Talk:United Airlines Flight 585

message: I have updated the information on the crash of UAL 585, to reflect the revised finding that a malfunction of the rudder PCU caused this crash, as well as the crash of USAir 427.  Also, changed the notation that the female FO in the 585 crash, was the first female pilot to die in a US Airliner crash.  She was the second one, having been defeated for that dubious honor, by Zilda Spadaro-Wolan, in the Hensen Airlines crash in 1985.
My sources for all the additions and changes are the relevant NTSB accident reports.
I have an FAQ on the history of the B-737 faulty PCU design and correcting AD, at:
http://airlinesafety.com/faq/B-737Rudder.htm
I think it would be a highly relevant external link for this article, but only if the editors approve.
--EditorASC 08:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Here is a reference for the simplified terminology used to distinguish Part 121 "major airline", from Part 135 "commuter airline". The complete 14CFR119,121,135 rules are more complex, e.g. Part 135 includes on-demand air taxi. Crum375 (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part 121 

message: I have checked and there is no such Wikipedia policy to "not list the dead," (the crewmembers) in airliner crash articles.  We are now supposed to discuss this issue on the talk page, to avoid an edit war.  So, my question is do you have some other reason why you removed the names of the dead crewmembers in this accident article, beside the one that you listed?  I assume you are aware that there are probably over a thousand other Wiki air crash articles that do have the names of dead crew member in them?  That has been considered notable information, for many years.  I think those names should be restored, since I can find no Wiki policy rule that would requires their removal.  Thanks, 66.81.53.174 (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Take this to here. That is where the editors who take of these articles will be best found. ...William 23:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I will when I have some extra time.  However, I think the rules state that when there is a disagreement among editors, as to what material should or should not be included, that we are supposed to give our reasons for our positions on this talk page.  So far, you have said nothing on this talk page about why you reverted my putting the names back in.  In your history page summary, all you said is that we "do not list the dead."  I cannot find any such rule and remind you that there are a huge amount of other airliner crash articles that DO list the names of dead crewmembers.  With that in mind, I think you should expand on your short statement, which seems to imply that it somehow is against Wiki policy.  Please show us where you got that from, and you might also tell us if there is some project afoot to go through all those other crash articles and remove the names of dead crew, as you have done here.  Thanks, 66.81.52.28 (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Listing the Dead 

message: I've just watched the National Geographic tv programme which features the NTSB investigation into the United FL585, USair FL427 and Eastwind FL517 related mystery air disasters. The overall conclusion after extensive testing, was that superheated hydraulic fluid forced into the supercooled, -40 degree due to previous high altitude, rudder dual servo valve caused the unit to function in reverse. If a pilot pressed the right rudder peddle to counteract a slight roll to the left, then the opposite of the desired effect would result i.e. the plane would suddenly continue to roll alarmingly further left and create complete confusion for the pilot, leading to a stall and nosedive. The NTSB seemed satisfied that a remodelling of the rudder dual servo unit was a good resolution of the investigation.
There is an elephant in the room here though. No-one actually mentioned why the hydraulic fluid would suddenly become superheated in the first place. Unfortunately, this remains a complete mystery which still has the potential to strike any aircraft in the future. Why is this vital element of the investigation missing from the article? 176.24.226.120 (talk) 06:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The NTSB's concluding report is given as note 4 in the article.  The word "superheat" and phrase "super heat" do not appear in it.  Page 68 (pdf page number) or page 50 (displayed on the page) describes the conditions of the standby rudder actuator.  Flight 427 does not mention superheating anything too.  It does talk about cold saturated hydraulic parts.  Maybe normal temperature fluid interacting with a very cold——piston would have a similar effect?  —EncMstr (talk) 07:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

text: The "superheated" hydraulic fluid was only used in the thermal shock test for the "proof of concept" that the valve could malfunction without leaving physical traces of damage to the valve. Gil gosseyn (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause Of Superheating Of Hydraulic Fluid To Create Rudder Reversal Not Found 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on United Airlines Flight 585. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20041204204843/http://www.airdisaster.com:80/special/special-ua585.shtml to http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-ua585.shtml
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) 21:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: @Khang To. The image you're adding is disrupting the article. It has no real value to this article, as it was the aircraft involved, it was serving a previous operator and using a previous livery. Because of the reasons stated, it would be best to remove the image from this article for good, since it has no purpose, and leave the image I added. CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think having a photo of the incident aircraft is more preferrable to having a photo of a similar aircraft with the correct livery. I don't see how this is disruptive as long as the photo is properly licensed and free to use and the caption is correct. This incident was over 30 years ago, so I don't think we need to worry about Frontier being blamed or having their reputation tarnished by the photo's presence. --Dual Freq (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Dispute