unfamiliar with the routine in Santiago.  Miscommunications with Chilean operators on previous occasions may have prompted him to creatively vary his routine by way of clarification (item 3).
2.  EC = + = AR.  The End Communication "procode" or logging abbreviation is + ("cross") = •▬•▬• .  It is one of seven punctuation and procode codes, out of 24 listed in the 1986 ARRL Handbook, that are needed to satisfy FCC testing requirements.  It is formed by running together either AR = •▬ / •▬• or EC = • / ▬•▬• , is sometimes written AR with a bar over it, and is sometimes transmitted as AR or EC instead of + (two letters instead of one procode).  An operator accustomed to the AR form but not to + or EC might hear + as EC, or Harmer might have sent EC.
3.  Why both END and +?  The same failure by the Chilean operator to recognize EC as a terminator on this occasion may have happened to Harmer on some of his previous flights into Santiago (see 1 above), possibly even with the same operator, prompting him to add END creatively as clarifying backup this time.
4.  ST = CLT != CLST.   See http://www.horaoficial.cl/cambio.htm for a table of official Chilean time since 1900, and http://www.statoids.com/tcl.html for historical information on names of Chilean time zones.  There are two important takeaways here.

(a) Chile adopted daylight savings time in 1927, dropped it in 1932, and (except for three oddball two-month deviations) did not resume it until 1968.  In 1947 "standard time" had no meaning to a Chilean operator.
(b) The names if any of the time zones used during 1927-1932 in Chile would most likely have been CLT and CLST, the latter denoting summer time (what we call daylight savings time).
So ST would make no sense in Chile in August 1947 for three reasons:

(i) standard time had not been a concept in Chile since 1932;
(ii) it would have been read as "Summer Time" which is wasn't in August; and
(iii) CL is missing.
Conclusion  Harmer transmitted the Star Dust's ETA and nothing else, in the format "ETASANTIAGO1745STEND+", with unknown spacing (we don't know which spaces he provided and which were interpolated by the receiving operator).  Harmer likely intended ST to mean Standard Time, which the operator failed to recognize as qualifying the time (detail 4).  Harmer may have spaced + as any of +, AR, or EC, which the Chilean read as EC but failed to recognize as a terminator because he'd only been taught + and/or AR (detail 2).  Harmer may well have run into that problem on some of his six previous trans-Andean crossings (detail 1) and creatively added END by way of clarification (detail 3).  When asked (twice) to say again, Harmer did so exactly the same way each time, and each time it sounded exactly the same to the Chilean operator.  --Vaughan Pratt 17:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if these theories have merit, they're unsuitable for inclusion in the Wikipedia proper, since they constitute original research.  Further, given how much time has passed and how many people fluent in Morse code and familiar with the standards of the day have looked into this and managed to come up empty, the null hypothesis seems to me that this problem is unsolveable. Xihr 22:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, all the theories currently appearing in the article constitute original research and should be deleted--for one thing they're a heck of a lot less convincing than Brian's theory from February 2001 which for some reason isn't included -- he (same Brian? - surname unknown) reiterated it 19 months later at http://www.network54.com/Forum/213163/thread/1031108758/ .  These Talk pages are a fine place for such discussions even if they don't produce material fit for the article proper.  Incidentally your argument that the problem is unsolvable merely because lots of experts have looked at it would prove that Fermat's Last Theorem and the Four Colour Problem are unsolveable.  Not that I'm claiming any relevant expertise myself other than having passed my code test 46 years ago and the willingness to question the authority of my betters.  --Vaughan Pratt 22:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
There's a tremendous difference between trying to find a proof for a mathematical theorem which may or may not exist, and trying to decipher a short, confusing message that has been scrutinized many, many times.  There's only so many valid abbreviations, misinterpretations of Morse code, and reinterprations of what might have been meant in such a message, whereas there are literally an infinite number of ways of approaching a mathematical proof. Xihr 22:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
What does mathematics have to do with this?  You're assuming that all of the finitely many relevant facts and arguments have by now been exhausted.  Has any previous explanation taken into account Harmer's previous trans-Andean experience, suggesting that he added END because of previous mishaps in Santiago with +/AR/EC the same as the one that seems to have happened again on this occasion, or pointed out that "Standard Time" would be meaningless to a 1947 Chilean operator, or that "ST" would in any event mean "Summer Time" and not "Standard Time".  This is all new stuff.  The fact that EC is sometimes used (in fact even taught) instead of + or AR was pointed out by one person a few years ago, so that's not completely new but no one seems to have noticed it.  If one couldn't do research of this kind archaeologists would be out of a job.  --Vaughan Pratt 23:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Oops, ignore my first sentence about mathematics there, I see your point.  The rest is fine. --Vaughan Pratt 23:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Forgot to mention one other feature of Brian's solution that differentiates it from all solutions postulating errors: it explains why STENDEC would have been heard loud and clear all three times.  Most of the non-error-based theories that accepted STENDEC proposed meanings for it as a single entity, none of which are (in my view) remotely as plausible as the parsing ST END EC with ST belonging to 1745.  --Vaughan Pratt 23:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
That looks suspiciously like the solution. The message was sent three times in the same form, with clear reception, so it was deliberate and intended to be easily understood. So the solution must be staring everyone in the face. The END jumps right out at you, so you just have to account for ST and EC. ST follows 1745, so it probably does mean Standard Time. Chile was indeed on year-round Standard Time in 1947. The one complication, the October 1946 decree that put Santiago one hour ahead to save energy usage, was rescinded in May 1947, three months before the accident. The snag is that Standard Time in Chile is known as Chilean Time and abbreviated to CLT, so Harmer should have sent CLT. A British operator might have understood '1745 ST', but the Chilean operator evidently didn't. END means 'end', and if the normal concluding + sign is a run-together EC (which I didn't know), that explains that as well. Using 'end' and '+' together could simply be an idiosyncrasy of Harmer's, intended to avoid ambiguity but in this case actually causing it. It was a very minor radio mix-up which only looked important because of the crash. -Hugo Barnacle 87.114.104.125 (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You could very possibly be right.  For Wikipedia purposes, we can include the above in the article if and only if we can find it published in a reliable source that we can cite.  — Richwales 15:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
No, quite. It can't go in, absent reputable publication. So the answer -- which it probably is -- may remain hidden, here on the Talk page, just as Star Dust herself remained hidden in the glacier, for quite some time. -Hugo 84.93.53.199 (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Brian's theory as elaborated above by others looks distinctly the most plausible. It's a pity no-one looked at the W/O's earlier signals on his previous trips to see what his message style was and what, if any, variations from normal formats of signal he may have used.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.248 (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I did a little rewrite of the third par of the intro because it was basically saying the same thing twice -- that no-one knows what STENDEC meant. I also removed the words "repeated twice" because they are incorrect (see below). User:Windroff restored the words "repeated twice" to my amendment, and I reverted him. Oh wow, he reverted me again and left an edit summary saying "EVERYTHING in the intro is explained in the article; the "mistery" relies in the fact that an apparent mistake was repeated 3 times, so it is notable enough to b..."  So I have reverted him, and asked him to come to this talk page.
My worry  is with the restoration of "repeated twice". As the text of the article states -- "At 5.41 PM. "ETA SANTIAGO 17.45 HRS STENDEC" was the last of a series of Morse code messages transmitted by Star Dust ".
Exactly, it was the very last message, i.e. the final one. It can not have been repeated twice, unless we show there were two messages received after 5.41pm.. 
English words have meaning, and last means last, that nothing succeeds it.  Hence my removal  from the lead again of "repeated twice". 
Regarding Windroff"s  edit summary, it is POV and breaches WP:V to say the use of the word STENDEC three times was an "apparent mistake". Moriori (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

This is what the article says:
At 5.41 PM. "ETA SANTIAGO 17.45 HRS STENDEC" was the last of a series of Morse code messages transmitted by Star Dust during its flight, reporting its position, altitude, and a revised estimated time of arrival in Santiago of 5.45 PM. The Chilean Air Force radio operator at Santiago airport described the message as coming in "loud and clear", adding only that it had been given out very quickly. As he did not recognize the last word of this message, he requested clarification about the word from the aircraft. The message "STENDEC" was repeated by the aircraft twice in succession before contact was lost. This word has still not been definitively explained and has given rise to much speculation—including suggestions (made before the wreckage was finally discovered) that the aircraft and those aboard might have been the victims of a UFO encounter.
So "STENDEC" was the last word in that message, but since it (the word "STENDEC") was not understood a clarification request was sent, and the erroneous word ("STENDEC") was repeated twice again, to everyone dismay. All of this happened at 5:41
Sending the erroneous word "STENDEC" 3 times in total is what sets this episode apart from an ordinary radio operator mistake, which happen all the time. No POV, just common sense.  Windroff (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The cited source (a Ministry of Civil Aviation report, footnote #19 in the current version of the article) says the following on its fourth page:  The 1741 hrs. signal was received by Santiago only 4 minutes before the E.T.A. The Chilean Air Force operator at Santiago states that the reception of the signal was loud and clear but that it was given out very fast. Not understanding the word "STENDEC" he queried it and had the same word repeated by the aircraft twice in succession.  — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
It's what the article's referenced paragraph says. Summing up, the nonexistent word "STENDEC" was sent 3 times in total. Moreover, as the following full quote shows, the article never states that "ETA SANTIAGO 17.45 HRS STENDEC" was the "last" msg:
ETA SANTIAGO 17.45 HRS STENDEC" was the last of a series of Morse code messages transmitted by Star Dust during its flight, reporting its position, altitude, and a revised estimated time of arrival in Santiago of 5.45 PM
So it's clear: there was a "series" of routine reports regarding flight variables; the msg at 5:41 was the last one of those. The subsequent dispatches were just clarification attempts, hence they were not part of that "series". Windroff (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The Solution
So what happened?  When solving such a problem, a person should first assume that a mistake had been made receiving the message.  If it had been sent incorrectly, it would be more difficult to reconstruct.  One ought always do the easier thing first. In this case, it means taking another look at the Morse message as it was received.  After all, it had been transmitted three times before the plane vanished.  An error in decoding seems entirely reasonable.
Once again, STENDEC reads / . . . / - / . / - . / - . . / . / - . - ./.  The actual message probably ended with / - - .  /.  The wireless operator in Santiago must have assumed that the last letter was C, and added a dot after the first dash: / - . - . /. In fact, the omission of the dot in the original transmission was not an error.  The letter was not C.  Nor were the first two letters of this strange message ST: / . . . / - /.  The dots and dash formed one letter, V: / . . . - /. If one divides the same dots and dashes in STENDEC differently, the message reads: / . . . - / . - / . - . . / . - - . /, which is VALP, the call sign for the airport at Valparaiso, some 110 kilometers north of Santiago.  The experienced crew of the “Stardust” apparently realized the plane was off course in a northerly direction (it was found eighty kilometers off its flight path), or they purposely departed from the charted route to avoid bad weather.  In either case, they attempted to contact what they thought was the nearest airport, Valparaiso, not Santiago.  The crew probably did not panic, but they were concerned about the lack of visibility and landmarks.  Their curse was too much sky.
Morse allows a maximum of four dots and dashes in any letter, narrowing the possibility for mistakes.  If not V, then the first letters might have been EIN, or IAR, but these combinations lead nowhere.  The first letter has to be V, and the rest just fall into place—ALP—a perfect match in Morse. If the wireless operator in Santiago had read the code correctly, it may have made no difference.  The accident occurred immediately after the message, STENDEC, or more correctly, VALP, was sent a third time.  The airports at Santiago and Valparaiso may have lacked radar in 1947, so they could not have spotted a lost or stray aircraft, even if air-traffic controllers had been searching for one, even if they had all the time in the world.
The message “ETA Santiago 17.45 hrs. VALP” still seems confusing.  The crew of the “Stardust” may have wanted to alert Santiago that it planned to land elsewhere, or the Morse operator at Santiago simply assumed that ETA referred to Santiago, since the Chilean capital had been its scheduled destination. The final message presumably read: “ETA 17.45 VALP.”  The “Stardust” may have been trying to reach Valparaiso, not Santiago at all.
A bit more information helps.  The Lancastrian carried 1,380 gallons of fuel, providing about six hours and thirty minutes of flying time.  The 632 nautical mile flight from Buenos Aires to Santiago took approximately three hours and forty-five minutes.  By adhering to the flight plan and arriving over Mendoza at 18,000 feet, the distance of 526 nautical miles between Buenos Aires and Mendoza should have taken three hours and twelve minutes.  The remaining 106 miles from Mendoza to Santiago at 26,000 feet would have added thirty-three minutes.  The “Stardust” left Buenos Aires at 13.46 and reported as follows:
15.07 hrs.33°55’ S.62°33’ W.Height10,000feet,
course 286°, speed196knots,ETASantiago17.30
hrs.
16.00 hrs.33°25’ S.65°30’ W.Height10,000feet,
course 282°, speed196knots,ETASantiago17.30
hrs.
17.00 hrs.32°50’ S.68°30’ W.Height20,000feet,as-
cending to24,000feet,speed194knots,ETASanti-
ago 17.43 hrs.
17.33 hrs. ETA Santiago 17.45 hrs.
17.41 hrs.A signal was sent out by the aircraft that read: ETA (Santiago) 17.45 hrs. STENDEC
According to the flight plan, the aircraft was to fly at 168.53 nautical miles per hour, or 2.8 nautical miles per minute.  The “Stardust” should have been in the air for 225 minutes (180 + 45 [12 + 33]=225).  It departed from Buenos Aires at 13.46, and sent the mysterious message at 17.41, for an anticipated total flight time of 239 minutes (17.41-13.46=235 + 4=239 minutes). Navigator Harmer calculated that “Stardust” would be fourteen minutes late (239-225=14).  But after rising above the clouds near Mendoza, the crew lost their bearings.  The message at 17.33 did not include latitude and longitude. Reports at 16.00 and 17.00 hours indicated that the plane had traveled 1.25 degrees north during the past hour.  Before it crashed at Mount Tupungato (33.20 S. 69.50 W.), forty-some minutes later, the “Stardust” had veered south from Mendoza (32.50 S. 68.45 W.).  But where was it?  These coordinates indicated that the crew had not decided at the last minute to fly the safer route to avoid the bad weather.  It ended up too far from San Juan (31.40 S. 68.35 W.) to have chose this option.  It is certain, however, that the “Stardust” was lost, and the crew thought the plane nearer Valparaiso than Santiago.  The crew realized that it was lost and, by then, the aircraft may virtually
have exhausted its fuel bucking the jet stream. This new interpretation explains a lesser mystery—why the crew failed to extend the landing gear when they thought the “Stardust” was within four minutes of touchdown.  After all, at 17.41 the “Stardust” had announced its arrival at 17.45.  
But the crew did not know where, exactly, they were.  They would have lowered the landing gear when they saw the airport, but the pilot could not see the airport, or even the mountain.  All they could do was frantically try to establish radio contact VALP. . . VALP. . .VALP.
Scherer from http://www.ntskeptics.org  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.101.23.135 (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC) 

As has been mentioned many times before, speculation of this sort cannot be included in this (or any other) Wikipedia article unless it is found in a reliable published source which we can cite.  The ntskeptics.org (North Texas Skeptics) web site falls into the category of "self-published media", which is generally not acceptable as a reliable source (see WP:SPS).  Similarly, we cannot use the original research of Wikipedia editors (see WP:NOR), but must limit ourselves to citing material in reliable published sources.  — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a very very stupid rule, do not understand? All source is important! Just to mention a reliable source! The Wikipedia is often very stupid for this stupid rules! Who made ​​these rules is ignorant and it is also those who follow them! Regards! Mike  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.167.219.119 (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC) 

I think Richwhales is right: if a Wikipedian finds out some bright idea or a good clue, it is useless to post it on Wikipedia so anyone could steal it, hire a lawyer to protect authorship rule and basically go "dog sleeping on haystock" mode, basically SLOWING the precious process of making facts considered a viale theory.

In reference to the remark that the wireless operator at Santiago added a dot after the first dash is an insult to the integrity of the wireless operator. No wireless operator then or now adds anything to a message that they receive - they do not complete someone else's messages for them. They write down precisely what they hear whether it is a plain language or an encoded transmission. It is for others to decipher the message, most operators in my experience have no time to read the message - they write it down and pass it on. The operator at Santiago heard the word STENDEC and as it made no sense because he had never heard it before or since, he requested a repetition. No-one on here was present at the wireless station, no-one was present on the aircraft and therefore none of us know precisely what happened. I suspect but again it is an opinion that refraction of the radio wave occurred as it reflected off nearby mountains but that is only speculation. Me - well I served for 14 years as an Air Electronics Officer in the Royal Air Force, hold a BSc (First Class Honours) in Electronics and a PhD, I also hold my own Class A Transmission Licence and build all my own equipment. The wireless operator in a Lancastrian sat at his bench behind the Navigator who sat in his own little "cubby hole" immediately behind the pilot. The Flight Engineer sat on a jump seat beside the pilot. As a result of the Titanic disaster the International signal for a life threatening emergency was changed to SOS from CQD - it is quicker and easier to send. STENDEC would have taken a lot longer to send. SOS was and still is instantly recognisable to every wireless operator all over the world. STENDEC is unknown except to those who would have us believe it meant something.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.58.105 (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC) 

There would have been no SOS as descending through cloud they hit the side of a mountain with almost certainly no warning whatsoever. They almost certainly never knew anything about it.
So the 'STENDEC' part of the message was perhaps misheard, due to atmospherics or similar, or not from Star Dust at all but from someone else, or may even have been an abbreviation known to ex-RAF Wireless Operators but not to the Chilean radio operator. This last one is unlikely however as no-one has come forward since with any knowledge of it.
Once the aircraft climbed above the cloud and entered the jetstream the radioed position reports are worthless, as the very high headwind slowed the aircraft's groundspeed so much that it was still over the mountains when the navigator calculated they should have been be well past them. For a given airspeed a steady 30 mph headwind will retard an aircraft's progress over the ground by 30 miles in one hour, or 60 miles in two hours. In effect, they will have travelled the correct (by the navigator's calculations) distance through the air but a considerately lesser distance over the ground.
That's why when they started their descent they thought they were well past the mountains -  unfortunately they were not. Descending through cloud with hilly ground in the area is one of the most dangerous things a pilot can do, unless he/she is very, very, sure of his/her correct position.
For safe flying you need airspeed - for safe navigation you need groundspeed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.20 (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

"::So the 'STENDEC' part of the message was perhaps misheard, due to atmospherics or similar, or not from Star Dust at all but from someone else, or may even have been an abbreviation known to ex-RAF Wireless Operators but not to the Chilean radio operator. This last one is unlikely however as no-one has come forward since with any knowledge of it." I am sorry but despite many exhaustive hours talking to the (now sadly), very rapidly dwindling number of ex-Royal Air Force wireless operators of the era that this discussion refers to, and a search of all the AP's - Air Publications, instructions to Wireless Operators published by the Air Ministry / Royal Air Force, there is no-one who knows, and no reference anywhere to the word "stendec," so your comment is without any foundation whatsoever. Every wireless operator of the 1940's when asked if they knew what "stendec" meant said they had never heard of it. Asked if it meant "We are about to crash" the response was usually one of "Well if you are about to crash either you will have sent an SOS and the key would be screwed down on constant transmission to aid any search and rescue, or it would have happened so fast that there would be no time to send anything not even a very rude word starting with "S" and ending with "T". I also do not accept that the Wireless Operator at Santiago put letters into a message, made it up or any other silly comment. He wrote down exactly what he heard and would have left gaps if he felt any letter was missing then asked for a repetition. I suspect that the wireless operator believing that they were about to land had removed his oxygen mask and was unknown to himself affected by hypoxia - the aircraft was at an altitude of about 15000 feet and hypoxia is a real and present danger above about 7000 feet. The fact is that no one was at Santiago, none of us were on board the aircraft, and therefore none of us know what happened. Everything is therefore conjecture.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.80.182 (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC) 

" ... so your comment is without any foundation whatsoever." - that's why I wrote; " This last one is unlikely however as no-one has come forward since with any knowledge of it."
That means I know it almost certainly isn't the correct explanation. I was merely adding it for completeness.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.169 (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Fast facts burst:
"0" can be encoded as a short - alongside with "T" letter.
While self-publishing media can't be used for speculations of explaining the crew's behaviour, it is still possible to take "VALP" and "VALP 0" versions into account.
Since considering Santiago radar worker as someone who had misheard three times while hearing the same word without extra signals would be an outrage, I should consider there was VALP 0 (VALP-zero) or VALPT message that met technical difficulties from a "mechanical receiver". That still raises questions, but of other kind.
While it is still next to impossible to explain why there was "VALP 0" in ITU code, while Santiago used "usual American" code.
There was a diplomat onboard that plane
178.215.105.1 (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I manually checked if VALP (codename for Valparaiso's aeroport) and STENDEC are any similar in Morse.

Turns out the author from the NTsceptics.org-from article was sticking to ITU standard code for "p" letter /.--./ and "c" letter /-.-./ as a starting point.
However, in "old" American Morse both "C" and "P" use different codes, /.. ./ and /...../ # The resulting words are coded as follows:
STENDEC: .../-/./-./-.././.. .
STENDES: .../-/./-./-.././...
VALP: ...-/.-/___/..... (Note that "L" is coded with special character "double line" without pause).

There is a BBC Horizon TV programme about this aircraft at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p01z2vhg/horizon-20002001-vanished-the-plane-that-disappeared currently available on BBC iPlayer, at least within the UK.
This shows photos of Lancastrian G-AGWH with the name painted on its starboard side as 'STAR DUST' at 04:04 and another photo of the same aircraft with the name 'STARDUST' at 26:26 on its port side - presumably at different times. 
I suggest mentioning both versions of the name. GilesW (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

BSAA aircraft individual names began with 'Star' as the first word with a second word making up the remainder, e.g., Star Tiger, Star Ariel, Star Olivia etc., so it is possible that the 'Stardust' (one word) marking may have been applied to the port side of G-AGWH in error when it was originally painted.
BTW, they used 'Star' for the aircraft names because on the routes BSAA flew they mostly navigated by celestial navigation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.180 (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I have removed a paragraph from the STENDEC section because it was unencyclopedic.  That one single paragraph contained all of the following awful phrases -- "One possibility is.....the message might have..... Santiago might have .....it is possible.....perhaps an emergency.....may be responsible.....may have misunderstood....." Moriori (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Considering that the very next paragraph contains identical language, including the words "misunderstood" and "possibility", and you did not remove that paragraph for being "uncyclopedic", I can't say that I find your reason for removing it justified. I included a citation, the cited material said precisely what my paraphrased paragraph said, and numerous other paragraphs contained the same type of language. Could you clarify this for me?Phobos Anomaly (talk) 07:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Consensus so far is that we do not need to speculate or describe the many theories that abound, hence the second paragraph which sums these theories up. MilborneOne (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
@Phobos Anomaly: Phobos, the text of the "very next paragraph" you mention clearly attributed its content to Horizons. Your paragraph had numerous speculative maybes which were attributed to no-one. That meant that Wikipedia itself was advancing all of the "One possibility is.....the message might have..... Santiago might have .....it is possible.....perhaps an emergency.....may be responsible.....may have misunderstood....." scenarios. That's why it was removed. Moriori (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, I did cite this page: 
http://www.ntskeptics.org/2010/2010december/december2010.htm
However, in light of what MilborneOne said, specifically, that we do not need to describe every theory, I can understand. I suppose I took it personally which isn't appropriate anyway
At any rate, this was in fact my first attempt at a cited edit, so, thank you for the feedback Moriori and MilborneOnePhobos Anomaly (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Stendal was the site of the Nazi`s elite parachute unit. 86.143.212.15 (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
that's fascinating. but... so what?
duncanrmi (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Under the STENDEC heading (not going into that barrel of monkeys) one of the paragraphs ends "However, this theory does not match with the rest of the message, which was reporting the flight's estimated arrival time.[citation needed]"
I do not see how this sentence needs a citation. In the same section, just before it, the 9th source "STENDEC' – Stardust's final mysterious message". BBC. 2 November 2000. Archived from the original on 20 January 2012. Retrieved 18 August 2011." is cited with the transmission which clearly states ETA 17.45. So, where are we not getting factual confirmation that the arrival time was transmitted? SnarkyValkyrie (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, that sentence does not stipulate which "theory" it is referring to. Zap it. Moriori (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The second para of Background contains this: "Star Dust carried six passengers and a crew of five on its final flight. The captain, Reginald Cook, was an experienced former Royal Air Force pilot with combat experience during the Second World War, as were his first officer, Norman Hilton Cook, and second officer, Donald Checklin. Cook had been awarded the Distinguished Service Order (DSO) and the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC)." Reg Cook was the Captain, and Norm Cook was the First Officer ... who had been awarded the DSO and DFC: Reg or Norm? Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 11:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello. There is obvious rubbish in this article about misinterpretation of "SCTI" etc. Please can someone remove this conspiracy theory rubbish? The IATA code for the destination at the time was ULC, the code "SCTI" did not exist until the ICAO published Doc 7910 in 1976 -- about 30 years AFTER the accident flight.
[4]
Unfortunately this whole STENDEC section is obvious conspiracy theory that no one spent 5 minutes researching, and the sources are probably not Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. May they rest in peace, please delete this rubbish section that does nothing but appeal to conspiracy theorists. 122.102.109.173 (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I think STENDEC might be an acronym, though I have no idea if it's plausible that it could be English, tho they are using ETA. TEN DEC could be "tenth decimal", and S could mean mathematically, as in "scale to the tenth decimal". What number they are referring to, I have no idea, though the repetition of STENDEC, or anything, really, three times is usually a mayday signal. I'd normally think that a bit much, but a radio operator on a plane would know that. TheRogueAngel95 (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)