Talk:British Airways Flight 009

message: Please add the time of the landing in Jakarta to the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:2A8:8500:86:8418:F125:7968:BE6B (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Landing time

message: I'd consider volcanic ash a "weather" phenomenon, at least so far as aviation is concerned.  After all, you hear about volcanic ash when you are receiving your weather briefing.  And it sounds like it was the volcanic ash that caused the incident.  Why do you (Scott) feel that isn't an appropriate category? —Cleared as filed. 19:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Weather is typically defined as something like "the specific condition of the atmosphere at a particular time and place".  It usually includes visibility, smog, and dust storms where these are significant conditions.  Pyroclastic ash clouds are a significant atmospheric condition and would seem to qualify as weather.  We don't often think of them that way perhaps, but presumably only because they are uncommon in our experience. -R. S. Shaw 04:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion of weather category

message: some of the times are in gmt. should they not be in either utc or jakarta time? or is it gmt because the aircraft is registered in britain?
:Firstly, GMT is the same as UTC (give or take a few fractions of a second). In the initial version, I used GMT because that's what my primary source (Tootell) used. Secondly, in aviation in general, because aircraft cross timezones so frequently and with such ease, UTC/GMT is used (even for flights staying in one timezone) to avoid any possibility of confusion - local times are generally only for passengers. --Scott Wilson 16:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time zones 

message: I just recently watched a documentary on the incident. It cited that the cause for the opaque windshield was because of the blasting of the sand particles (sand blasting) against the windscreen, not because of light glare. Can anyone confirm this?
--Zachdouglas 21.16, 20 April 2007
It was both. The light reflecting off the sandblasted windscreen made it opaque, just like frosted glass. --Scott Wilson 15:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Landing and Taxi

message: The article says: "Those looking out windows also noticed that the engines were unusually bright, as if they each had a searchlight in them, shining forward through the fan blades."  That doesn't fit with St Elmo's fire which is a soft glow and not at all like that description.  What is the explanation for that engine visual effect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.45.165 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 22 April 2007 [moved by User:Scott Wilson 16:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly don't know, though I don't think it was St Elmo's fire - if the article implies it was, it ought to be changed. I can't remember if Tootell gave an explanation in her book (my main source on this subject), or if it's still a mystery. --Scott Wilson 16:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please explain engine 'searchlight' appearance

message: Flight name was BA009 - see foot of article. Should this article be renamed?Mjroots (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, leading zeroes in flight numbers are not mandatory. 009 or 9 – either is correct. Actually, with four digits nowadays, you wouldn't say 0009, but just 9. – --Suaheli (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Flight (article) name

message: Brennan, Zoe (27 January 2007). "The story of flight 009 and the words every passenger dreads...", Daily Mail. – This reference should be deleted. E. g. statements like "There were huge flames coming out of all four engines" are greatly exaggerated and the illustration is plain nonsense, too – this is Hollywood movie level. --Suaheli (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable reference 

message: In ACI, the captain did not say we are doing our ****dest to get them going again, he said: we are doing our ****edest to get it under control.
I fixed that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.30.53 (talk • contribs) 
:So on top of everything else, Moody could pronounce asterisks! What a guy. *g* Loganberry (Talk) 23:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just was censoring the bad part of the word 66.30.30.53 (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something Wrong ... I fixed 

message: To me it seems like the incident section is written more like a story than an encyclopedia entry, does anyone else feel this way? Also, I noticed that it states that the oxygen masks didn't work, however, if I am correct (and stop me if I'm not) the oxygen masks work by pulling the mask which pulls a pin on a chemical oxygen generator. Therefore, they will always work, regardless of what is happening around them as they are independant. Furthermore, many passengers in aircraft incidents and accidents say that they are not working because the bag doesn't inflate while in fact they still are.
Just wondering what your thoughts on this issue are. Thanks, --Plane Person (talk) 08:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the Incident section reads too much like a story, though I say this as one who's contributed to the section, if mainly to add quotes and citations. Personally I can do without The 747 had now become a glider. which does sound story-like, and I agree about the oxygen masks paragraph that follows the quote from Captain Moody - not only does the prose leave something to be desired, there's no citation for it. That para should go, unless it can be cited (in which I'd be happy to help tidy the wording). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit I'm just a layman, but I've read some discussions on PPRuNe, and I've gathered there are two things that typically happen after a de-pressurisation: a) the pilot goes in a somewhat steep dive (1800m/min sounds about right) because the oxygen supply doesn't last all that long and b) some passengers think the oxygen masks don't work, even if they do, because the plastic bag on the mask doesn't inflate. (And never mind that it plainly says on that bag that it won't inflate.) Until I see some references I'll think the masks worked all right.--ospalh (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incident Section 

message: In All Four Engines Have Failed (hmmm, that redirects back here... should at least be to a section surely) the reception of the passengers in Jakarta is described. As some had Dutch passports, they could not enter the country. One of the crew (the purser possibly, just from memory) elected to stay with them in the airport terminal. Andrewa (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Reception in Jakarta

message: I have added a section title (as above) to make this rather unusual event a bit more obvious. Right now no one is flying(by jet) in or out of England. Not too much coverage of Europe in Oz news. If this doesn't eruption clear soon the effects will likely flow on worldwide, to some extent.
Other parts of the Aftermath section need a bit of work ie the US Airways Flight 1549 Hudson ditching seems a bit out of place, though relevant as far as gliding a large aircraft. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 10:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  April 2010 Airspace Closure 

message: According to Job's Air Disaster Volume 2, the route appeared to be LHR-BOM-KUL(now SZB)-PER-MEL-AKL. Can anyone confirm whether the flight stopped at Madras(Chennai)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by N73713 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the actual route for BA009? 

message: a notam was issued at the time of the eruption, was the crew advised on time of it? if so, did the crew acknowleged it? at the time i was dispatching a flight(jugoslav airlines) from singapore to sydney and diverted it south of jakarta to avoid the cloud...Rojas950 (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  notam (notice to airmen) 

message: "From the human flock nine will be sent away, 
Separated from control and advice 
Their fate will be sealed on departure 
K-Th-L make a error; the dead banished"
I just want to know if this is Nostradamus prediction?
 flock like in birds that fly? 
 9 has something to do with the plane : British Airways Flight 9
 KL Kuala Lumpur
and th for thursday  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.54.56 (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nostradamus Prediction 

message: I do not understand why the article calls this flight "the longest glide in a non-purpose-built aircraft". Air Transat Flight 236 glided for 19 minutes and a distance of about 120 km, while this flight glided only for 13 minutes and an unspecified distance. If the sentence was intended to mean "the longest glide until that day", it should be made more explicit. I hesitate to correct it myself, because I just noticed the discrepancy in passing and may have missed something. Will visit again in a few months to check.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.51.111 (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It says G-BDXH's engineless flight entered the Guinness Book of Records as the longest glide in a non-purpose-built aircraft. That means it was at the time, it does not mean it still is. No 'correction' should be necessary, but maybe an additional comment? Richard 07:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longest Glide? 

message: When (around 13:43 UTC, 37,000 feet/11,000 m) all engine flame out, emergency power came from batteries only or the crew start an APU or a RAT, or what else?
(This aircraft was equipped whit RAT or not?)
When the crew try to restart engines over the recommended maximum engine in-flight start envelope altitude of 28,000 feet (8,500 m) - and engines restart fall - from where they get power for the restart try? (i suppose an APU power-level is required for this operation)
When (13:56 UTC, 13,500 feet/4,100 m) the crew performed the engine restart procedure again and engine number four finally started, the power for this restart operation was given by APU?
regards 2.43.148.36 (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't pretend to know the answers to all your questions, but as far as I know, a RAT cannot be deployed at 37,000 feet. Richard 08:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's a procedure that violates the animal rights.... ;)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.159.143.167 (talk) 05:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

text: Somewhere in the internet someone say that this airplane don't have Rat (?). But the altitude is a problem for Rat only below some quote/speed ('cause the Rat don't work without wind speed), not over; in example in the Gimli Glider all engine flame out, the Rat appear to be used around 35,000 feet. 31.157.21.125 (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power source after all eng flame out; batteries only or apu/rat? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on British Airways Flight 9. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090124235355/http://www.maturetimes.co.uk:80/node/1847 to http://www.maturetimes.co.uk/node/1847
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :The passengers are members of the Galunggung Gliding Club
:https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/uk.rec.sheds/TOc82PVYTEs%5B1-25%5D
:--Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galunggung Gliding Club 

message: I saw the both of you fighting for an edit. Please do not do that. Username seems correct but please add a reference to something like ASN. Don't fight for it. KlientNo.1 (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be happier if someone could provide references for this detail - saying everyone knows is not accepatable on Wikipedia.  Refusing to provide such when asked is also not accepable. A reference that actually says this is the ICAO flight number and another that actually says this is the IATA flight number is what is needed.  I am also unsure what exact encyclopaedic value this extra detail adds to the page - In reality it is plain repetition. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: just a subsequent note to note that username006 and Klientno.1 turned out to be one and the same person. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

text: I agree with him, that every detail about an event like British Airways Flight 9 is important and valuable for the article. Even seemingly minor details can provide a more complete understanding of the incident and its impact. It is always best to provide reliable sources to support any information added to Wikipedia, as this helps to maintain the credibility and accuracy of the article. Thank you for your attention to detail and commitment to improving the quality of the article if any. Luigi Cotocea (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrewgprout and Username006 please STOP! 

message: The article says "close the airspace permanently"
It felt a bit extreme to be actually permanent(and we are now 40 years later). It might have been so at the time pending further decision, which is more indefinite than permanent but written as permanent in the source and thus replicated here.
I tried to look for any air space closure info and have failed to find any. There does not appear to be a NOTAM when searching for Galunggung. Staring at live air traffic, I saw some flight come within about 15 miles of the mountain. But I'm not an airman so my tools are limited to what I can find via searches, could someone who actually knows how to identify closed airspace verify whether there is still a closure? Proving a negative is unfortunately rather difficult.
If it is open, we should probably try and find the date of re-opening. If it is still closed, either more recent source or stronger phrasing might be helpful to put curiosity like mine to rest. 2601:647:4200:6ED:3CD4:B140:A99F:ABE8 (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you completely. I imagine the editor who wrote that had information that the airspace had re-closed indefinitely, not permanently. It's not proving a negative though, just a difficult positive. I believe somewhere there's a record of a regulatory change that re-opened the airspace. I tried every combination of search terms in the AAIB (UK registration) and NTSB (US country of manufacture) databases, and I can't find anything. Dcs002 (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Not a lot of help, but the coordinates for the mountain are 7.2567315 S, 108.0770588 E, and I found a VFR route chart for that part of Java. The chart was effective as of October 2018, but it has no expiration date on it. It's published by the Indonesian Directorate General of Civil Aviation, so I think at the time of publication it was reliable. I located the volcano by the coordinates above, and there is nothing in that area to indicate any flight restrictions at all. There are regions of restricted airspace around a nearby air force base, but the closest restricted airspace shown on this chart is about 25 km from the volcano. If you're interested, here's a link to the chart. It's on the 2nd page. The volcano isn't indicated by name, but it's tucked in just south of a peak that reaches 7160 ft, and the caldera is obvious on the chart. The charts I used during my flying days (and they were brief) didn't have the same symbols as this chart, so I don't know if there are restrictions in the area that apply to IFR flight only, or to passenger carrying service, I dunno. If I'm reading this chart correctly (and that's a big if), that airspace can hardly be considered to be closed if there are no restrictions on visual flight in that area. The charts I used always had an expiration date printed on them, usually 6 months after their effective date. This obviously isn't an RS - not in my hands anyway - but it's a clue that you're on the right track, and it does appear to be an official publication. Dcs002 (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath-is the airspace closure really permanent?