Talk:TWA Flight 841 (1979)

Dead link

Removed dead link:

• Airdisaster.Com Forums - Supersonic flight

Martin X. Moleski, SJ (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Log Book

There is a rumoured Aviation Week and Space Technology story that describes recovered log book pages which show problems with the slats before the incident. I'm not holding my breath, but if someone finds it, please discuss! 131.252.217.51 (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

When retraction of the flaps was ordered, the Number 7 leading edge flap failed to retract, causing the uncommanded roll to the right.

Shouldn't that be Number 7 leading edge slat? Also, if, per the previous sentence, the flaps were set independently, why would slat Number 7 have to be retracted? 69.64.235.42 (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

All the slats should have retracted when the flap lever was moved to the UP position; for some reason slat 7 didn't retract right. Eventually aerodynamic forces tore the whole thing off AVKent882 (talk) 05:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

IGhhGI (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Maintenance History of N840TW

Comment-question, posed on 2May09:

   "... recovered log book pages which show problems with the slats before the incident.... please discuss!"

The MAINTENANCE RECORDS Group (NTSB investigation group) collected mx-history of N840TW, that history is in the NTSB-docket. Both the L.E. Slats, and the Upper/Lower Rudder had a history of hydraulic fluid leakage-bathing-staining, documented during the prior "C"-check:See the Graphic for Mx History of N840TW

Second comment-question posed on 17Feb10:

"... if ... flaps were set independently, why would slat Number 7 have to be retracted? ... All the slats should have retracted when the flap lever was moved to the UP position; for some reason slat 7 didn't retract right.[?]"

That is one of the erroneous assumptions from the "Boeing Scenario": The manufacturer forcefully asserted that the three pilots were perjurers, and that the pilots had attempted to extend T.E.Flaps while at high-level CRZ FL390. Each of the three men stated he would never consider such an illegal act. Each man had NEVER heard about anyone ever wanting to attempt the "Boeing Scenario". The Investigator-in-Charge steered the NTSB's investigation away from the testimony and the physical evidence. The #7 Slat had remained in the RETRACTED position until AFTER loss of System "A" Hydraulic pressure (as the RHS-MLG ripped open the Hydraulic Fluid Cooling Line near the RHS-MLG. Unwarranted Assumptions - Investigator misconduct — Preceding unsigned comment added by IGhhGI (talk • contribs) 16:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and link. I will look. (I think I wrote the two unsigned notes.) Fotoguzzi (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Was there any evidence to suggest a slat actuator failure? There were issues regarding a piece that was recovered mysteriously going missing. While I believe the pilots were guilty, I'm curious about this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.44.254 (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This article starts off well enough and then turns into a rambling rant full of "quotes", that doesn't build to anything and smacks of moaning about a conspiracy. Based on the text above I assume that this IGhhGI character wrote the bulk of the text; I suggest you get rid of it, it's too long and unfocused to proofread. 2002:5EC4:F3C3:0:0:0:5EC4:F3C3 (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what you have written. IGhhGI has done some good work, but he is no encyclopaedia writer (not saying that I am, either, but this is quite a mess)!! I found the 1990-10-15 brief article in AW & ST, but I thought there were pages recovered from the plane's maintenance log from around that time. Perhaps I am confusing that with F. T. Williams reviewing his personal logbook and realizing that he had flown the same plane two years before TWA 841. I think there are some legitimate conspiracy issues that can be brought into the article, but I realize that wikipedia has rules and that it's not easy to do. Fotoguzzi (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

From comments dated 6July2012: "... then turns into a rambling rant ... doesn't build to anything and smacks of moaning about a conspiracy. ... I assume that this IGhhGI character wrote the bulk of the text; I suggest you get rid of it ..."

Hmmm: Easy -- please, carefully consider that Ntsb's TWA841/ 4Apr79 _INVESTIGATION_ was the longest, most expensive investigation in the history of the USA's NTSB (and remained so until the 1990's).

I am not addressing the validity of the claim, but the IGhhGI section really does need work. I find myself agreeing with the person who used the word "moaning" that the section should be edited by somebody who understands the point in question--I do not. IGhhGI, adding a timeline may be valuable, but will not help the existing problem, which is that the writing is of a style that doesn't flow or fit well here. I suppose there is no hurry, but perhaps a a note should be added explaining that the section is under development. Alternatively, development could continue behind the scenes. Meanwhile, I am re-titling the section in question from NTSB Investigation to Critique of NTSB Investigation, as more indicative of the content of the section. If anybody disagrees, you won't hurt my feelings reverting it.Haakondahl (talk) 09:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

PLEASE STANDBY -- PLEASE WAIT: over the next month I'll add a detail TIMELINE of NTSB's investigative mistakes in this one exemplar NTSB investigation [to be added under the section "NTSB Investigation"]. US taxpayers deserve better for their investment in the USA's "independent" NTSB; and teaching-lessons must be made available to numerous accident investigation schools [lessons about prior investigator-err].

There is no NTSB- investigation that compares (yes there was a subtle investigative bias). Investigator- "bias" is a topic that has received widespread press in other research fields, bias is subtle, and has been a reason for increasing "scientific-retractions".

PLEASE -- carefully consider that the three mishap pilots were subject to the unwarranted assumptions, assertions of the worlds then biggest manufacturer. The NTSB finished the AAR81-8. The pilots couldn't offer any reason why the #7Slat might have Extended. All "parties" to the investigation assumed that the missing #7 Slat must have caused the INITIAL upset.

 Only AFTER the CBS TV broadcast The Plane that Fell From The Sky--IGhhGI (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC) [July 1983] did D. Yorke finally provide an analysis that organized the physical evidence.

Inside the USA's accident investigation community we have been unable to get this NTSB AAR81-8 corrected.

We tried the NTSB's method of "reconsideration" [rule 845.41(a) Petition for Reconsideration]: But the NTSB ignored that main Petition of Oct'1990, then the poor Captain independently sought legal assistance, from a Court, to force NTSB to correct the errs: The 9th Circuit's decision stated that the NTSB enjoyed "unreviewable discretion" -- there was _NO_ IG, nor any Court of Inquiry, that could act against any sort of bias or misconduct inside the the NTSB [see other Court of Inquiry intervention in the Air New Zealand DC-10 CFIT investigation, & in the Canadian investigation Dryden F28 T/O accident, and the Air India B747 case]. Other countries offer some method to counter investigative-errs of their "investigative authority".

So now "web" displays an NTSB "response" to a Petition from the Captain: Investigation Research Roundtable document This NTSB response, only found on an obscure web-sight, was retrieved from the NTSB by a former employee and posted on the web: That NTSB document, a "denial" of the Captain's Petition for Reconsideration, contains specific falsifications of the "facts" documented by on-scene investigators during April 1979. This NTSB-misconduct (really fraud) was never reported in the press -- because the NTSB never openly released that "response"-denial, it was never disclosed to the investigation community.

Currently the NTSB suffers numerous problems: in the past decade similar biased investigations went unchallenged. Yes, this discussion of organizational-problems, investigative-errs (inside the NTSB) is unpleasant for readers; but our investigation community has no means to challenge the USA's NTSB's "unreviewable discretion". NTSB mostly does not acknowledge their errs, doesn't provide "scientific retraction" of published mistakes.--IGhhGI (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The entire section "Critique of NTSB investigation" looks like a rant or like the article is trying to prove something, with the use of capital letters and quotes. It looks like a Soapbox or promotional section. We're not here to promote ideas or try to prove something. I suggest it be removed from the article until such a time it can be cleaned up. The timeline is written incorrectly, with wrong date formats, there's capitalization where it shouldn't be, it just looks like someone is trying to prove a point and using Wikipedia to do so. ^Jguy_Talk^Done 19:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

A 1995 Flight article on the event by David Learmount here: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite

This article has substantial issues with form, content and bias. More than half the article is unreadable due to lengthy, poorly written conjecture about Flight 841. There are many typos, form breaks, neutrality issues and an over-reliance on conjecture and opinion that it renders the article a biased op-ed instead of a neutral, informational article Wikipedia is supposed to provide. 174.126.239.232 (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

IMO Oakshade should fix it considering that he added the 29k of it that have most issues 82.171.32.143 (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Say what? Besides reverting a heavily sourced section blanking [2], I never added anything to this article. That "29k" was added by multiple other editors over the years, with major chunks contributed by IGhhGI and Fotoguzzi.--Oakshade (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that I contributed any "major chunk" to this article. Fotoguzzi (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want it fixed, then fix it. (BTW, almost all of this article was written by User:IGhhGI, see [3]). --R. S. Shaw (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

AFTER the above EDITS, deleting the investigation HISTORY: IGhhGI (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Nov' 22, 2014 -- This NTSB investigation, from Apr'79 to June'81 remains the most corrupt of any INVESTIGATION by CAB or NTSB. Congratulations: This Wiki has now been reduced to show only the "Boeing Scenario" adopted by two of the five Board Members (McAdams finally endorsed AAR81-8 after fighting the Boeing Scenario for two years and his statement shows he really didn't believe the final 81-8 P.C.). For our craft of "Mishap Investigation", this Wiki is misleading -- showing the history BEFORE Yorke finally refuted the Boeing Scenario in Nov'84. This longest INVESTIGATION (at that time), deserves its place as a lesson for government employees: showing the spectrum from initial "scientific misconduct", across the range to organizational corruption (an organizational protectionism).IGhhGI (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

April 12, 2015 Rewrite

I rewrote this article, trying to give it more neutral tone. But I'm used to editing other Wikis, and I'm having a lot of trouble with my references. I included them as commented lines, (invisible unless in the editor) in the hopes that somebody else can help or I can correct once I figure out what I did wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toothpickst (talk • contribs)

@Toothpickst: you can just wrap the reference in <ref>...</ref> tags. There also is a link under "cite" in your editing toolbar (depending on what skin you are using). Using templates such as Template:cite web can be helpful to organize data but is not mandatory. VQuakr (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Outstanding. I knew I was missing something simple. Thanks! It's not exactly something I have to worry about when working on a fiction website. Toothpickst (talk) 07:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

This is one man's reaction to the "April 12, 2015 Rewrite", --IGhhGI (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC) This is meant for "Toothpickst", and other readers (but mostly meant for those readers in the accident-investigation community): ==> This "rewrite" of 12Apr2015 ONLY SHOWS "the Boeing Scenario", a false-narrative that was refuted by Yorke in November 1984. QUESTION for the "rewriter": ?--Why not explicitly state, in the opening-heading, the fact that your "rewrite" merely recites that false-narrative listed as P.C. in AAR81-8? Meanwhile, that mythap-Captain (H.G. Gibson) recently died -- with NO RETRACTION of the erroneous "probable cause" cited in NTSB's AAR81-8. For students and investigators: Wikipedia so far suffers, it fails to reflect a better explanation of the failure interactions related to "discrepant Rudder". For those readers better capable of such technical details, instead of this "Wiki", consider the lessons from George Schairer's paper on the B307 upset-breakup (18Mar39), consider the CAB's investigation of AA Flt One (1Mar62), upset-recovery of Mac59402 (11Nov76). As of this current-wiki "rewrite" of April2015, this Wiki contributes that old deception -- rumors from the INITIAL upset of TWA841/4Apr79. [Any technical-corrections to this wiki were removed by the those experts contributing to this Wiki.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by IGhhGI (talk • contribs)

WP:RS, WP:OR. We are only going to discuss alternate theories if they have been covered in detail by reliable sources. It is not the function of this article to "explain" anything not covered by these sources or apply other flight cases to this flight. VQuakr (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

75.165.38.180 (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC) Just above "VQuakr" proposes that, for this Wikipedia-entry, "only ... discuss ... theories ... by reliable sources." --> Fair enough: Perhaps you-experts in the S&C of the Boeing 727 should simply, honestly, _explicitly_ so state that: THIS WIKIPEDIA ENTRY will limit readers only to "the Boeing Scenario", as proposed by the manufacturer and adopted by the USA's "investigating authority" [USA's NTSB]. Perhaps explicitly show that limitation in the opening-heading.75.165.38.180 (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

That is covered in the upper-left corner of every page here, where we define this website as an encyclopedia. VQuakr (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The Boeing Scenario

Per requests (Dec'2016) for more Talk:

The main "Article" -page needs a BIG WARNING message, at the top,

 cautioning readers that 

this Wikipedia Article will only discuss The Boeing Scenario .

Meanwhile, again, in Dec'2016, men lacking any background in this case, DELETE documentation (pdf's of the two main Petitions against AAR-81-8).

At some point, Wikipedia should condemn this persistent bias (? vandalism?): The documents (Petitions and a new book by Corsetti) were cited & linked

WP:AGF; WP:NPA
--> until one persistent "vandal", wiki's Sole Arbiter again DELETED those documents. One could conclude that NTSB's own Office of Media Relations has taken-over this Wiki-effort to limit sources, limit documents.

IGhhGI (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you cite pages in the book instead of blogs, chat forums and websites that look like a stalker's bedroom wall, and also write with WP:DUE in mind? Brycehughes (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

IGhhGI, editors' background in the case is irrelevant. We are an encyclopedia; we summarize other sources rather than generate our own research. Relevant guidelines and policies for deciding if additional links to primary source documents such as appeals should be included, and if the secondary sources you are proposing using (such as Corsetti) should be included include WP:SELFPUB, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:RS. At a glance, it appears that Corsetti's book is self-published, so is unusable as a source for any topic except Corsetti himself. Are there any other secondary sources that we should look at (such as websites), or is everything else primary (such as the appeal)? VQuakr (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Jan'2017 -- OK you have CHANGED my "talk" contribution --

--  and you have deleted links to the main Petitions
-- and now,  "... 19:04, 24 January 2017‎ VQuakr ... Reverted ... by VQuakr (talk): Incoherent and unrelated to specific improvements to the article. 

this WiKipedia editor has so badly twisted this "Talk" page -- He is the Sole Arbiter, he owns the "talk", and the "article". Once again, Wikipedia is the UN-reliable source for Boeing 727 N840TW 4Apr79 .

Above an official Wiki "editor" cites a NEED FOR anOTHER SOURCE;

"... editors' background in the case is irrelevant.... an encyclopedia .. summarize other sources ..."

And that is USA's weakness (no investigative safeguards) -- lack of any Review Board, -- lack of any Scientific Ombudsman -- lack of any Public Inquiry

Do you understand that, after any NTSB AAR,

there is NO Review Board,  no alternative "source".

For the TE901 case, wiki could chose from four official reports. In contrast, after B727 N840TW, a wiki "editor" lacks official alternative, you get only Davis' scenario,

 or the alternative from  an MIT-Grumman expert.

IGhhGI (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)IGhhGI (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

If you dislike the US's procedures for aircraft incident investigations, this is not the forum to effect change. VQuakr (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

VQuakr's above:

"... for aircraft ... investigations, this is not the forum ..."

For accurate information about the LoC-I, B727 N840TW, Wikipedia is not the best source.

 And NO  wiki editor had enough mishap- background to correct the errs.

IGhhGI (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

In the context of our policies, including our requirement that sources be reliable, what specific changes to the article are you proposing? Article talk space is not your forum for kvetching about the NTSB or Wikipedia in general. VQuakr (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

  =   =   =   =   \\//  =   =   =

Now,Jan'26th, responding to almost-sincere question posed in Dec'2016 (above):

VQuakr -- "... for deciding ... links to primary source documents ... appeals ... the secondary sources ..."

Now think about our industry,
from flight-test, to line-ops', to mishap-investigation,
NOTHING we write (the Flt Test Cert' rpt, Ops-Manuals, mishap-rpts)
would meet the minimum requirements you defined as

the Wikipedia-standards for a "source"  (??).

= = = 

But let me pick just one example-document, for you to comment upon:
that 4May95 document from NTSB, acknowledged as "received" by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals; this document fits into the cover-up phase of the NTSB process.

As you can _infer_ from that web-link depiction,

that 4May95-document was endorsed by three Board Members.

Since none of those men were familiar with the details

of the B727-N840TW mishap,

 WHO?  might the "accountable executive" to answer for the facts cited ??

The NTSB has never acknowledged that their 4May95 document even exists,

and the Public Docket (according to NTSB-staff)  has NO RECORD of that letter to the court.

One of the advances in this B727-case, comes from that book Scapegoat,
on page 344 mid.

From the standpoint of professional-standards, this one breach, scientific fraud, taints the whole NTSB investigation.

Everyone in the business (investigation) knows and respects the man cited, and he himself has openly cited similar behavior in the JAL-747 case:
a soldier's mindset of accomplish-your-mission. That 4May95 document was never acknowledged by NTSB, so it officially doesn't exist.

Could you, Mr Wikipedia, cite that 4May95 -document : Court recognized it, wiki No?

IGhhGI (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

To evaluate a source, you need to pair the source with the proposed content you intend to support with that source. The relevant policy for primary documents such as this is WP:PRIMARY. Your posts would be much easier to follow if you quit peppering them with spam to obviously unusable websites. VQuakr (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

lying investigators?

i said yes what about u? 2001:9E8:6716:A000:2D88:AB97:A1A3:BEEA (talk) 06:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)