Talk:Gimli Glider

Still flying with Air Canada?

I've noticed that C-GAUN does not appear in the current list of Air Canada aircrafts: http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/fleet/fin.html If someone can confirm this information, maybe it's time to update the article. Tinchote 3:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Flights are still being logged for C-GAUN with Air Canada codes by this spotter site. The aircraft is due for a major check this month and when I was researching my edits to this article I saw suggestions that it would be more economical to retire the aircraft (other 767-200's have already been retired by Air Canada) than complete the check, so it may only be a matter of time. --FactotEm 16:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I work at YVR, and take note when I see this bird, and I just was her a month ago, so she is still flying.

Gimli is going to the runway in the sky. Employees and retirees are welcome to see her before departure at the AC line maintenance hangar in YUL on 24 Jan 08. Apparently, Pearson and Quintal are expected to attend.Phobal (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Injuries

The summary box states that there were 10 injuries, but in the fifth paragraph of Landing at Gimli it says there were no injuries. Which is it? TopherGZ (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

They're actually not in conflict. It says there were no injuries in the landing. As the same paragraph later points out, injuries occurred during evacuation of the aircraft after landing. The injuries occurred because rear slides were higher off the ground than intended due to the collapsed nose gear. Ikluft (talk) 04:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I see, I didn't look at it that way before. If I recall correctly, (at least in the US aviation) injuries can be attributed to an accident up to 30 days after the accident. I'd have to look for the particular FAR if anybody wants more details. TopherGZ (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Repairs

I find it remarkable that the repairs were completed so quickly that the aircraft was flown out of Gimli only two days after it landed there. Was it fully repaired in Gimli or just "patched up" to a point where it could be taken elsewhere for further work, inspections, and testing?

Thanks for this fascinating article. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It was just temp repaired there and flow out to a maintenance base where a more permanent repair could be made. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I recall seeing a short video from CBC.ca (probably still on their website) that shows footage of the aircraft departing Gimli. It was stated that the aircraft was being flown to Winnipeg for further repairs. Segelflieger (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Landing at Gimli...gap in the story?

This is a fascinating article. One of those really fun finds on Wikipedia. I'd like to comment on the landing section. They talk about how the strip was being used for a family fun day and was packed and seemed to indicate all the reasons NOT to land there, and then the next paragraph says they landed there. It appears to be missing a paragraph that discusses the reasons why they ultimately landed there and what precautions they had to take on the ground to accommodate the landing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.98.170.193 (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

They landed there because there was no where else to land - it was there or crash. There were no precautions on the ground because it was not an arranged landing, and was very much a surprise to the people on the ground. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct. The engines were out and they needed a runway or road within gliding distance to avert disaster. At a distance the pilots would have been just looking for a runway. By the time the pilots noticed there were people on the runway, there was no other choice left but to proceed anyway with intent to stop before them or hope that they'd move out of the way. One more lucky detail in the story... Ikluft (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the article needs clarifying on this. It clearly says there were TWO landing strips at Gimli (the second paragraph of 'Landing at Gimli'); one available as a runway/airstrip, one being used as a dragstrip.

Without explaining why, the next paragraph implies the plane landed on the dragstrip and not the airstrip. Presumably there was a reason why the airstrip was not available? or the pilots (lining up their approach from several miles away, and quite understandably in the circumstances) faced with two apparently viable runways, chose the 'wrong' strip?

This is not clear in the article at present. In fact, it is not even explicitly stated that they DID land on the dragstrip, it is just implied/assumed. Were the visitors/spectators parking on or occupying the other strip and preventing its use? Or something else?

As the parent poster noted too; was anyone at Gimli notified while the plane was gliding as to what was about to happen? Did Gimli maintain some sort of air traffic control for the active runway? and were they contacted? (Or did they simply not have enough time to do that? The glide time of the plane from the engine loss is not noted either).

I don't know enough details to fix it up but that section, as written, contains holes in the incident narrative. EasyTarget (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this is the problem sentence "The other runway was used regularly and maintained to a serviceable condition year round." From memory, the airbase was decommissioned. One runway was used as a dragstrip, the other was completely unused. This lack of use meant that it was not visible from the air, which is why the pilots ended up landing on the one 'runway' they *could* see: the dragstrip which, due to its alternate use, was visible from the air. At least that's how I recall it. Don't have access to sources though. FactotEm (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah-hah, I'm not the only one who was confused. See, it says that "cars and campers" were on the ground. Those can't be moved in a few seconds. Yet there's not a car in sight in the picture of the airplane after landing and no mention of damage on the ground. How did this happen? A paragraph is missing. I know nothing about this incident except for this article and what my seventh grade science teacher told us when he explained why units are important, so somebody else needs to add this. Please; it's a big hole in the story.

Also, the other runway was in use. From the article: "These were treated by a doctor who had been about to take off in an aircraft on Gimli's remaining runway." If one runway appeared blank while the other had a visible plane, this would explain it, but cars are visible from that height.

Finally, I still don't see any note of how long it glided. --Elemarth (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Addition to 5. Similar Incidents

I suggest adding an item in "5. Similar Incidents" about the recent gliding descent of USAir flight 1549 on January 15, 2008 into the Hudson River. The plane lost both engines, due apparently to a bird strike, at about 3000 feet if I understand correctly. The pilot, Chesley B. "Sully" Sullenberger III, apparently was also a glider pilot as Capt. Pearson was. The pilot did a masterful job as did Capt. Pearson in bringing the plane down, missing dense population areas, and bring the plane in without damage to the fuselage allowing the plane to remain floating long enough for all 155 passengers and crew to be rescued by ferry and police boats. 24.13.34.10 (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

First, thanks for coming to this page to discuss things (so often people don't). Anyway, sorry, but I still think that the Gimli Glider isn't similar enough to Flight 1549. There isn't any indication in the Flight 1549 article to suggest that Pearson used his glider experience to rectify things once he knew there was a problem. And the causes of the problems in each case were entirely different - a human miscalculation, and a flock of birds.--A bit iffy (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to fork off this section to it's own article, if there is not one already that covers notable unpowered gliding incidents by normally-powered aircraft. Otherwise, Flight 1549 should be included here, as none of the others seem to touch on the pilots' gliding experiences (or lack of it, in the case of the two crashes.) - BillCJ (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

See Category:In-flight airliner loss of all engines which I created to help with the development of the Flight 1549 article. (The name was made to be consistent with existing "In-flight airliner..." categories.) If you break out a list of similar incidents/accidents to a separate article, it may be worthwhile to consider making it a list article to correspond with that category. As far as Wikipedia article-writing is concerned, I don't think that too much emphasis should be made of whether the pilots had glider ratings, at least not as a criteria for inclusion in a list. Air Transat Flight 236 appears to be a counterexample, where Captain Robert Piche succeeded in gliding an A330 to a runway at the Azores after a leak threw all their fuel overboard in the middle of the Atlantic - I didn't find any statement that he had a glider rating. It was still a case of total aviation experience being a key factor in his success. (Though I personally respect what worthwhile experience a glider rating is, having completed mine recently.) Ikluft (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"Dripstick"

I have never in 50 years of working with aircraft and racecars, as well as ordinary cars, heard a dipstick referred to as a "dripstick." Granted fuel (or, more typically oil) does "drip" off it when it's withdrawn to take a reading, but the proper name "dipstick" comes form the fact that you "dip" it into the tank or sump of liquid that you're trying to measure. A dipstick usually is just a fancy wooden ruler.

Stephan Wilkinson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.192.39 (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's called a "dripstick" because it is not a dipstick. It is not stuck into the fluid and withdrawn. It is actually mounted into the bottom of the tank. If you click on the blue word in the article, it takes you to an article that explains how a dripstick works. Basically, it's a tube that is pulled down until fuel starts dripping into it. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You beat me to it by two minutes. I just learned what a dripstsick is, from another site, and you're absolutely right. Live and learn. Stephan Wilkinson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.192.39 (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

fin 604, Please Clarify

"C-GAUN, fin 604, was patched at Gimli and flown out two days later". What's fin 604, what is that reference for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.119.93 (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

604 is the manufacturers serial number, which is typically written on the tail fin. The registration code (eg 'C-GAUN') often gets changed (eg new owner, perhaps in a different country) but the fin number doesn't. Stepho-wrs (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The manufacturers serial number for this aircraft is/was 22520. 604 is the tail fin number Air Canada gave the aircraft. Air Canada numbered their 767s starting at 601. 604 would have been the 4th 767 purchased (or numbered since I think they were all purchased at the same time). Also, you're wrong about the fin number, that can change from airline to airline.--Lagerhog (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Stepho-wrs (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice Writeup

Wikipedia is better than an action novel! w00t! Simoncpu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC).

removed

I have removed this pending sourcing:

Two kids on bikes who were playing on the runway noticed Pearsons strickin plane barreling down the runway at them and decided to try and outrun it rather than exit the runway perpendicularily! This caused Pearson to consider steering the aircraft off of the runway and onto the grass rather than mowing them down.

Crum375 (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This anecdote with the kids was mentioned on the TV-show "Mayday" aka "Air Crash Investigations". No mention of Pearson considering to steer off was made, instead they said, that any change of course was simply out of the question. Since the show is "edutainment", I am not sure if its a reliable source and I cannot remember, if Pearson himself mentioned anything about that issue in his interviews for the show. Para-OZ (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Repair

In spite of what a persistent SPA vandal thinks, C-GAUN flew out of Gimli - page 200 of The human contribution: unsafe acts, accidents and heroic recoveries, J. T. Reason is just the first Google Books hit that confirms this. The wings of a 767 don't come off, not if you want to use teh aircraft later. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Origin of nickname

The article states in the first sentence that "Gimli Glider" is a nickname. Yet nowhere is it stated where the nickname came from. Newspapers? Television? A book? Amateur aircraft enthusiasts? — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

How about common sense?--82.113.99.160 (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Read the question again. — Hex (❝?!❞) 08:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Landing at Gimli

The section on Gimli mentions how the captain choose it without being aware of it's new function. The landing section mentions how various things like the plane scraping along the ground and slamming a guard rail help slow it down. In one of the shows (Mayday I think) it was suggested this may have reduced the chance of injuries or deaths to the people on the ground. I don't know how well supported this is but as it stands, there's little mention of them other then helping put out the fire and treating the injured. Nil Einne (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Rename page?

Hi,

Do you think the page should be renamed to Air Canada Flight 143? This would bring it into line with other air incidents / accidents for example Air Transat Flight 236. Its also probably worth noting that the aircraft is refereed as the Gimli Glider not the incident itself.

Thanks

--JetBlast (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

No. Do not rename. Air Canada Flight 143 is an un-notable regularly scheduled flight. This incident is notable for a) being in Gimli and b) glding a 767. "Gimli glider" captures this perfectly. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Other articles regarding air incidents have been renamed in this format, i cannot see why this should be any different. Other incidents have other notable names, for example the Lockerbie Bombing, on wikipedia the article is called Pan Am Flight 103, it is not called the Lorkerbie Bombing. This is why i think this article should be called Air Canada Flight 143. The reasons you stated above are not good reasons to buck the trend in my opinion. --JetBlast (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Then perhaps Pan Am Flight 103 should be renamed, because it is widely called the Lockerbie Bombing in the outside world. bobrayner (talk) 07:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Page not moved.--Breawycker (talk to me!) 23:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Breawycker (talk to me!) 23:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Gimli Glider → Air Canada Flight 143 – This would bring it into line with other air incidents / accidents for example Air Transat Flight 236. Its also probably worth noting that the aircraft is refereed as the Gimli Glider not the incident itself. Other articles regarding air incidents have been renamed in this format, i cannot see why this should be any different. Other incidents have notable names / more commonly known names An example is the Lockerbie Bombing, on wikipedia the article is called Pan Am Flight 103, it is not called the Lorkerbie Bombing. This is why i think this article should be called Air Canada Flight 143 and not Gimli Glider. JetBlast (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: That would mean all these articles will not follow this. I think this article should follow the same naming convention of all these. --JetBlast (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Examples

Air Transat Flight 236, Pan Am Flight 103, Singapore Airlines Flight 006, Alliance Air Flight 7412, Alaska Airlines Flight 261, CityFlyer Express Flight 8106 Crossair Flight 498, Korean Air Cargo Flight 8509, Korean Air Lines Flight 007, UPS Airlines Flight 6, United Airlines Flight 811, South African Airways Flight 295, Qantas Flight 1, Qantas Flight 30

The vast majority of those flights have no more common name than that used as their title; this one does, therefore that's what it should use. (The only exception is Lockerbie; I don't know why that title was chosen for that article, but I see no reason for it to govern the titling here). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. As I type this, Air Canada's Web site claims AC143 is on time for arrival in Ottawa at 7:12 PM, using an Embraer 190 aircraft. On the other hand, the "Gimli Glider" is uniquely the Boeing 767 that was forced down in Gimli in 1983. If we want arrival time for an air flight, we don't look in an encyclopedia; if we're interested in a famous air (near) disaster, we might look in an encyclopedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose we already have a redirect and it's mentioned in the first sentence. WP:COMMONNAME says it all. I appreciate the request for input and applaud your efforts to seek consensus before moving it! — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. The common name is "Gimli Glider", and Wikipedia is not so bureaucratic that we have to follow what WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS other stuff is called just because they are called that. It's what redirects are for. I don't see why we want to violate policy (COMMONNAME) to make things look consistent. 65.94.44.141 (talk) 05:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Readers won't be looking for precise consistency with the titles of other aviation incidents. They will be looking for the name they're familiar with. Using AC143 also risks confusion with something much more mundane about which we don't have an article. bobrayner (talk) 07:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The Pan AM Flight 103 is a red herring, the flight is often referred to by name in the media. Mjroots (talk) 11:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose since this article covers the incident and the aircraft, which became to be known as Gimli Glider. -Fnlayson (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

missing redirects

There are a few redirects missing... Air Canada 143 , C-GAUN , AC 143 , ACA143 , ACA 143

70.24.248.23 (talk) 12:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Well Done Article

Thank you to all that have contributed and edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt6617 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Minor error in section: Running out of fuel

The last sentence of the 3rd paragraph has a minor error in it. The sentence in question states; "While these provided basic but sufficient information with which to land the aircraft, a vertical speed indicator – that would indicate the rate at which the aircraft was descending and therefore how far it could glide unpowered – was not among them." Obviously what is really meant here is; "how long it could glide", not "how far". The time in minutes that one could remain alot is just the altitude divided by the sink rate in feet per minute. Without a VSI, Bob Pearson had to guess at how long they had aloft.

The "how far" calculation is obviously of interest, but it can be actually calculated without any knowledge of the sink rate. It requires a knowledge of the aircraft airspeed, winds aloft, and the aircraft "polar" (the "polar" was not available as hinted elsewhere in the article). Bob Pearson made an educated guess (and in hind sight, a damn good one) on the best glide, or best L/D speed to fly for calm winds. As a glider pilot who also flies power planes, I learned that a speed right around what gives maximum rate of climb under power is a good starting guess for best L/D if no other information is available. A good guess for the speed that minimizes sink rate is the best angle of climb under power from the POH. See the Wikipedia article Speed_to_fly for a summary of these technical details.

Anyhow, that sentence should obviously say "how long" rather than how far.

Segelflieger (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, this has been corrected. Just so you know, you could, if you so chose, edit the article yourself if there's anything else needing to be changed. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Protected

Again. So let's decide: "a chain of human errors"? "a chain of major human errors"? "a chain of minor human errors"? "a chain of relatively minor human errors"? "a chain of individually minor human errors"? Something else? I don't particularly care, but the two of you going back and forth over it is not solving anything. Present your arguments here, hopefully agree, if not bring in a third opinion, but if this protection expires and you start up again I'm going to block both of you, because this is getting ridiculous. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

There are many more ridiculous things on Wikipedia; we had an entire imaginary Russian physicist for a while, for instance. (There's entire bureaucratic processes that are at least as ridiculous.) It's not like they wake up some guy at the bus terminal and hand him the keys to a 767 - in this instance, we had a bunch of professionals individually making errors ( the likes of which are still happening today) and the concatenation is what lead to a serious incident. It's not that the pilot thought "Doot de doo, time to fly" and took off - he did the maths, checked the lists, and came up with the wrong answer. I think its important to identify that these errors individually were relatively minor and that its only the combination that gets it to be a Wikipedia-notable incident. It's an important illustration of the principle that in highly-reliable systems, the cause of breakdowns is the simultaneous occurrence of a bunch of individually unlikely events. If this article doesn't recognize this, Wikipedia is the poorer for it.

I've no idea of what algorithm my fan club uses to decide which of my edits to battle over; but as I've observed, there's no upwind side to the snow blower, and if you're going to clear the driveway, you're going to get some blowback. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Having just spotted this, I see that this edit war has been going on for quite while. Wtshymanski seems determined to hammer into the article that the chain of errors were all minor, but at his last reversion, they became 'relatively minor'.

Now my two penn'orth. Whether the errors were minor, major or a combination of minor or major would seem to be entirely Wtshymanski's personal opinion, because the claim is not backed up by any authoritative source. 86.157.171.34 claims that flying with no functioning fuel guages is a major error. In my opinion, he is quite correct because the regulations strictly prohibit flying with no functioning fuel guages - something the captain chose to do. Wtshymanski's contention is that the captain's belief that checking the tanks with the dripsticks was adequate and thus turns the major error into a minor error is entirely erroneous (especially given that if he seriously did believe it, then his belief was misplaced as it totally failed to identify that something was seriously wrong). If belief does change major errors to minor, then the chain of major errors that led to the 2000 Concorde crash in France, would become minor errors because at each stage, someone believed that what they were doing was right (sometimes because of a lack of evidence that it was not the case, but also sometimes down to sheer incompetance).

The article currently refers to, "... a chain of human errors ...". That is entirely accurate and needs no unreferenced qualification as to whether they are major or minor. It is my opinion that at least two of the errors were major, but Wikipedia articles are not constructed on my opinion and it would be quite wrong of me to insert the word 'major' before 'human errors'. The same argument equally applies to Wtshymanski's unqualified opinion that all the errors were minor. I B Wright (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with "a chain of human errors". In the absence of reliable sources classifying the errors as minor, major, etc., it violates WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:OPED for us to add this kind of value judgment on our own. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to confess, but the unqualified opinion angle had not occured to me (though perhaps it should have done). In view of the support for the point above, it has to be noted that once again an admin has protected an article such that the editor who is apparently right is prevented from ammending the article, but Wikipedia's resident edit warrior is still allowed free reign.

As far as Wtshymanski's point above is concered, the article refers to a chain of human errors (which, in itself, does not seem to be in dispute). As to whetehr they are "individually unlikely" is, in the absence of a supporting reference, once again a personal opinion and has no place in the article. 86.157.171.34 (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)