Talk:1999 South Dakota Learjet crash

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article1999 South Dakota Learjet crash has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 27, 2007Good article nomineeListed
September 21, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Article creation[edit]

This article has been created after discussion on the Learjet 35/36 talk page. Given the extraordinary circumstances of this accident, it certainly meets all notability criteria.

The name was selected based on a general naming convention for disasters, which is <<year>> <<place>> <<event>>. I have deliberately not included Stewart's name in the title, for the same reasons that it was inappropriate to include Cory Lidle's name in the title of the article 2006 New York City plane crash (for a discussion of this, see Talk:2006 New York City plane crash#Rename to 2006 New York City plane crash or Cory Lidle plane crash

The article is based, so far, mainly on the NTSB accident, portions of which are included directly, as the NTSB is a public domain document. There's a lot more information from the NTSB files which I'll be culling through, but this, at least, is a start. Any and all are invited to join in the project. Akradecki 00:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember I had been going to start this article some time. Well, I'm glad you beat me to the job; really great work, unfaultable so far. I will lend a hand, however, at some point, once the Adam Air Flight 574 article has calmed down a bit. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 07:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article[edit]

I have passed 1999 South Dakota Learjet crash as a Good Article, because, well, it passes all the criteria. It's interesting and well written, it has citations and images (although there is room for improvement with a couple images) with good captions. It's stable, has a NPOV, and includes more than just basic information about the crash. Good job! – Dok(talk|contribs) 16:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article did not reference the source of the cabin pressure system (Honeywell, Tucson). The FPGAs controlling the quartz based air pressure sensors were later discovered by Honeywell to be faulty. These sensors could lock at either an extremely high or extremely low pressure or somewhere in between. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.36.50.233 (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Similar incidents[edit]

A couple of thoughts about the "Similar Incidents" Section. First of all, I came to this page from the Helios Airways Flight 522 article, and it seems like a very similar incident that should be included. However, with 7 or 8 similar incidents, it seems that a substantial part of this article is now not actually about the title crash. Certainly we don't have enough for a devoted list page, but if there are separate articles for the various other incidents we might just be better off creating links rather than summarizing. Another idea: If the similar incidents all fall within a nicely deliniated categorization of aircraft issues, we could have a devoted page to those types of issues, with a link and a little blurb.

Thoughts?

Samois98 05:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

When I created this article, the intent was to eventually spin the similar incidents which didn't warrant an article of their own off onto a separate hypoxia-related page. We currently have the article Hypoxia (medical) and there's enough material, both from the incidents and the actual aviation medicine perspective to do a separate article on it (maybe called Hypoxia (aviation)?). Just haven't gotten there yet.... AKRadeckiSpeaketh 05:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The phrase "in the last thirty years" has no value and should be deleted. 75.222.164.5 (talk) 04:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Only four "similar incidents" are listed. All four occurred in the last thirty years. If the expression in the last thirty years were to be deleted it could give the impression that there were no similar incidents prior to 1980. The original objective seems to have been to indicate that the list of similar incidents is not an exhaustive list, and only considers incidents that have occurred in the last thirty years. I would only be in favour of deleting the words in the last thirty years if alternative wording is added to indicate that similar incidents did occur in the decades up to 1980, even though no examples are given from that early time period. Dolphin51 (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 4[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lear jets at 39,000 feet?[edit]

Since when do lear jets fly at 39,000 feet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.250.100 (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The aircraft in question was a Lear 35. FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet No. A10CE shows that this model has a maximum operating altitude of 45,000 feet. See [1] and go to page 10 of 39. Dolphin (t) 01:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive similar incidents?[edit]

Do we really need so much detail in the similar incidents list? A brief list is fine, but this takes up nearly a quarter of the article, without adding anything relevant to the incident described. Let's just replace it with a list, and the link to the list of similar incidents? Guinness2702 (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 1999 South Dakota Learjet crash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do current autopilots ‘automatically’ cause a steep or vertical dive when thrust is lost?[edit]

That seems to have been the case in this tragedy. If so it's a profound, entirely unnecessary, and truly tragic technology oversight. I posted a detailed comment about this matter on the talk side of the Autopilot page.

Autopilots should not become abjectly stupid nor simply bail in response to loss of thrust. If they still do so the aviation community is suffering from a massive blind spot which will cause further wholly unnecessary tragedies.

I'm genuinely mystified. Please comment. --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 08:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Autopilots don't respond to loss of thrust by causing the aircraft to enter a dive. In the Payne Stewart case the autopilot disconnected and played no further role in the accident. When an autopilot disconnects, unless the pilot intervenes the aircraft will continue to fly, or not fly, as determined by the position of the trim tabs and engine controls.
An autopilot is a simple automatic-control system that reduces the workload on the pilot. A typical autopilot will maintain the altitude and heading set by the pilot. Most autopilots also have the ability to track to or from a VOR and to fly the localiser beam of an ILS. Some advanced autopilots also have the option to maintain the rate of climb or descent specified by the pilot.
Autopilots in civil aircraft are simple, low-cost systems designed to assist the pilot but they aren't required to deal with extremely rare situations such as total incapacitation of the flight crew. In most aircraft, an autopilot isn't mandatory - it is an optional extra so if the autopilot on offer is too expensive the operator is at liberty to choose not to have one.
What you are suggesting isn't an autopilot but a flight-monitoring system with so much authority that it can detect even rare events and then behave as an autonomous controller.
After the 911 attacks on tall buildings in New York there were suggestions that large aircraft should have autonomous controllers capable of monitoring the aircraft's flight path, determining the intention of the person at the controls and then refusing to crash, proceeding instead to a suitable airport and landing safely. That is still in the realm of science fiction. Dolphin (t) 22:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist to blame?[edit]

The pilot's check list was clearly found to be a contributing factor to this accident. It confused the pilots before it told them to don their oxygen masks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwbN762wTfo Yet this is not mentioned at all in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.189.78.210 (talk) 02:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've found the NTSB recommendation to change the checklist. A safety recommendation does not imply a contributing factor. It is common practice for an investigation to determine the causes, and make safety recommendations resulting from any of the circumstances discovered. In this case, the NTSB report explicitly says:

In summary, the Safety Board was unable to determine why the flight crew could not, or did not, receive supplemental oxygen in sufficient time and/or adequate concentration to avoid hypoxia and incapacitation.

So, we can't accurately say that the checklist was "to blame", but we could mention the recommendation in the article. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_crash&oldid=1196332026"