Talk:Saudia Flight 163

message: There seems to be no official report about this disaster on-line. The airlines.net forums offer some interesting additional reasons -- not found elsewhere -- for why the doors were not opened. It is said there that the cabin pressure was still set for the landing at Jeddah (sea level), and the outflow valve was damaged by the fire, keeping the cabin pressure a bit too high -- enough so that you wouldn't be able to open the doors. It's also said that the FA would wait for the engines to be turned off before opening the doors. The first part (pressure reason) sounded authoritative but a forum is not a good source so need another source for that... --GregU 03:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The title of the page shouldn't be "Saudia Flight 163". Use the proper name, "Saudi Arabian Airlines Flight 163". There surely is space to fit that in.
202.95.200.12 05:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has been moved back to Saudia Flight 163 for consistency purposes. Saudia, not Saudi Arabian Airlines, was the name of the carrier at the time of the incident. In general, airline accidents and incidents should be titled with the name of the airline at the time the incident occurred. oh my yes (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper Title 

message: A transcript from when the fire was discovered to when the plane landed can be found at http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cvr800819.htm 
Adding a link may make a nice addition to the article.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.156.70.112 (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted that Aviation Safety network indicates that there is a break in the Cockpit voice transcript between 18:20:50 and 18:23:07. Looking in the linked copy of the accident report there are missing pages (105 to 108) in the document. A more complete copy (If it exists.) should be located. The transcription was carried out by the NTSB so that might be a good place to start.Graham1973 (talk) 10:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I just found a better quality copy of the report. The pages in the transcript are mixed up with pages 105-108 going between pages 110 and 111. It might be worthwhile to prepare our own copy of the transcript. Comments?Graham1973 (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cockpit recording transcript 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: The article doesn't mentioned what happened with the lawsuit. Also given the source of the fire as unknown, how did improper maintence come in to it Nil Einne (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawsuit 

message: It says that the butane stoves were in the cargo area with a used fire extinguisher nearby.  It also says that some devout Muslims bring stoves on planes to make tea.  What were they in the cargo hold for tea?  Were they making tea back at their seats?  That's totally ridiculous.  Maybe someone could look at thisLonginus876 (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It also says that:
Some airlines at the time allowed passengers to use butane stoves on board, though current aviation regulations forbid them.
I find it hard to give this any credence. Even if cockpit staff were somehow permitted them, I cannot see how any airline would allow PAX to bring such items into the cabin, let alone use them. I'm going to check through recent history as this comment seems to me a quite recent addition; anyway I think it certainly should be removed if it cannot be reliably substantiatedPlutonium27 (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

text: I understand the final report talked about a fire in the cargo hold from an unknown source, no mention of stoves. MilborneOne (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath 

message: Controversial line removed to talk page:
*  Some airlines at the time allowed passengers to use butane stoves on board, though current aviation regulations forbid them.
Best source for material like this is old newspaper reports and aviation safety books of the period following the accident (1980 - nwards.). Offline searches are recommended in this case. Graham1973 (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited text 

message: Passengers from France, Spain, Italy, China, German, Canada and Taiwan were not on Flight 163. 73.87.74.115 (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong nations. 

message: In the section above this one called "Infobox : "summary" there is a discussion about what should be stated in the "Summary" section of the infobox of the article. 
It would be very much appreciated if more people (preferably aviation related/interested) could have a look at the above discussion and state their opinion about this issue.
Kind regards Saschaporsche (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave it a shot but I'm sure it can be better worded still Alpacaaviator (talk) 05:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment 

message: There is no source on any people coming from Canada, China, France, West Germany, Spain, Switzerland and Taiwan. This is inaccurate. 73.87.74.15 (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no source of the nations. 

message: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/08/21/saudi-plane-deaths-total-301/850d42a9-3844-4e15-8442-489bf2ddd2d7/ 73.87.74.15 (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  An actual source for the passenger list?