Talk:Birgenair Flight 301

message: I know this run-on sentence has citation, but it's contradictory. "Investigators never found the pitot-static tubes of the crashed aircraft; entomologists suspected that mud dauber wasps built nests in the pitot-static tubes, blocking them; since the aircraft used had not flied in 25 days the wasps had an opportunity to build nests in the tubes."
If they never found the pitot-static tubes, then what evidence does anyone have that that's the cause? It seems more like conjecture or speculation than proper suspicion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.163.150 (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was good reason to believe a blockage was caused by the wasps, ie. wasps around the airfield. But it's not really a problem since the article never claims it is definite, and makes it clear it is a suspicion only. Gandygatt (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It came from the episode of the documentary television series "Mayday" - While they never found the pitot tubes, they suspect that wasps caused it. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: I am surprised how, with so much of this article based on the Mayday episode about the Birgenair crash, the author lays the blame on both pilots, like in "The pilots concluded that both ASIs were malfunctioning". Actually, it was the captain who made that conclusion, which happened before the stick-shaker warning btw. The author also fails to mention that during the investigation, it became clear that when things took a turn for the worse and the stick-shaker warning came on, it was the captain who became really confused then froze, and was completely unable to react to the situation, something the documentary clearly shows. The co-pilot and the back up pilot, in the cockpit jump seat, had both tried on several occasions to give their captain advice which, had he followed, would have saved the plane. The back up pilot mentions "ADI" several times, while the co-pilot told him "nose down" and "you can level off, our altitude is ok", but the captain didn't follow their advice. THAT is what caused the doom of Birgenair Flight 301. Even with the captain's pitot tube blocked, the flight could have easily been saved. The co-pilot didn't directly intervene because in certain cultures, it is inimaginable for an inexperienced co-pilot to take control of the plane from his much more experienced captain.
24.201.60.162 (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy 

message: The article brings up the pitot tubes w/o explaining what they are and how they relate to the ASI readings. Not even a link to an article on them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.70.186 (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added a few words to hint at the usage of a pitot tube.Gandygatt (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  For Aircraft Parts Experts Only? 

message: The Aeroperú 603 accident was similar in some sense (blocked sensors leading to crew confusion, resulting in fatal crash) but quite different. In the Aeroperú case, the static pressure ports were blocked by tape, rendering all airspeed indicators and altimeters (including the transponder's altitude indication to ATC) unusable. Contrast to this, Birgenair 301 had just one of its pitot probes inoperable, which affected airspeed only and could have been easily replaced by switching to an alternate source.
Being confronted with a true firework of alerts (as opposed to Birgenair), the Aeroperú crew recognized the failures immediately after take-off but (as the Birgenair crew) showed unable to handle them properly. 
Despite their situation being far more demanding than in the Birgenair case, even the Aeroperú crew could have saved their day, had they 
# reverted to basic flying (as with Birgenair: familiar power setting plus familiar attitude results in familiar speed and gradient) and 
# (additional difficulty NOT faced by Birgenair) used the radio altimeter to stay off the ground and/or water. Of course, radio alt is a limited and sometimes dangerous reference, but far better than nothing (remember Aeroperú 603 crashed into the sea, so terrain profile wasn't a consideration).
Finally, Birgenair 301 lost control while Aeroperú 603 was a CFIT = controlled flight into "terrain" (the sea, in this case).
-- mibo (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aeroperú 603 - Similarities and Differences 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Birgenair Flight 301. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9602/plane_crash/02-08/11am/index.html
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6SLHw8tdZ?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fss.aero%2Faccident-reports%2Fdvdfiles%2FDO%2F1996-02-06-DO.pdf to http://www.fss.aero/accident-reports/dvdfiles/DO/1996-02-06-DO.pdf
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6SLHw8tdZ?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fss.aero%2Faccident-reports%2Fdvdfiles%2FDO%2F1996-02-06-DO.pdf to http://www.fss.aero/accident-reports/dvdfiles/DO/1996-02-06-DO.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930033635/http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view_details.cgi?date=02061996®=TC-GEN&airline=Birgenair to http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view_details.cgi?date=02061996®=TC-GEN&airline=Birgenair
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) 02:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Birgenair Flight 301. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fss.aero/accident-reports/dvdfiles/DO/1996-02-06-DO.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fss.aero/accident-reports/dvdfiles/DO/1996-02-06-DO.pdf
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6887lwtvj?url=http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/PuertoPlata/bericht.html to http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/PuertoPlata/bericht.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why is there a reference to American Airlines Flight 77, as form my perspective it would be more accurate to reference to Flight 965. Why? because it was in similar times and the fatalites in both flight (301, 965) are all in flight compared to Flight 77 where have some onboard the aircraftv and some others on the ground.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldnas (talk • contribs) 01:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Airlines 965 vs American Airlines Flight 77 

message: See MOS:NUMNOTES: "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: patients' ages were five, seven, and thirty-two or ages were 5, 7, and 32, but not ages were five, seven, and 32." You reverted a lot of good edits, reverting the article to a much worse form in many places. The colon that I replaced with a dash was horribly misused, separating the subject of the sentence from the verb. Please check the style guide and discuss all the various issues at hand before making such a sweeping revert—FIVE reverts in one, covering all sorts of grammar, punctuation, and style issues. Thank you. Holy (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for opening my eyes. I thought that numbers 1-9 are ALWAYS supposed to be written in words, guess not though. Sorry for the revert and I'll revert it again. CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad revert