Jump to content

Talk:Tenerife airport disaster

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 199.191.108.18 (talk) at 21:12, 4 November 2011 (→ATC Error?!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeTenerife airport disaster was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 31, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed

Speculations

Under the 'Speculations' section - both of these statements about van Zanten cannot be true at the same time!

  1. Captain van Zanten's failure to confirm instructions from the tower. The flight was one of his first after spending six months training new pilots on a flight simulator. He may have suffered from 'training syndrome', having been in charge of everything at the simulator (including simulated ATC), and having been away from the real world of flying for extended periods.[1]
  2. The flight engineer's apparent hesitation to further challenge van Zanten, possibly because van Zanten was not only senior in rank, but also one of the most able and experienced pilots working for the airline.[1]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.240.121 (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2007

Ah, think they can both be true... One can be highly experienced and well-regarded while still being out of touch. In addition, each suggestion is cited with a reliable source. Cheers, Ian Rose 23:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When this accident occurred, I was working at the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission, a state agency that investigated aircraft accidents, among other things. There was considerable speculation at the time of this accident that a strict rule limiting the time that flight crews could remain on duty caused the KLM crew to rush into the air so as to complete their flight before their crew duty limits would be violated. It seems ironic that a safety rule might have contributed to this disaster. However that selfsame irony might also lead to this concept not being reflected in any official government accident analyses. Dick Kimball (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needing Summary

Taken from article. Here's text of the Final radio & flight deck transmissions. This needs summary. KyuuA4 16:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final radio & flight deck transmissions

These communications are taken from the cockpit voice recorders of both aircraft, as well as from the Tenerife control tower's tapes.

1705:22.0
PAN AM CAPTAIN That's two. [Captain Grubbs is identifying the second turn-off from the runway as the Pan Am continues to back-taxi]
1705:36.7
[KLM first officer completes pre-flight checklist. KLM 4805 is now at the end of the runway, in position for departure.]
1705:41.5
KLM FIRST OFFICER Wait a minute, we don't have an ATC clearance. [This statement is apparently a response to an advancing of the throttles in the KLM.]
KLM CAPTAIN Nee, dat weet ik, vraag maar. [No, I know that, ask for it.]
1705:44.8
KLM (RADIO) Uh, the KLM ... four eight zero five is now ready for take-off ... uh and we're waiting for our ATC clearance.
1705:53.4 - 1706:08.9
TENERIFE TOWER eight seven * zero five uh you are cleared to the Papa Beacon climb to and maintain flight level nine zero right turn after take-off proceed with heading zero four zero until intercepting the three two five radial from Las Palmas VOR.
1706:07.4
KLM CAPTAIN Yes.
1706:09.6 - 1706:17.8
KLM (RADIO) Ah roger, sir, we're cleared to the Papa Beacon flight level nine zero, right turn out zero four zero until intercepting the three two five and we're now (at take-off / uh..taking off).
1706:11.1
[KLM brakes released.]
1706:12.2
KLM CAPTAIN We gaan ... check thrust. [We're going ... check thrust].
1706:14.0
[Engine acceleration audible in KLM cockpit]
1706:18.19
TENERIFE TOWER OK.
1706:19.3
PAN AM (RADIO) No .. eh.[This message was not heard by the KLM crew due to a radio heterodyne.]
1706:20.08
TENERIFE TOWER Stand by for take-off, I will call you. [This message was not heard by the KLM crew due to a radio heterodyne.]
1706:20.3
PAN AM (RADIO) And we're still taxiing down the runway, the clipper one seven three six. [This message was not heard by the KLM crew due to a radio heterodyne.]
1706:19.39 - 1706:23.19
TENERIFE TOWER Roger alpha one seven three six report when runway clear.
1706:29.6
PAN AM (RADIO) OK, we'll report when we're clear.
1706:31.7
TENERIFE TOWER Thank you
1706:xx.x
PAN AM CAPTAIN Let's get the hell out of here.
1706:xx.x
PAN AM FIRST OFFICER Yeah, he's anxious, isn't he.
1706:xx.x
PAN AM FLT ENGR Yeah, after he held us for half an hour. Now he's in a rush.
1706:32.43
KLM FLT ENGR Is hij er niet af dan? [Is he not clear then?]
1706:34.1
KLM CAPTAIN Wat zeg je? [What do you say?]
1706:34.15
KLM UNKNOWN Yup.
1706:34.7
KLM FLT ENGR Is hij er niet af, die Pan American? [Is he not clear, that Pan American?]
1706:35.7
KLM CAPTAIN Jawel. [Oh yes. - emphatic]
1706:40.0
[Pan Am captain sees landing lights of KLM Boeing at approx. 700 m]
PAN AM CAPTAIN There he is ... look at him. Goddamn that son of a bitch is coming!
PAN AM FIRST OFFICER Get off! Get off! Get off!
1706:43.4
KLM FIRST OFFICER Vee-one.
1706:44.0
[PH-BUF (KLM 4805) started rotation.]
1706:47.4
KLM CAPTAIN [Exclamation/expletive]
1706:50
N736PA (Pan Am 1736) records sound of collision.

Worst Air Disaster

I saw that Discovery Channel or the History Channel dubbed this the Worst Air Disaster in Aviation History? Or something to that extent? I'm pretty sure it wasn't due to September 11th but it may have been the Worst Air Collision in Aviation History. Something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.17.208 (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still considered the worst 'air disaster' given that that term is generally employed for describing aviation accidents. September 11 was not an accident. Cheers, Ian Rose 01:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two 747s begin journeys uneventfully

this title sounds very unencyclopedic to me. Should be reversed asap. Remember- Neutral and objective articles. Not- like an adventure is going to happen. Therefore, I suggest placing a tag 'not in encyclopedic style' if this is not corrected. Marminnetje 18:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC) edit: to explain myself better: the article should not be written like it's a story. Now it is. What about 'terrorist bomb thead', why was this reversed. Marminnetje 18:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Actually, I'd already removed some of the story-like elements/headings after they were added in recently but apparently they made their way back in. Have now had another go at getting a more encyclopedic tone to the article. Cheers, Ian Rose 21:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this article has a tendency to be adventurous and sensational from the beginning. I'll watch it now and then/ It's all those re-runs of NatGeo so-called documentaries i guess ^^ Marminnetje 19:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"So called" documentaries? ALL documentaries are "so called" documentaries. Asa01 (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last Stopover

Would Los Rodeos be considered the last stopover for the Pan Am and for the KLM? They technically "stopped over" there and were continuing to Las Palmas. --Vreddy92 (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One survivor of KLM plane

How come the article mentions that all 234 passengers and 14 crew members died (see Collision section) but it also mentions that 1 person of the KLM plane survived ('Robina van Lanschot', last sentence in Collision section). The television program I saw yesterday also mentioned that there was 1 survivor of the KLM plane. - Simeon87 (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is worded accurately. It says that van Lanschot "avoided the disaster" by not reboarding the plane, not that she "survived" the crash. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that makes sense - Simeon87 (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some remarks

1) In the intro, there's some information given about the Los Rodeos airport, i'd suggest moving it to miscellaneous .2) Where is the picture of the actual collision? It was a good picture and it was Certainly Fair use. And there was a few months ago, a new picture that was even better and I see it was removed again. Most pictures are Fair use if they are dedicated to the page, and have a low resolution, and have a good description. So, Why was it removed.Marminnetje (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

This name is just terrible. "Tenerife disaster" is a well established name for the event, within the aviation world and in the wider media. The reason given by Yellowdesk for the move is to Conform more closely to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide manual of style for titles. Previous title "Tenerife disaster" is vague. I think that for this particular accident an exception can be made to deviate from the style manual, same as with the Kegworth air disaster. In what way is Tenerife disaster "vague"? Abc30 (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although individuals knowledgeable in the history of aircraft accidents may wish to call the article Tenerife disaster, the title is non-specific in the extreme, and presumes there was and will be one disaster for all time for the locale.
Then there is the question, disastrous what?
Conquest by Spain in the 15th century decimating the native population?
Oil tanker grounding?
Passenger ship sinking?
Cholera outbreak?
Terrorist suicide attack?
Volcano eruption?
Tidal wave?
Accidental water poisoning?
Naval Battles?
20th Century emigration?
...This is the reason for having an aircraft accident naming guideline, so that articles are not named in a needlessly vague manner. For those readers searching for the article under "Tenerife Disaster", the several already existing redirects are found by search engines and point the reader to the article just fine. And the other 99.9 percent of the readers (there are tens of millions) who are unaware of the topic will be informed about the contents of the article via the title.
Here is a list of the redirects to the article as of this date, and part of the reason I did not include the flight numbers was that the flight numbers already redirect to the article.
  1. Pan Am 1736
  2. Pan Am Flight 1736
  3. KLM Flight 4805
  4. Flight 1736
  5. Conversation of pilots of KLM 4805 and Pan-Am 1736
  6. Tenerife Disaster
  7. Tenerife Airport Collision
  8. Tenerife Airport Disaster
  9. Tenerife disaster
  10. Los Rodeos disaster
  11. Tenerife Runway Incursion
  12. Karen Anderson (Pan Am Flight 1736)
  13. Robert Bragg
  14. Erma Schlecht
  15. Suzanne Donovan
  1. Warren Hopkins
  2. Sachiko Hirano
  3. Mari Asai
  4. Victor Grubbs
  5. George W. Warns
  6. Klaas Meurs
  7. Willem Schreuders
  8. George Warns
  9. Carla Johnson
  10. John Cooper (Pan Am Flight 1736)
  11. Juan Antonio Murillo Rivas
  12. Dorothy Kelly (Pan Am Flight 1736)
  13. Kim Fox
  14. Frances Hamann
  15. Joan Jackson (Pan Am Flight 1736)
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about a compromise, like "1977 Tenerife aircrash"? Surely you must agree that the current title is too long. Abc30 (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline is useful in most cases (e.g. to distinguish 1979 Garuda Fokker F28 crash from 1982 Garuda Fokker F28 crash). But for an event as unique (hopefully) as the one in Tenerife, it is wrong to slavishly follow the guideline - a more considered approach is called for. 82.1.63.238 (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about 1977 Tenerife airport disaster then? Abc30 (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's no different to Tenerife airport disaster (1977), which, as far as I am aware, is unnecessary disambiguation (there not having been any other Tenerife airport disasters). MickMacNee (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I just thought that maybe including the 1977 part would be a compromise between a sensible name and the "DATE LOCATION AIRCRAFT TYPE crash" format. Abc30 (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the previous title, "Tenerife Disaster" was perfectly good. But just about any two, three or four words from "1977 Tenerife Airport Disaster" would be fine by me - anything but the current title. 82.1.63.238 (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirects for the proposed titles have been created. No proposal has been put forward for why the guideines fail to be desirable, so far, except for "long name." The long name is actually the standard. Please respond to the topic modifying the guideline, since the redirects exist.
    Yellowdesk (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • First off, the 'long name' you have chosen is not in compliance with any standard as yet, as the guide says nothing about what to do with incidents involving multiple aircraft, and you have used the airline names not the AIRCRAFT names, and you have not even used the full AIRCRAFT name. But, ignoring that petty lawyering for the sake of argument, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide is not an official guideline, it is a rather badly worded third level style guide, which does not need to be adhered to when its use contravenes the very things it seeks to implement for its topic: the second level article disambiguation guideline and first level article naming policy. In these situations, you do not call for a change in the guide every single time it is found lacking, you ignore it. The guide's lead section even acknowledges this fact. With respect to the higher level guideline and policy, when compared to "Tenerife airport disaster", which concisely describes the article and conflicts with no other existing topic (and is a perfect google match to this event), the current 'long title', whether it currently meets the style guide or not, serves no purpose and solves no problem. It is merely a dogmatic obstacle to the reader and editor, who both have to deal with it: the reader in taking the extra seconds to figure out he has arrived at the Tenerife airport disaster article given he is never going to find this link in its full glory anywhere in an article (or type it as a search term), and the editor who has to go and pipe all those redirects where they now appear in articles, and keep coming back to this article to see its full correct title for piped use in the future. If all of this is not sufficient opposing argument beyond 'its too long', then I guess it will have to go to WP:RM as an opposed move. MickMacNee (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1977 Tenerife airport disaster sounds to me like a perfectly clear and precise title that does not have the disadvantages of the current title. Wolbo (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok well I think this has been discussed enough now. Can someone with the necessary skills please make the move. Abc30 (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree. The 1977 is wholly unnecessary as there are no other comparable events in the history of Tenerife Airport (The Dan Air holding pattern mountain collision hasn't even gained an article yet, and is not specifically linked to the airport itself, and when created can easily be named to meet the style guide for a single plane). It also completely negates the point of the search box, as nobody is ever going to search for this article by typing "1977...." first, they would start "Tenerife...." MickMacNee (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the awkwardness of the title. Say 1977 Tenerife aircraft collision or some variation of that. The airlines are assumed. All of the precedent says to have less, but at the same time the present title looks awkward. And with redirects, it would not be confusing. Moreover, that naming convention is for one-plane incidents, not two-plane incidents (where it is in fact awkward.)--Vreddy92 (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, someone please make the move already. There is clearly enough consensus. Abc30 (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It needs an admin as all the redirects are created. I will list it at WP:RM. MickMacNee (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. MickMacNee (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Tenerife airport disaster. JPG-GR (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per above section, this article was moved without discussion from Tenerife disaster to 1977 Tenerife KLM-Pan Am 747 runway collision, citing the vagueness of the name and the aviation project Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide. It has been discussed above and I believe agreed that the guideline is at best misguided and at worst innapplicable in this case, and should be ignored. Further, it has been agreed that a better name is either 1977 Tenerife airport disaster or Tenerife airport disaster, to clear up the confusion about what disaster was being referred to. To bring the issue to a close, I request a move to Tenerife airport disaster, as a date qualifier is not needed for this event, and including it hampers possible search terms. MickMacNee (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support MickMacNee's request for a move to Tenerife airport disaster. Abc30 (talk) 01:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I continue to desire to put a temporal location on the article. It does make a difference that this did not happen yesterday, nor in 2007, 1997, and also not in 1987, and it should be clearly stated in the title. It was a big deal, but it's not like World War II, to pick out another temporally featureless title. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 06:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all well and good, but does this personal opinion on what should be in a name have any grounding in either an official policy or guideline? (as opposed to just the aviation style guide, already shown to be somewhat irrelevant in this case) MickMacNee (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well yes, a perusal of the initial conversation indicates the location for the guide for air transport articles, saying that it is desirable to indicate the year, location, airline, and model number of the incident. Having the year is standard according to the guide, and I'm content to drop the airline and airplane model. The claim that the guide is irrelevant is rather categorical. That there are two aircraft and two airlines not obviate making use of the suggested convention. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above discussions, the guide is not relevant here as it is currently worded. And we only disambiguate names if there is a reasonable expectation of confusion, the fact there has been no notable disasters at the other airport means there is no possibility for confusion by just saying tenerife airport, and thus there is no need to mention rodeos in the title. MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name of the plane

  • I've noticed an error in the name of the KLM 747 PH-BUF, I went onto airliners.net and searched the regestration and got this result-[1] that is the same regestration but the name on the aircraft is The Flying Dutchman, please correct me if I am mistaken, Thanks Kingeorge (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The Flying Dutchman is a commercial nickname for KLM. The plane was called Rijn, Dutch for Rhine River. The name was (as is common) painted on the front of the plane, not on its tail. See this picture on Airliners.net (it's the second search result when searching for PH-BUF). Richard 07:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting me, I didn't notice that when I found my picture. George 11:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.204.135 (talk)

Well known?

Someone has added J. Monte Johnston to the paragraph Notable people killed in the disaster. Originally with the remark well-known pediatrician.

  • How well-known is he? I've never heard of him but I'm not from the US so maybe that has something to do with it. On the other hand, there is no article on Wikipedia on him - at least, not an article I could find.
  • Should he remain in that paragraph? Is he more notable than the other victims?
  • On the passenger list he is called Johnston, Monty. Should he remain in the article, which name should be used?

Richard 08:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

User Fighting for Justice removed this entry 20090303T0818. Richard 07:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of crash?

I was surprised to see no pictures of the crash, especially since they are so readily available on the net. Can we add some? Wildonrio (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There ARE no pictures of the crash itself. Most pictures of the aftermath that I know of have restricted use in some way. Richard 09:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And what's with these retarded CGI renderings that keep creeping up on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.65.119 (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"We are now at takeoff"?

I believe that all sources I have read about this accident say that the KLM crew's transmission after reading back the ATC clearance was "We are now at takeoff". The Spanish report here says "We are now at take-off." The official report in English here, already cited in the article, has "We are now at take off" on pages 46, 50, and 62 (PDF numbering), although on pages 7 and 60 it adds parentheses as if there was some uncertainty: "We are now (at takeoff)".

However, the article itself currently says:

...the statement "we're now at takeoff" or "we're now, uh, taking off" (the exact wording of his statement was not clear)

I'm adding a "fact" tag; if there are conflicting versions of what was said, they both should be sourced. --70.48.228.48 (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Dutch comments on the Spanish report mentions both possibilities. See: [2] page 6 and 9. --Wolbo (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ALPA report als mentions both options on page 16. [3] --Wolbo (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Jan Bartelski's Book "Disasters In The Air" (pg 261 in the 2001 edition) he points out that Meurs had already reported to the tower that they were lined up ready for departure a few seconds earlier (immediately before asking for ATC clearance) and so to say 'We are at take-off' would be repeating himself, which Bartelski says '...does not appear to be a rational deduction'. He then points out that Meurs had a habit of slipping 'ahs' into his messages, there are other examples of this in the CVR transcript. He claims that what Meurs 'most likely said' was: "and we're now...ah...taking off".

Bartelski was an ex KLM Captain who knew Van Zanten and had flown many times with Meurs as his first officer. After retiring from KLM he became the President of IFALPA for seven years and after retiring from this position research air crashes before writing his book. It seems this work, "Disasters In The Air", ISBN 1 84037 204 4 meets the wikipedia critearea as a published reliable source and provided care is taken to distinguish between Bartelski's speculation and his factual content (the book itself is well sourced) then IMHO this should be included in the references for the article. SAHBfan (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deceptive CGI

The picture appears to identify a head on collision! Furthermore the caption is misleading suggesting the Pan am was moving. --Thelostlibertine (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just prior to the collision the planes were facing each other. The Pan Am was moving and tried desperately to get off the runway (that's why the impact was not head on). The caption reads Pan Am 1736 about to be hit by KLM 4805 (not: about to hit) so it should be clear that the KLM was the faster moving plane. Richard 07:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I propose merging Jacob Veldhuyzen van Zanten here. Other than the disaster, he probably wouldn't meet WP:N. See WP:1E. --76.117.164.50 (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red XN Though I agree with your reasoning, I don't agree with your solution. This would cause contamination in the article on the disaster since Van Zanten's biography has nothing (or at least, not much) to do with the subject. It would be comparible (though not identical) to merging William Booth into The Salvation Army. That too is something which is in my opinion undesirable. Richard 07:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had a look at Booth's article. It seems there is a lot more to say about him than there is to say about van Zanten. I therefore disagree with the comparison you make, though I understand it. --76.117.164.50 (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Red XN There are many people who meet WP:N only because of one single event or disaster. Perhaps a better example than William Booth might be Barings Bank and Nick Leeson. Leeson would be totally unknown if it were not for bankrupting the bank. Arguably the Leeson entry could be merged into the Barings entry, but with both Leeson and Veldhuyzen van Zanten these people are of interest because they are pivotal to the disasters that made them notable, but whose life stories are not directly relevent to the main subject. I do think the VVZ's biography needs licking into shape. It is largely based on a single source (In Dutch) and several of the references for statements made do not actually link to any supporting evidence. (The Dutch article does not substantiate the claim that Van Zanten was described as 'Mr. KLM', for example). There are other statements about VVZ from reliable citable sources which could be included. SAHBfan (talk) 07:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Red XN Per SAHBfan's reasoning; his biography is not mostly focused on this crash, and much of the biography's information would not fit properly in this article. He seems notable enough to deserve his own separate article. -- CB...(ö) 02:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing information

In "Speculations" we are offered the idea: "The flight engineer's apparent hesitation to challenge van Zanten further, possibly because Captain van Zanten was not only senior in rank, but also one of the most able and experienced pilots working for the airline".

This suggestion has been repeated in various sources. However, there is another possible explanation. The controller had continually used the call "Clipper 1736" for the whole time that the Pan Am aircraft was at Los Redeos airport, with just one exception. The message that was overheard by the Flight Engineer was "Papa Alpha 1736 report when runway clear". This can be seen in the CVR Transcript. This is the only time the controller used the phonetic alphabet for either call sign and the only time he used the call sign "Papa Alpha" instead of "Clipper". Remember, other aircraft were also using the radio frequency. Consequently it is very probable that the flight Engineer wasn't certain if the message concerned the Clipper Victor. This is documented in the ALPA report, Page 22. When he asks the pilots if the Pan Am is clear they BOTH replied 'Jawel', see ALPA report page 13. There is an interview, available on youtube, with Paul Roitch. He was head of the American ALPA team and had studied the recordings of the cockpit voice recorder many times. In this interview he states quite emphatically that BOTH the Captain and the First Officer reply 'Jawel' to the Flight Engineer's query. This is extremely relevent, because it demostrates that First Officer Meurs was also convinced that the Pan Am had vacated the runway. It does tend to strongly contradict the idea that both the Flight Engineer and First Officer wished to challenge the Captain further but were reluctant to do so because of his seniority. It suggests instead that the FE lacked conviction in his challenge because he was unsure and he was reassured by both pilots, who believed the runway was clear. I beleieve these two facts should be included in the article and citations made to the APLA report.SAHBfan (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On page 17 of the ALPA report I can find the claim that both captain and first officer almost simultaneous responded "yes". Also, on page 22 it's stated that flight engineer's question was dismissed by both pilots.
However, this is not in accordance with the CVR transcript which is included in that same report. On page 7 of the KLM transcript (page 39 of the ALPA report) at 1706:34.70 only C1 (the captain) answered "Oh yes". That is also on page 3 of the official CVR transcript ("jawell").
Therefore, I cannot find support for the claim. Which is not to say the claim is invalid - I just can't verify it. Do you have any other sources supporting the claim in the ALPA report?
Richard 08:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you listen to the documentary "Blackbox 05 part 3 0f 5" then you can hear Paul Roitch, one of the American investigators who studies the original cockpit voice recordings, stating "and BOTH crew members said 'ja,ja, he's clear'..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__sHqYEF204&feature=PlayList&p=E6D0A88F8829058A&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=9
Roitch's interview starts at 4:58. The relevent comment is at 7:19.
The comments in the ALPA report are based on the personal experience of the investigators who had studied the recordings.
The transcripts are someones best attempt at typing what they have heard. Expletives are deleted, Dutch comments are translated into English, or Spanish and best guesses made at intelligble speech or where the identity of the speaker is unclear.
There are various versions of the transcripts, as you know, and they do not neccesarily agree. There are discrepencies between the version that appears in the ALPA report and the one in the appendix to the Spanish report. I don't believe, therefore, that the transcript is neccesarily the final word. I believe the testimony of the American investigators is as reliable a form of verification as we will get and better than is available for many other claims in the article. At least we have two seperate sources, a written report and a personal testimony given some years later. SAHBfan (talk) 09:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this source is that it's not an entirely independent one. Furthermore, he's telling a narrative, a recollection of what he heard years before. As far as I know, only "oh jawel" (oh yes) was said, and not "ja, ja, he's clear". Even if the first officer has said "ja", I can't say how he said it - I haven't heard the intonation he used. He might have said "ja?" (meaning "ja toch?" or "he is, isn't he?") thereby seconding the flight engineer rather than the captain. This is speculation, of course, but much of this interpretation is speculation since we obviously can't question the persons involved.
Which, again, doesn't mean the claim is false. I think something like this might be added to the existing text (not replacing it) so both theories are voiced. I will give it a try. See how you like it.
Richard 13:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I have included this new speculation. However, I have used the names "Clipper 1 7 3 6" and "Alpha 1 7 3 6" since those names appear in the vcr transcripts, not "Clipper Victor 1 7 3 6" and not "Papa Alpha 1 7 3 6". The sentence in question was "Roger Alpha 1 7 3 6 report when runway clear".

Hi, Yes, I like it. However, with phrase "Roger Alpha 1 7 3 6 report when runway clear", interestingly this is a very good example of where the transcripts disagree. You have obviously found a CVR transcript which says "Roger Alpha". Here is one (the photocopy included as an annex to the Spanish Report) which says "Papa Alpha".

http://www.project-tenerife.com/engels/PDF/Anexonumero5.pdf

You will need to put your head at 90 degrees to read this - but you can find the 'Papa Alpha' comment on page 3.

I wouldn't bother changing what you have written, as we can not say which is the correct version, but it does illustrate what I was saying about the CVR transcripts not being the final word. There are at least three 'official' versions, Dutch, American and Spanish, each prepared (presumably) by the same Government agency in the US who were given the task of analysing the CVRs. I don't think it is possible to say one is more correct or authentic than any other, but they do differ...(!)

An additional factor which might be relevent to add at this point is that the controller goofed the numbers in the call sign on at least two occassions. He refered to the KLM as 'KLM8705' rather than 'KL4805' (See 17:04:58:2 and 17:05:53:4) This is another reason why the KLM crew may have been more tuned into the names "Clipper" and "KLM" than the numbers, as he seems to be getting the numbers wrong. SAHBfan (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hej,
I know ATC made errors in the call signs but since the article doesn't mention that at all I have omitted that information as well - at least, for now. For the point that's being made it doesn't matter anyway.
Also, I do know that pdf-file. I have a local copy of it and Acrobat Reader can turn the pages for me so that saves my neck :) But you're right, the transcripts do differ from each other.
Last week I sent an e-mail to Project Tenerife for yet another problem in the transcripts. It seems to be an internal inconsistency, but it *might* be at the heart of the claim that both pilots dismissed the engineers question. I will inform you further about that when I have more information.
Richard 06:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think the goofed callsigns on the part of the controller really should be included in the main article. He made three mistakes in as many minutes. They are a vital piece of evidence that he wasn't functioning optimally. Either he was very tired at the end of a very long day or possibly he was distracted by something. Either way I would have thought this was very relevent. SAHBfan (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it wasn't relevant, I just said it doesn't matter for the point being made. Since it's not included anywhere in the article, I thought I should not introduce new information in a chapter on speculations. That's what I meant with "for now". If you want to add it to the main article, please do... afther that, inclusion in "speculations" might be in order. Richard 08:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll see if I can add it later this week. SAHBfan (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I've just found this in the "Dutch comments on the Spanish report". I'm suprised I've missed it before:

"On the question of the flight, engineer: “Is hij er niet af dan?” (Did he not clear the runway then?), repeated with: “Is hij er niet af, die Pan American?” (Did he not clear the runway, that Pan American?). both pilots reply with:; “Jawel” (Yes, he did)."

This is a direct copy, complete with unorthodox use of punctuation and capitalisation. It is on page 7 of 11. The Dutch team are quite independant to the American Team and so I would have thought this was excellent corroboration. We now have three sources (ALPA report, Dutch comments and Paul Roitch's personal recollection). SAHBfan (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right.
Playing the devil's advocate I submit that another Dutch report (the one of the Raad voor de Luchtvaart - Aviation Board) states on page 7 of 9 that "De boordwerktuigkundige vroeg om 17.06.32,43 - alleen in de stuurhut hoorbaar -: "Is hij er niet af dan?". De gezagvoerder vroeg daarna:"Wat zeg je?", waarop de boordwerktuigkundige de vraag stelde: "Is hij er niet af, die Pan American?". De gezagvoerder antwoordde: "Jawel"." (translation: the flight enigineer asked at 17:06:32.43 - only audible in the cockpit -: "Isn't he clear then?". The captain asked:"What did you say?", upon which the flight engineer asked the question: "Isn't he clear then, that Pan American?". The captain replied: "Yes".).
Personally, I think most investigation teams were influenced by one another in some way. Meurs may have replied - I don't know. Since it's no longer verifiable it's speculation. But wait - that's where I've added this information in the first place.
Richard 08:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Refuelling

In the section on refuelling we are given the following scentence:

"Captain van Zanten had decided to fully refuel at Los Rodeos instead of Las Palmas, apparently to save time, but added extra weight, greatly retarding liftoff (and accident escape) ability, which proved fatal. The refuelling took an estimated 35 minutes. By a factor of just 12 feet of lack of maneuver clearance, due to KLM's refuelling..."

Firstly, a minor point, this is written in a mix of British English and American English.

More importantly it contains several assumptions. Is there any evidence anywhere that Captain van Zanten made the decision to refuel? There are at least two other possibilities. He had just communicated with KLM headquarters via HF radio link. Possibly they had requested he refuel in order to reduce turn around time at Schiphol (The Spanish reports points out that the aircraft had sufficient fuel to reach Amsterdam without refuelling, so this could make more sense than the suggestion that VZ refuelled to save time in Las Palmas). Also possible is that there was a standing KLM instruction regarding the amount of fuel carried when the service is running behind schedule. Extra fuel would carry a large cost penalty due to the weight. Aircraft do not generally 'fill up' for short haul flights, they carry adequate fuel for the journey plus a safety margin. In this case the KLM took on considerably more fuel than was required for the return journey. This does tend to suggest that consideration was being given to what happened beyond the return flight to Schiphol, so it may not have been a decision of Captain van Zanten.

Additionally, do we know what the total fuel load was? I do not recall reading anywhere that the fuel load was at it's maximum capacity, or that the extra load would 'greatly' retard lift off. I believe the 747 was still operating well below it's maximum take off weight and that otherwise the take off run would have been quite normal. Additionally, we know from the official reports that the aircraft wasn't using full engine power, but was taking off on reduced revs. The first officer called V1 well before Charlie 4, so lift off would have been shortly afterwards. That is considerably less than half of the runway, so it would not have been in any way an unusual or 'greatly increased' take off run. The sentence seems to give the impression that the fuel load was a significant factor. Obviously with less fuel it would have lifted off sooner and MIGHT have missed the Pan Am, but this is just one of the very many small factors which, if they had been different... Surely it is not a significant cause or factor in the crash? SAHBfan (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, this is the first time I've heard someone question whether Van Zanten was solely responsible for te decision on refuelling. Fact is that he was in a hurry: KLM was strictly enforcing duty time limits and the crew of the plane would be pushing it - even without significant delay on Las Palmas. Plus: had Van Zanten received an order to refuel that he didn't support I think he would have at least said so - and given his status within KLM his objection surely wouldn't have been simply dismissed.
The extra fuel weighed reportedly over 40 tons.
The plane had exceeded its V1-speed but had not yet reached its V2-speed. There's no way of knowing how much runway it would have needed to reach that speed. The dragging tail reduced the plane's speed so it simply wasn't ready to take off. But even if it had been ready, 40 tons of extra weight surely affected its climbing capabilities - there is also no way of knowing what its ascent ratio would have been. All in all I think the extra fuel did make a significant difference. But as so often, it was only one link in a chain of events.
The fact that the fuel literally added fuel to the flame(s) is a different story.
Richard 10:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the point that the plane commenced refuelling Las Palmas was closed and the crew did not know when it would re-open, therefore VZ was unlikely to over-rule a request to refuel on grounds of time. However, my point is that the claim that VZ ordered the plane to be refuelled IS an assumption. We have no evidence that VZ ordered the refuelling. There are other possibilities.

As for the fuel load, 40 tons may sound a lot (I believe he took on 50,000 litres? That is actually nearer 50 metric tonnes) but my point was that it is well within normal operating params for a 747. The max take off weight for a 747-200 is 378 metric tonnes. Maximum fuel capacity is just under 200,000 litres. To put it in context, they added 1/4 of a tank-full. A very rough and ready calculation: A 747-200 has a range of just under 7000 miles with 200,000 litres. The official report claims that prior to refuelling they had enough fuel to return to Schipol, about 2000 miles. So...(2/7 * 200000) about 57,000 litres? So adding another 50,000, just over half the maximum load? All rough guestimation on my part, but I strongly suspect that at take off they were carrying a lot less fuel than they could have done. My point is they did not 'fully refuel' as claimed in the text. It also claims 'fully fuelled' in the intro. I simply do not know how close they were to their max take off weight, but I believe to claim 'fully fuelled' is misleading.

I'm not sure I agree that there is no way to know how much runway would be need to get from V1 to V2min, I suspect it would be possible to make a reasonable estimate if the aircraft weight and point of V1 is known. I suspect someone familiar with the 747 could make an estimate of the effect on performance of the increased payload. So, I'm not at all sure that there is 'no way of knowing' - but I do fully accept that *we* do not know. That rather makes my point - the sentence claims the fuel 'greatly increased' the take off run. How can the paragraph claim 'greatly increased' if we accept we do not know? Without reference to some evidence, I humbly submit that is pure assumption. Obviously the take off run would be increased, but my objection is to the word 'greatly'. It implies a big degredation in performance as if this was therefore an unusually overloaded take off. I don't believe it was, I maintain the aircraft was operating without normal limits, nothing unusual.

I think the sentence should be re-writtenSAHBfan (talk) 08:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then by all means change the sentence into "The KLM Boeing was refuelled at Los Rodeos instead of Las Palmas, presumably to avoid further delay at that airport. However, the extra fuel also meant extra weight, which in turn meant a lower liftoff (and as it turned out, accident escape) capability." Surely that's accurate. The only assumption is the reason why refuelling took place in the first time, but I think that's a safe one. Richard 08:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The heavier fuel load meant that the aeroplane would have needed more runway to take-off in, so if he hadn't taken on additional fuel (and not over-rotated and let the tail drag along the ground, thereby slowing the aircraft down when what it needed most of all was airspeed) the KLM 747 may well have been able to clear the Pan-Am aircraft, if only enough to hop over it.
However, the point is moot, as without the delay caused by the KLM aircraft's refuelling the accident would probably never have happened. The accident, like so many others, was simply a result of a number of people making poor decisions that, to them, seemed like good ones at the time. In any other circumstances, at any other time, the KLM pilot's decision to go wouldn't have resulted in anything other than a normal flight to their destination. Unfortunately, this time it didn't, due to a conspiracy of events that went unrecognised by the participants at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Communication Misunderstandings

In this section we have:

"The captain interrupted the co-pilot's readback with the comment "We're going". As noted in the Nova documentary, the subordinate co-pilot this time chose not to embarrass his superior a second time and state they still did not have the proper clearance to take-off."

Surely this is completely inappropriate? The Nova documentary uses cameos played by actors to give one possible interpretation of events. It isn't a relable source of factual information, it is a 'based on the facts' TV drama. The Dutch Captain actually said 'We gaan' in Dutch ('we go' or 'we're going') followed by 'Check Thrust' in English. These were instructions to the Flight Engineer given whilst the FO was giving the read back to the controller over the radio. In the Nova documentary the actor certainly 'interupts' the first officer and is made to seem very arrogant in doing so - but we can not present this as fact in a wikipedia article, the CVR transcript certainly doesn't confirm this, it is pure specuation. In addition, we have now way of knowing what was going on inside First Officer Meurs head, again the idea that he didn't want to embarrass his Captain is pure specualtion. I think this should be removed and replaced with a statement of the what we know actually happened as can be verified from the CVR. SAHBfan (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rewording might be in order. However, that no second objection was voiced is supported by the known facts, and that cockpit hierarchy played a role is widely accepted. It's no coincidence that the NASA workshop on what would later be called Crew Resource Management was held in 1979 - shortly after "Tenerife". Richard 10:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verified miscommunication

Pan Am's transmission right after the Tower's "OK" seems a verification of how the communication from the tower could be interpreted as a clearance for takeoff. I was thinking of changing the line as follow:

The Pan Am crew's transmission, which was also critical, was reporting that "We're still taxiing down the runway, the Clipper 1736!" (A response which seems to indicate that the Pan Am crew also recognized a clearance for takeoff in the Tower's "OK"). This message was also blocked by the heterodyne and inaudible to the KLM crew.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vernes (talk • contribs)

First, KLM transmitted we are now at take-off.
Then came two simultaneous transmissions:
Ok. (pause) Stand by for take-off, I will call you
and
No ehm... And we're still taxiing down the runway...
The pause seems to indicate that at first, the tower failed to recognize that KLM might already be taking off. As soon as ground control recognized the ambiguity they tried to make sure KLM wasn't doing so. The problem was that PanAm did as well, thereby creating a heterodyne. In chronological order this is what was said:
Ok. No ehm... Stand by for take-off, I will call you. And we're still taxiing down the runway...
That last remark was made less than a second after the order to stand by. Except for the OK, nothing was audible in the KLM's cockpit.
So, PanAm recognized the ambiguity in KLM's transmission. The OK was transmitted after KLM had begun its take-off. It was not interpreted as a clearance for take-off but as an acknowledgement of an ambiguous transmission.
Richard 08:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Van Zanten being potrayed as a total jerk

In the Crash of the Century documentary from Air Crash Investigation, I could not belive the remarks that came out of his mouth. Especially when he COMMANDED a flight attendant to search for missing passengers. He yelled at that poor woman like he was like a drill seargent!! and he was also very snobbish in that documentary! It was like he thought he was right, everybody else was wrong. Did this really happen? was there any indication that Jacob Van Zanten was that mean in the CVR?

fraroc 9:23, 20 January 2010 (Eastern) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.72.47 (talk)
He was under a lot of stress and a bit agitated. I think the makers of the documentary used their artistic freedom to illustrate that. Maybe Van Zanten did pull rank in some instances, I don't know. If you want to read a CVR transcript, it can be found (among other places) here and here. The second link points to a pdf-file that is a photocopy of a Spanish report. It looks a bit smudged but is more complete than the text the first link points to - there, some timestamps have been omitted. Richard 08:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Photo

What in the world is this CGI image doing here? It's not the actual event, nor does it provide any additional detail or information, which makes it gratuitous. Further, since the planes were on the runway, but the image shows them in the sky, it's misleading as well.

Anyone have any comments before I remove it? FellGleaming (talk) 04:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, leave it, unless you have a better free image we can use. It doesn't show them in the sky and seems reasonably accurate. --John (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those "clouds" are fog. Richard 07:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The CGI Picture

If visibility was 300m, then the CGI rendering of the collision (complete with dramatic comment of "Some fog has been cleared to give a clearer perspective of the aircraft" is inaccurate. 300m may represent poor visibility in aviation terms, but in real life it is only a light fog, not this dense pea soup that the artist has conjured up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.133.145.238 (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ILS Hold Line

I've seen it mentioned a few places online that some feel it was inappropriate for ATC to place both aircraft on the runway at the same time. Since the reason this was done hasn't really been mentioned in any documentary or article I've read I can see how some may feel this is being overlooked. I suspect what may have happened was due to overcrowding of the ramp the Pan Am 747 was parked over the ILS hold line for the runway. If true this would not have been an issue during most of the delay as visibility was good. The airport would have had to close though if visibility dropped until aircraft could be repositionied. When the visibility dropped KLM would not be able to takeoff until Pan Am was repositioned. If for some reason KLM had to return on an instrument approach then an aircraft beyond the ILS hold line could have interferred with the navigation signal of the instrument landing system. The Runway Visual Range required for takeoff takes into consideration visibility required for an instrument approach to return. This scenario would explain why both KLM and Pan Am were required to be on the runway at the same time. Can anyone confirm this was the case? I couldn't find it in the reports I looked in. Google Earth overview of Tenerife appears to show the runway hold line was moved in recent years from near the runway to behind where Pan Am was parked. The old hold line was visibly painted over. This suggests the current hold line may have been the previous ILS hold line but doesn't prove it. Some airports mark the runway hold line where an ILS hold line would otherwise be required but again that doesn't mean this is the case here. Skywayman (talk) 04:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First: did they have ILS back then?
Second: if there would have been a hold line, why would the Pan Am plane have been instructed to leave the runway?
I think the reason that both planes were on the runway is more simple: they tried to get the planes (that shouldn't have been on Tenerife in the first place) away as soon as possible. The weather was already changing and they wouldn't risk having to keep the planes (plus passengers) on an airport that wasn't nearly equipped to handle them. Remember, the two 747's weren't the only planes diverted to Tenerife. That was one (the?) reason they used the runway for taxiing - closest to the terminal the taxiway was unavailable because there were planes parked on it.
Richard 18:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The official report on this accident confirms an ILS was active at the field on 110.3 MHz although it does not state if this is for runway 12 or 30. I'm not sure I understand your question about why Pan Am would have been instructed to leave the runway since in theory no one could take off until they left the runway. I had always assumed that controllers were eager to get the planes out quickly because as you point out there was a lot of traffic that shouldn't have been there. That doesn't fully explain why both were on the runway at the same time. If it was a controller discretion decision then this should have been more fully examined. If it was required to clear traffic beyond the ILS hold line then it became a mandatory procedure. Skywayman (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They were parked beyond where the ILS hold line is at present. I don't know whether they have moved that line since 1977. But even if they were parked before the ILS hold line, the fact remains that control gave Pan Am orders to leave the runway well before its end - in order to clear the way for KLM. And KLM knew that Pan Am was following them. So the reason for the decision to have both 747 taxi on the same runway at the same time is not that important. They were there, and everyone involved was aware of that. Richard 09:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question about photograph of the two planes at start of article

I remember the Tenerife disaster first hand when it occurred in March, 1977. I also saw a made for TV movie about the disaster. The photograph at the beginning of the article gives false information and should be deleted, because the planes are shown in the air just before the collision takes place. As I recall, BOTH planes were on the runway immedatiately before impact. The pilot of the takeoff plane unsuccessfuly tried to lift off the runway before impact. This was NOT a mid-air collision, as is depicted in the photograph at the beginning of the article. If the photograph gives false information, it should be deleted.

Anthony22 (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also #Article Photo above. If you click on the picture you will see a larger version of it. Then the landing gear of the KLM as well as the runway becomes visible. They're obscured by fog - clouds on ground-level, not in the air. Richard 08:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear that way to many people who look at it, so it does give a false impression. --90.220.76.190 (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More image confusion

I'm having trouble reconciling the CGI rendering at the top with the diagram further down the page showing the runway and each flight's respective path. If the diagram is correct (and I believe it is), then can the CGI image be correct? It makes the Pan Am jet look like it's turning sharply left into the path of the KLM jet rather than taking "a sharp left turn towards the grass", as stated in the article. Rivertorch (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The CGI image is correct; what you see at the bottom of the image is the runway centerline (each stripe on the centerline of a runway is over 100 feet long). The image depicts the Pan Am jet (which was taxiing along the centerline) attempting to turn left off the runway while the KLM jet attempts to climb away. N419BH 05:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was allowing for the scale (and for the speed of the KLM) but it still looked "off" to me. I'll take your word for it, but I think it's confusing. One possible contributing factor to the confusion is the fact that the Pan Am jet appears smaller, even though it's in the foreground. Rivertorch (talk) 05:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bragg's conflicting comments

"Subsequent to the crash, first officer Robert Bragg, who was responsible for handling the Pan Am's radio communications, made public statements which conflict with statements made by the Pan Am crew in the official transcript of the CVR. In the documentary Crash of the Century (produced by the makers of Mayday), he stated he was convinced the tower controller had intended they take the fourth exit C-4 because the controller delivered the message to take "the third one, sir, one; two, three; third, third one" after the Pan Am's had already passed C-1 (making C-4 the third exit counting from there).[11] The CVR shows unequivocally that they received this message before they identified C-1, with the position of the aircraft somewhere between the entrance and C-1. Also, in a Time article, Bragg stated that he made the statement "What's he doing? He'll kill us all[!]" which does not appear in the CVR transcript."

The article states Pan Am received the instruction ""the third one, sir, one; two, three; third, third one" after the Pan Am's had already passed C-1". While the CVR shows this is true, does this still violate WP:OR (specifically WP:SYNTHESIS)? Has the fact that Bragg's comments conflict with the CVR actually been published anywhere?

Bramley (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old report URL

From the NTSB

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pages of Spanish report in Spanish

These pages are archived so that future generations can look at them...

Main report

Appendices

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Runway incursion

I deleted runway incursion from the infobox as a cause of the accident as both airplanes were authorized to be on the runway at the time. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ATC Error?!

—RE Below paragraph: Okay, if no one else cares about Wikipedia perpetrating this libel, then I will remove the offending characterization of ATC error on my own volition. It was absolutely clear that ATC gave ATC clearance only, standard procedure before issuing final takeoff clearance. They are always two separate orders as the KLM crew well knew. Even assigning partial blame to the two controllers on duty that fateful day at Tenerife is not only libelous but shameful. They acted in a completely professional manner under very difficult and stressful circumstances throughout the diversion to the airport. If no one states a good reason to retain it, I shall shortly remove the offending assertion of ATC error from the article.


I have read stories about the controllers at Tenerife: you know, a couple of banana republic fellows with their shoes off, feet up on a desk, listening to a soccer match while sipping coffee, totally unprepared and incapable of handling the unexpected increase in traffic due to the terrorism incident at Las Palmas. I have analyzed this tragedy every which way to Sunday, and I can find absolutely no culpability on the part of ATC at Tenerife. None!

Van Zanten took off without clearance and other “contributing” reasons for the disaster are irrelevant. One might as well blame the terrorist who planted the bomb at Las Palmas as a contributing factor along with radio interference. There is never any excuse for taking off or landing without clearance. End of story! At the very least, under disaster “type” I believe ATC error be removed as inaccurate and potentially libelous! — Preceding HistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tenerife_airport_disaster&oldid=459035377"