Talk:Air Transat Flight 236

message: I took the liberty to correct the sentence which stated that the Airbus aircraft was fully fly-by-wire, hence it could not be flown without the engines unless it could rely on the ram air turbine. This statement was misleading, as the most important effect of losing   both engines is not the loss of electrical power (there are backup power sources - batteries, or even the APU when there is some fuel left), but the loss of hydraulic power. All modern 100+ passenger aircraft have hydraulicaly powered flight controls, therefore cannot be flown manually when all hydraulic power is lost.
Hence the need for a ram air turbine, to provide limited hydraulic pressure and ensure some (although reduced, and all the more reduced as the aircraft flies slowly) controllability.
Mandarine--81.56.83.86 19:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken the liberty of reverting your change, pending you supplying a source. The National Geographic program portrayed the issue in terms of the electrically-powered flight control systems and fly-by-wire was a significant differentiating factor when the first Airbus was built, and continues to be so to a lesser degree today. The way you worded it is to ignore the issue of fly-by-wire and its total dependence on electrical power completely. --Icd 00:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: How does the situation the Air Transat flight found itself in compare to an older non fly-by-wire aircraft, e.g. a Boeng 707 which has hydraulic assistance but mechanically linked flight controls? In a no-engine situation, do the controls become completely inoperative, or just very difficult to move? --Icd 00:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While this is a bit late, there is a very important fact missing from this discussion.  Namely, that the engines themselves will continue to supply adequate hydraulic pressure to power the controls, so long as the airspeed is maintained above some minimum value that is found in the hydraulic systems section of the flight manual for each type/model of airliner.  That is because the engines "windmill" as the plane continues to fly while descending, and the hydraulic pumps connected to each engine will continue to create the necessary hydraulic pressure, above that stated minimum airspeed.  In other words, the engines become giant RATs, once they run out of fuel.  From reading the story of this accident, the pilot kept the airspeed much higher than it would normally be, as part of his calculation of arriving at the proper section of the runway.  If he had chosen to fly much slower, he would have had to try doing additional 360s, so as to dissipate excessive altitude, but that would have been extremely risky, so better to fly a lot faster and land at a very high airspeed, to ensure making it to the runway and still having enough runway left to get the plane stopped, once on the ground.  EditorASC (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fly-by-wire has nothing to do with it 

message: I changed the First Officers name from "Dick Dejager" to "Dirk Dejager" but was reverted. I have seen (and enjoyed) the National Geographic documentary on this and the name was definitely "Dirk". For some written references which use "Dirk", I can mention
*CTV news reprt
*CBC news report
*CNN transcript
*St. Petersburg Times article
Now, I did notice that Air Transat referred to him as "Dick"
*Air Transat media centre
Very odd. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dirk Dejager v. Dick Dejager 

message: This has been tagged since May and no one has come up with a source, so I have removed it. Harry was a white dog with black spots 16:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed reference to "lukewarm response"

message: The assertion, “It was discovered that the technician who worked on the engine had reported to his supervisor/manager that there was a problem with the part and that it did not fit properly. The supervisor/manager insisted that the incorrect part be used rather than wait for a new proper part to arrive,” is false and should be removed from the entry.
That assertion originates from hearsay reported as fact, without proper verification, by the Toronto Globe and Mail daily newspaper in its September 3, 2001, issue. It is based on declarations allegedly made by a union official employed by another airline, and possibly further distorted. The union official later confirmed he had been misquoted, as reported in the Montreal daily newspaper La Presse of September 6, 2001. On September 5, the Globe and Mail retracted its September 3 piece, in another article relating an entirely different version of the events—which, as it happened, was also largely erroneous. Following representations by Air Transat, a further article summarizing the entire case was published by the Globe and Mail on September 7 ignores the versions published earlier on the 3rd and 5th. It should be noted that in the same timeframe, the New York Times picked up the story that ran in the Globe and Mail on September 3 (with appropriate attribution), which contributed to disseminating an erroneous version of the events (the NYT is quoted as a reference in the Wikipedia entry).
From the start, Air Transat has been on record as firmly denying the aforementioned allegation, as early as September 3, 2001, only hours after the initial Globe and Mail story appeared, through such means as a news release and public statements, which were abundantly reported by the media. Air Transat’s position was further vindicated when the investigation report was published in October 2004, providing confirmation that the allegations in the September 3 and 5, 2001, issues of the Globe and Mail were false and groundless. It should also be noted that the initial story relied heavily on assertions that the alleged conversation between the technician and the supervisor had been taped, whereas: 1) the reporter confirmed in conversations with Air Transat (on September 4) that he had had no access to the tape and had no information on its contents, and that the union official had confirmed he had not been in possession of the tape and had not listened to it (in other words, at the time of publication, the reporter was unable to confirm either the tape’s existence or its contents); 2) the union formally backed Air Transat’s version in a press release and in media statements on September 3, all of which were widely reported in the media; 3) the Globe and Mail stated in its September 5 piece that it had been “unable to confirm the existence of the tape claimed to exist by [the union official],” thus confirming that the initial reporting was essentially based on single-source, unverified hearsay.
Given that the union official retracted his version of the facts and that the Globe and Mail disavowed its September 3 and 5 versions, and taking into account the results of the investigation, the version of events related in the above-quoted assertion is not only false, but, as of September 7, 2001, had no proponents.
--Michel lemay (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The official report confirms your position (pages 48-50). The whole thing was much more complex than given here are in "Mayday", but no interference of superiors is reported. One would wish that stuff was color coded to make mixups more visible to independend inspections ... JB. --84.186.154.31 (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing unfounded assertion related to context of accident

message: The following text appears in the article:
At 05:48 UTC, an emergency was declared with Santa Maria Oceanic air traffic control because of fuel shortage.
At 06:13 UTC, 28 minutes after the emergency declaration and 135 miles (217 km) from Lajes[3], engine no. 2 on the right wing flamed out, exhausted of jet fuel. Captain Piché then ordered full thrust from engine no. 1 on the left wing, and the plane descended to 33,000 feet (10,000 m), unable to stay at its 39,000 feet (12,000 m) cruising altitude with only one engine operating.
At 06:23 UTC, Mayday was declared with Santa Maria Oceanic air traffic control.
However, as fair as I know an emergency is pretty much the same as a mayday. Therefore can anyone confirm it went in this order, or was the first one an urgency (pan pan pan) instead of an emergency (mayday)?
--80.101.66.150 (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To answer that question ... reading the official findings ... @5:48 UTC the crew informed Santa Maria about the need to divert because of a fuel problem. No official emergency declaration was made at that time. Later, @6:23 UTC it went directly to Mayday ... 3 minutes later they lost the remaining engine and became a glider ... Don't want to think about all this happening an hour ealier and a nightly ditch into the drink. JB. --84.186.154.31 (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mayday vs emergency 

message: The aircraft in this incident was an A330 ("The aircraft was an Airbus A330 manufactured in 1999..."), so why is it relevant that "The incident also led to the Directorate General for Civil Aviation (DGAC) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issuing an Airworthiness Directive,[7] forcing all operators of Airbus model A318-100, A319-100, A320-200, A321-100, and A321-200 Series aeroplanes; and Model A320-111 aeroplanes to change the flight manual, stressing that crews should check that any fuel imbalance is not caused by a fuel leak before opening the cross-feed valve."?  Shouldn't there be some reference to any ADs related to the A330?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.61.25.254 (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is also not clear to me (and was the main reason I came to the Talk page). However, there was an Airworthiness Directive directly related to the Air Transat 236 incident: "The French airworthiness authority DGAC issued Airworthiness Directive 2002-548(B) on November 13, 2002, Fuel Leak Procedure, which is applicable to AIRBUS A-330 aircraft. The AD amends the A-330 FUEL LEAK procedure. This AD became effective on November 23, 2002." Refer to https://lessonslearned.faa.gov/ll_main.cfm?TabID=2&LLID=73&LLTypeID=11. I shall try to somehow correct the relevant article section. Cangelis (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsequent ADs realted to A330s and A318/319/3202/221s 

message: We still have a tag concerning a "confusing and unclear section". Me not being an aviation expert, the section following that tag is for the most part clear enough and not that confusing. Maybe the only thing that's not obvious for me as a layman is why "the increased fuel flow would cause both the drop in oil temperature, as well as the rise in oil pressure" (but it might be too much of a diversion to explain this in greater detail in the article). All other things, the cross valve procedure, the flame-outs, etc. are IMHO described in a way that anyone can see what is meant. If someone thinks that the section is still confusing to him, I think he or she should specify that. --Proofreader (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think the tag can be removed. Julianhall (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing or unclear section 

message: The lede refers to:
: "...all 306 people (293 passengers and 13 crew) on board".
However the article used as the source states that there were:
: "...291 passengers and a crew of 13".
Clearly there is something wrong somewhere! I suspect that there were 306 people in total; made up of 291 passengers, 13 crew members (meaning flight attendants), and the two pilots (who are obviously crew too, but someone has become confused?). Can someone who is more knowledgeable about this incident please fix the Wiki article? Unless it is the reference article which is incorrect, in which case it probably should be replaced with a new one?
Further down in the article it states that:
: "...There were 293 passengers and thirteen crew members on board".
So that probably needs fixing too, as does the Infobox... FillsHerTease (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of people on board... 

message: The redirect Marco Scocco has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 03:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Marco Scocco]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]