Talk:Tenerife airport disaster/Archive 1

message: An event in this article is a March 27 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)
----
Is there really a need for "the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 not taken into account." - Well, of coruse they're not taken into account, given they were not an accident?
*Agreed. I have removed the comment. Lbbzman 12:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Air traffic control gave the KLM plane an airways clearance, signifying that the way was clear for the aircraft once it was in the air, however, the KLM plane mistakenly thought they had heard the tower grant them permission for the take off itself.. "
ATC gave KLM clearance for what? To proceed to the takeoff /hold area? Does the word it apply to the Pan Am plane? If it does then we should say so to make it clear. Moriori 03:05, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)
By airway clearance they are refering to an IFR Clearance.  Which involves checking with all the different controllers monitoring the airspaces through which an aircraft will be passing to verify flying a particular course at this given altitude will allow sufficent seperation from other aircraft.  This is usually received through clearance delivery.  Prior to taking off the tower will issue a clearance to takeoff, which involves instructions to fly a heading to some fix.  Usually ending with "as filed" so long as the IFR flight plan has not been amended.  None of these clearances however are a clearance to take-off.  Only a clearance to fly a particular route.  The haziness and confusion that you get by reading the CVR transcripts is believed to be a causual factor that lead to the take-off roll and forced takeoff of the KLM aircraft, which inevitably led to the accident. The confusion is also due to the use of non-standard phraseology.
i5xswipe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.142.56.201 (talk) 
It is the KLM plane, ATC told them that the route was clear, once they had been given permission to take off. (Barry m 03:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial comments

message: In the AP newswire in 1977, Victor Grubbs, the pilot of the Pan Am jet at Tenerife, expected to return to flying.  Does anyone know if he was able to?  In 1981, he would have been 61, and thus a year past retirement age.  I wonder if his eyesight was too damaged for him to have been able to fly again after the accident.
----
"Airplane manufacturers began installing equipment that helped planes see through fog."
Sound fascinating! Can someone elaborate what equipment we are talking about?
*Infrared technology. Bayerischermann 02:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The PanAm pilot 

message: :Airplane manufacturers began installing equipment that helped planes operate in fog.
The article should be specific:  What equipment exactly?  Tempshill 22:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk page isn't that long. If you go up a few you'll see someone has clarified it's infrared tech. It would be helpful if you could read the talk page perhaps? I agree, it should be included in the article but since it's in the talk page, no reason someone couldn't add it rather then asking again or deleting it... Nil Einne 18:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fog equipment? 

message: The causes of the incident claim one of them was the use of non-standard phrases. Later it is said standard phrases were developed and enforced as a result of this incident. If there was no such thing as standard phrases before this incident, this need to be clarified... Nil Einne 18:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard/non-standard phrases 

message: http://www.benjamins.com/jbp/series/LPLP/27-3/art/0002a.pdf results in a 404 error - does anyone know where the transcript might be found online? Bridesmill 16:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Link 

message: I've noticed that here are some contributors to the article, who seem to have the sole purpose of adding sensational content and/or links. I'd like to ask all Wiki editors to watch the page carefully, and remove the spam as needed, without hesitation. Thank you. (anynomous editor) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marminnetje (talk • contribs) 18:48, 24 April 2006
:Why sign anonymous when you're logged in? i added Template:Unsigned to your message. --80.63.213.182 14:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  because I Choose to. See it? Choise. We live (still) in a free world, dude Marminnetje 16:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sensational additions

message: Is it true that all passengers of the KLM died? I just watched that documentary, Crash of the Century and it said that one of the passengers was left behind in the terminal. If this is true, then it means that there was one survivor. 203.215.116.181 00:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A person not aboard the plane when it crashed is generally not considered as a survivor. Asa01 09:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  KLM Survivors 

message: To me, not significant to the article. There are lots of documentaries made about the disaster. 'crash of the century' says it all. :D Marminnetje 19:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  discovery doc 

message: This article failed the GA noms due to lack of references. Might I also suggest using footnotes to cite your sources as well as transwiking the "Final radio transmissions" sections to Wikisource? If you have any questions feel free to contact me. Tarret 20:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: In my opinion it is erroneous to state that Reina Sofia Airport aka Tenerife Sur was built because of the supposedly poor location of Los Rodeos aka Tenerife Norte. This may have been one of the factors, but surely just as important or more important was that when Los Rodeos was built only the northern part of the island where it is located was heavily populated. The South is infertile dry scrub and desert where the tourist resorts have only sprung up in recent decades. The Santa Cruz de Tenerife - La Laguna urban area next to Los Rodeos is still by far the largest conurbation on the island and when I saw it last weel Los Rodeos was still busy. Booshank 18:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airport location  

message: ' After the explosion of the terrorist bomb, the threat was contained and the authorities reopened the airport. ' this is confusing. Maybe could be changed to ' After the detonation of the terrorist bomb by the authorities, the threat was contained and the airport reopened. '(However, no sources provided).  
Secondly the addition of the Pan Am plane was a senior citizen charter - i remember this is correct. Is there are source for this. Marminnetje 18:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent additions 

message: As I know there was at least 1 survivor from KLM flight ( beacuase he/she don't borded on )
:See the "KLM survivors" section for why this isn't a mistake. Clipper471 22:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake 

message: This article seems to point that it was the fault of the KLM plane. Where it says- KLM plane overfueled, KLM plane tried to take off w/o clearence from ATC, KLM plane used non-standard communications terms.
Is this neutral? Smith230 16:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is written correctly.  It was the KLM captain that took off believing the Pan Am jet was somewhere else.  The disaster is ultimately his fault.  If he didn't take off the disaster would have been avoided.  Fighting for Justice 20:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't consider it pointing fingers at him, but you gotta call things for what they are.  He made the mistake in assuming the Pan Am jet was not on the runway.  He didn't listen to his co-pilot.  He took off without permission and it caused the accident.  Fighting for Justice 03:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple there was dense fog and the Captain of the Pan Am jet missed it.  It's a forgivable mistake.  It didn't kill anyone.  All the more reason to be cautious if you ask me.  Captain Van Zanten proceeded to take off when he didn't have permission.  He made the fatal mistake.  You can't pussy foot around it, because of a lewd conversation.  That's not what killed a bunch of people. Fighting for Justice 07:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The speculations section is definately not neutral: it only takes in account the faults of the KLM crew and not the others.Marminnetje 10:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Some of you need to read this then Undue Weight.  Wikipedia is suppose to be neutral, but it doesn't mean you have to include opposing viewpoints on a equal level to the prevailing viewpoint.  Majority of the investigators blamed it on the KLM crew.  Fighting for Justice 03:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite correct. If the article mentioned nothing but the KLM crew's errors, then there would be a problem with its neutrality. That's not the case - see Probable Cause. As for the speculations, they're mostly cited now, reflecting the thoughts of a number of commentators. Cheers, Ian Rose 04:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  The only thing that should be stressed is that there was a mistake from everyone concerend (may be in varying degrees, but a mistake in aviation environment, however small and minute it may seem, is so unforgiving, you should remember!).  Not just only with Capt van Zanten.Anil 13:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality? 

message: Found the picture here .  I think it might add to the article. What do you guys think? The heading is quite freaky indeed... "KLM. From the people who made punctuality possible."  Aratoda 05:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree the crew pic is too much and suggest we delete it. We may as well have a pic of the Pan-Am crew as well if we keep it and that'd be way over the top. However I think the KLM ad is useful (if a tad dark) and have just done a bit of rearranging in that section to place it better. Re. tags, I'd say the ad would be a safer bet to retain than the crew pic anyway. Cheers, Ian Rose 21:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  KLM Advert with Captain Van Zanten's picture 

message: There are some things in the CVR transcript that I have a problem with. For example, I understand the need to keep it consistent with the original accident reports, but the sentence "Is he not clear that Pan American?" is incorrect in terms of punctuation (it should be "Is he not clear, that Pan American?", especially when the original Dutch is written with a comma). Should this be corrected? Tony Myers 20:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think you are nitpicking.  Besides, this is English Wikipedia, not Dutch.  Fighting for Justice 06:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That intra-cockpit communication was in DUTCH. It should be presented verbatim from (one of) the actual accident report(s), punctuation included. This confusion is another reason why the transcript needs a reference(s). The transcript should not be anglicized; if it was, it would read "Is the Pan Am not clear?" Lipsticked Pig 07:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CVR transcript 

message: i think after 30 years the page could be rewritten taking in account the comments above and renamed TENERIFE AIRPORT DISASTER, as there is no ref in the title is aircraft or airport..
I agree 'Tenerife disaster' is an awkward name. Unfortunately in the 30 ys since the crash it's become known like this and most people will immediately know what it's about. But.. if enough people want to change it to your proposal then, why not. It's a free encyclopedia so I suggest to state all your opinions below this text. Marminnetje 12:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rewrite rename 

message: The Ask the pilot article in Salon.com "A look back at the catastrophic chain of events that caused history's deadliest plane crash 30 years ago." By Patrick Smith had a couple of interesting points, one is that Jacob van Zanten,... "is the airline's top 747 instructor pilot and a KLM celebrity. Passengers may recognize him .... Later, when KLM executives first get word of the crash, they will attempt to contact van Zanten in hopes of sending him to Tenerife to aid the investigation team."
The other point is "They are tired, annoyed and anxious to get going. The irritability in the pilots' voices, van Zanten's in particular, has been duly noted by the control tower and other pilots." KAM 15:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Salon Article

message: There are a couple of complaints for that screenshot.  I've uploaded one from Crash of the Century .  You can use that one if you like. Stoikiometry 21:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CGI Image of Collision 

message: I'm tagging this section; someone needs to do an hour or so on it. There is the bold statement "This section of the radio transmission is taken exactly from the original CVR transcript." at the top, which is not true. This section of the radio traffic is taken directly from http://aviation-safety.net/investigation/cvr/transcripts/cvr_kl4805.php 
And that transcript is wrong. If the transcript is to be a big part of the article (which I think it should be), it needs to be referenced and accurate. http://www.project-tenerife.com/engels/rapporten.htm has the Dutch, Spanish and ALPA reports which have the official CVR transcripts. I looked at 2 lines of the ASN transcript that is up there now, and both had mistakes in them. There is some pretty intense stuff at the end of the Pan Am CVR that is worth adding to the transcript as well. Lipsticked Pig 08:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One issues with most of the transcripts is that they seem to copy the Pan Am 1736's chatter almost verbatim, but do not include much of the conversation from the KLM 4805 cockpit. For example, most websites with copies of the CVRs don't include the statement from 4805's first officer, telling the captain to check the throttles, as takeoff permission has not yet been given (see http://www.airmanshiponline.com/fall99/articoli/05a99-tenerife.htm, for example, along with Spanish incident report noted above). I'm adding some of it. Sacxpert 20:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this line: "Is hij er niet af..." is suppossed to be "Is hij er niet of..." (according to the Spanish official report CVR transcript); obviously a speaker of Dutch would be helpful. Lipsticked Pig 19:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Is hij er niet af..."  is actually the correct Dutch phrase even though it says 'of' in the official Spanish CVR transcript. There are a few more mistranslations in the official transcript. Wolbo 21:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Final radio transmissions" section 

message: below the article of "final Transmissions" (or something like that), the word "uh" was used a couple of times.  in the other articles, i see no "uh" in there.  did someone vandalized this page?  XU-engineer 15:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: the word "UH"

message: "The accident still has the highest number of fatalities ... in aviation history"
better be changed into:
"The accident has the highest number of fatalities ... in aviation history"
- because "still" asks for more disasters in the future. Alexander0807 03:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: the word "still"

message: Taken from article.  Here's text of the Final radio & flight deck transmissions.  This needs summary. KyuuA4 16:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needing Summary 

message: I saw that Discovery Channel or the History Channel dubbed this the Worst Air Disaster in Aviation History? Or something to that extent? I'm pretty sure it wasn't due to September 11th but it may have been the Worst Air Collision in Aviation History. Something like that.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.17.208 (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still considered the worst 'air disaster' given that that term is generally employed for describing aviation accidents. September 11 was not an accident. Cheers, Ian Rose 01:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Worst Air Disaster

message: Would Los Rodeos be considered the last stopover for the Pan Am and for the KLM? They technically "stopped over" there and were continuing to Las Palmas.  --Vreddy92 (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Last Stopover

message: How come the article mentions that all 234 passengers and 14 crew members died (see Collision section) but it also mentions that 1 person of the KLM plane survived ('Robina van Lanschot', last sentence in Collision section). The television program I saw yesterday also mentioned that there was 1 survivor of the KLM plane. - Simeon87 (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article is worded accurately. It says that van Lanschot "avoided the disaster" by not reboarding the plane, not that she "survived" the crash. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that makes sense - Simeon87 (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  One survivor of KLM plane 

message: this title sounds very unencyclopedic to me. Should be reversed asap.  Remember- Neutral and objective articles. Not- like an adventure is going to happen. Therefore, I suggest placing a tag 'not in encyclopedic style' if this is not corrected.  Marminnetje 18:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Actually, I'd already removed some of the story-like elements/headings after they were added in recently but apparently they made their way back in. Have now had another go at getting a more encyclopedic tone to the article. Cheers, Ian Rose 21:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, this article has a tendency to be adventurous and sensational from the beginning. I'll watch it now and then/ It's all those re-runs of NatGeo so-called documentaries i guess ^^  Marminnetje 19:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "So called" documentaries? ALL documentaries are "so called" documentaries. Asa01 (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two 747s begin journeys uneventfully 

message: 1) In the intro, there's some information given about the Los Rodeos airport, i'd suggest moving it to miscellaneous .2) Where is the picture of the actual collision? It was a good picture and it was Certainly Fair use. And there was a few months ago, a new picture that was even better and I see it was removed again. Most pictures are Fair use if they are dedicated to the page, and have a low resolution, and have a good description. So, Why was it removed.Marminnetje (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some remarks 

message: * I've noticed an error in the name of the KLM 747 PH-BUF, I went onto airliners.net and searched the regestration and got this result- that is the same regestration but the name on the aircraft is The Flying Dutchman, please correct me if I am mistaken, Thanks Kingeorge (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Flying Dutchman is a commercial nickname for KLM. The plane was called Rijn, Dutch for Rhine River. The name was (as is common) painted on the front of the plane, not on its tail. See this picture on Airliners.net (it's the second search result when searching for PH-BUF). Richard 07:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks for correcting me, I didn't notice that when I found my picture. George 11:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of the plane

message: Someone has added J. Monte Johnston to the paragraph Notable people killed in the disaster. Originally with the remark well-known pediatrician.
* How well-known is he? I've never heard of him but I'm not from the US so maybe that has something to do with it. On the other hand, there is no article on Wikipedia on him - at least, not an article I could find.
* Should he remain in that paragraph? Is he more notable than the other victims?
* On the passenger list he is called Johnston, Monty. Should he remain in the article, which name should be used?
Richard 08:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: User Fighting for Justice removed this entry 20090303T0818. Richard 07:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well known? 

message: I believe that all sources I have read about this accident say that the KLM crew's transmission after reading back the ATC clearance was "We are now at takeoff".
The Spanish report here says "We are now at take-off." The official report in English here, already cited in the article, has "We are now at take off" on pages 46, 50, and 62 (PDF numbering), although on pages 7 and 60 it adds parentheses as if there was some uncertainty: "We are now (at takeoff)".
However, the article itself currently says:
:...the statement "we're now at takeoff" or "we're now, uh, taking off" (the exact wording of his statement was not clear)
I'm adding a "fact" tag; if there are conflicting versions of what was said, they both should be sourced.
--70.48.228.48 (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Dutch comments on the Spanish report mentions both possibilities. See:  page 6 and 9. --Wolbo (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The ALPA report als mentions both options on page 16.  --Wolbo (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "We are now at takeoff"? 

message: The picture appears to identify a head on collision! Furthermore the caption is misleading suggesting the Pan am was moving. --Thelostlibertine (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just prior to the collision the planes were facing each other. The Pan Am was moving and tried desperately to get off the runway (that's why the impact was not head on). The caption reads Pan Am 1736 about to be hit by KLM 4805 (not: about to hit) so it should be clear that the KLM was the faster moving plane. Richard 07:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Deceptive CGI

message: I was surprised to see no pictures of the crash, especially since they are so readily available on the net. Can we add some? Wildonrio (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There ARE no pictures of the crash itself. Most pictures of the aftermath that I know of have restricted use in some way. Richard 09:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures of crash? 

message: I propose merging Jacob Veldhuyzen van Zanten here. Other than the disaster, he probably wouldn't meet WP:N.  See WP:1E. --76.117.164.50 (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I agree with your reasoning, I don't agree with your solution. This would cause contamination in the article on the disaster since Van Zanten's biography has nothing (or at least, not much) to do with the subject. It would be comparible (though not identical) to merging William Booth into The Salvation Army. That too is something which is in my opinion undesirable. Richard 07:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment I had a look at Booth's article. It seems there is a lot more to say about him than there is to say about van Zanten. I therefore disagree with the comparison you make, though I understand it. --76.117.164.50 (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

text: There are many people who meet WP:N only because of one single event or disaster. Perhaps a better example than William Booth might be Barings Bank and Nick Leeson. Leeson would be totally unknown if it were not for bankrupting the bank. Arguably the Leeson entry could be merged into the Barings entry, but with both Leeson and Veldhuyzen van Zanten these people are of interest because they are pivotal to the disasters that made them notable, but whose life stories are not directly relevent to the main subject. I do think the VVZ's biography needs licking into shape. It is largely based on a single source (In Dutch) and several of the references for statements made do not actually link to any supporting evidence. (The Dutch article does not substantiate the claim that Van Zanten was described as 'Mr. KLM', for example). There are other statements about VVZ from reliable citable sources which could be included. SAHBfan (talk) 07:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Per SAHBfan's reasoning; his biography is not mostly focused on this crash, and much of the biography's information would not fit properly in this article. He seems notable enough to deserve his own separate article.  -- CB...(ö) 02:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge