Talk:1956 Grand Canyon mid-air collision

Fair use rationale for Image:Grandcanyoncrash.jpg

Image:Grandcanyoncrash.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

More history

I have added info to the article and have re-organized it. I was 11 years old at the time of this accident and very interested in anything to which wings and engines had been attached. I still recall in detail the national uproar that this tragedy caused.

Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Reorganization & additional material

I have added info to the article and have re-organized it with citations to several sources.

Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Catalyst for change citations

Due to illness, my opportunities to continue editing this article and add the needed citations to the Catalyst for change section have been very limited. I have the necessary material but have not been well enough to engage in extended work. I hope to get back to it soon.

Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 05:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The citations for Catalyst for change are still not up. If someone can put them up, this would improve the article's quality. Thanks. MattChatt18 (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Photos of memorials

I have added two photos of TWA memorial from my recent trip through Flagstaff. I wanted to go to the Grand Canyon to get the United memorial, but time got the better of me. Next time. Chloe93 (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Picture

The description of the collision states "Post-crash analysis determined that the United DC-7 was banked to the right and pitched down at the time of the collision, suggesting that one or possibly both of the United pilots saw the TWA Constellation seconds before impact and that evasive action was attempted". However, the picture in this article appears to show the DC-7 banked to the left, turning towards the TWA Constellation. 82.1.57.194 (talk) 06:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Look closely at the illustration, the right alieron is clearly raised, as it would be in a right bank. I would imagine that the force of impact with the left wing would cause a roll to the left despite the control input for right bank. Wschart (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I've just watched the National Geographic tv representation of events which repeatedly showed the United DC-7 banking to the right IN THE SAME DIRECTION as the TWA Constellation in front of it! The pilot is seen to push the controls forward into a sharp dive, which seems sensible, but the computer graphics concentrate on the plane banking sharply. There's an elephant in the room here; the experienced pilot would have no reason to bank in order to avoid a collision. Even if he did, he would have instinctively banked to the left. The Constellation is assumed to be flying level with the DC-7 approaching from behind and to the right. A banking maneuver takes a lot of time to accomplish, whilst a straight dive is much quicker. The events simply don't stack-up. In hindsight, it's more likely that the TWA Constellation lost it's tri-tailplane mid-flight and the piece then hit the DC-7 on the way down. The loss of tailplanes in aircraft accidents is a recurring feature and reminded me of the horrendous 1985 incident of Japan Airlines 123 which lost it's tailplane mid-flight with the 747 eventually crashing into a forested mountain side. (P.S. The three deep gouges equidistant apart piqued my interest and signifies a left-field solution to the conundrum imv) 176.24.226.120 (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Alan Lowey.

The episodes in the Mayday television program are highly dramatized, often at the cost of accuracy. Just because some artist rendered the banking of both aircraft in the same direction does not make it correct. There is no film of the accident itself; the only thing we have to go on are the findings of the accident investigators. Relying on what was filmed for a television show would be irresponsible. Drama sells. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 16:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

"air collisions gradually subsided"

This strikes me as very dubious use of English, as usually it's processes (such as diseases or seismic activity) that subside, not events (such as mid-air collisions). What happened in this case was that the frequency of mid-air collisions gradually decreased. So this should surely be rephrased as "mid-air collisions gradually became less frequent". I point this out because there's too much misuse of English on Wikipedia already. Non-native speakers, noticing a misused word, are apt to think "That's a nice-looking word - I didn't know it, so it must be very typically English!", and misuse them in turn.188.230.248.85 (talk) 12:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree.  Done - Samf4u (talk) 13:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

IFR or VFR?

The article states:

• Captain Gandy requested "1,000 on top" clearance (flying 1,000 feet above the clouds), which is still IFR, not VFR (visual flight rules), which was approved by ATC. The provision to operate 1000’-on-top exists so that separation restrictions normally applied by ATC can be temporarily suspended. An aircraft cleared to operate 1000’-on-top provides its own separation for other IFR aircraft—especially useful when two aircraft are transitioning to or from an approach when VFR conditions exist above cloud layers.[5] Flying VFR, however, placed the responsibility for maintaining safe separation from other aircraft upon Gandy and Ritner, a procedure referred to as "see and be seen," since changed to "see and avoid." Upon receiving the "1,000 on top" clearance, Captain Gandy increased his altitude to 21,000 feet.[3]

These statements appear to be inconsistent. Could someone please clarify? TheHYPO (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The description of what 1000-on-top meant in 1956 is correct. ATC rules were different in those days and an aircraft was considered to be flying VFR as soon as the 1000-on-top request was granted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.69.12.5 (talk) 02:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I've had a go at this . . hope u like it! 84.9.118.19 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

A Survivor!!

Yes, My mother had a ticket for United Flight 718 from LAX to Chicago on June 30, 1956. She received a gift from her father of a round trip ticket after graduation to fly from Chicago to California to visit her two sisters. While out there, she decided to stay. So she cashed in her return ticket for her first month's rent. She was babysitting her niece and nephews the night of June 30, 1956, when she saw the news of the plane crash on the news. I only heard this story shortly before she passed away in 2019. I always knew she was terrified of flying. Now I know why. She lived to 85 years old and has 5 children and 11 grandchildren. NOPEYNOPEY (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)NOPEYNOPEY

Did United 718 have CFIT?

but why not United 718 CFIT please Skip6546 (talk) 01:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)