Talk:United Airlines Flight 232

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleUnited Airlines Flight 232 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
December 3, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
April 11, 2011Good article nomineeListed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 19, 2010, July 19, 2013, and July 19, 2018.
Current status: Good article

Chronology Section[edit]

I changed "both horizontal stabilizers" to "the horizontal stabilizer," and the "right horizontal stabilizer" to "the horizontal stabilizer," simply because there is only one horizontal stabilizer.

Also rewrote a sentence, about the shrapnel puncturing the lines, to eliminate repetition and the reference to "the right horizontal stabilizer." EditorASC (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also gone thru the entire article and replaced the word "incident" with the word "accident," where appropriate. The word "incident" is incorrect nomenclature, whenever there is significant damage or physical injury. When that is the case, always use the word "accident." EditorASC (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible to duplicate?[edit]

"In subsequent reconstructions of the circumstances of the accident in flight simulators, no pilot of any seniority has succeeded in reproducing Fitch's achievement of maneuvering the aircraft as far as the runway, generally losing control in mid air."

True? Veifiable? Guinnog 00:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read through the references?? --BACbKA 09:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When Captain Al Haines came to an Oregon pilots convention in 1991 or 1992, he stated that 'Dozens of airline and test pilots lined up at the simulators programmed for the UA232 scenario. Not one of them could get within 10 miles of the airport. They asked if I'd like to give it a try. I said, "I've already done the one that counts." — EncMstr 20:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that they were only able to make right hand turns contradicts the statement 3 sentences later that they lined up for the runway making left hand turns.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.42.213.174 (talk • contribs)

Thanks. I've edited the article to address this point. Please sign by typing ~~~~. Thanks, --Guinnog 04:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The accident report and the CVR transcripts shows that they had diffucuties making left turn... but left turns were not impossible.When applying asymmetric power, this raised the wing of the side where the power was applied, rolling the plane and thus allowing them to make banking turns. --J-Star 08:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mac Job says, if I remember correctly, that this is because the controls were frozen by the loss of fluid into the right turn they were making when the incident occurred. --Guinnog 19:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about that. Check he NTSB report for clues. --J-Star 10:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They only made one left turn, and four right turns, including a 360. See [1] --Guinnog 00:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sioux City Memorial (Picture Anybody?)[edit]

The subsection "1994 memorial" can be improved with a picture of a memorial. If anybody can help, please upload one.

Needs cleaning up[edit]

This article is informative, but it seems to me the writing could be improved. I hesitate to do this myself, because I do not have sufficient knowledge of the incident or the topic.

Maybe at UAL there is no pilot, but this has been reproduced at other airlines with some success.

Not sure I understand the last sentence. In any event, it helps a lot if each post on the talk pages is signed and dated. If it helps, I am a retired UAL Captain, and I flew the DC-10 for 7 years, as a Second Officer (sometimes referred to as a Flight Engineer). I have corrected some of the words and phrases in the article and it seems others have done the same. Looks like it is shaping up pretty good now. EditorASC (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Brown Lohr[edit]

Google for Jan Brown Lohr and you find plenty of references to her and her advocacy. Can someone please add one ro the requested citation request? I havn't figured out how to use those pesky ref-tags yet.

--J-Star 13:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable?[edit]

I tagged the following as I have never heard it before and rather doubt it is true. Any cites? "Other planes were modified following the accident to incorporate additional backup means of manipulating some of the flight controls even if the three hydraulic systems fail." --Guinnog 23:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know this is not true. I added the statement about newer designs using hydraulic fuses. They are designed to prevent a total failure, not provide a backup means of control. 23:47, 28 August 2006 (PST)
There is a move in aviation to use electric actuators in place of hydraulic systems. I'm sure this accident was a factor in this decision, as well as savings in weight and maintinance. The Boeing Dreamliner will have electric actuators and breaks. ANTIcarrot 00:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against including it, if it can be verifiably referenced. --Guinnog 00:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

This article desperately needs an image of the fireball and/or wreckage to demonstrate the scale of the crash and the kind of media coverage it received. Abc30 18:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has had images of the crash since September and November 2006! Tim Pierce (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New article[edit]

Please see if you can add anything to Dennis E. Fitch which I created today. I have emailed his PR company asking for any additional info like his DOB, and will add it if and when it comes. Thanks. --Guinnog 11:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant explanation?[edit]

A point about the number two engine being shut down was deleted, supposedly for being redundant. Number one and number three hydraulic systems were punctured by shrapnel. Number two system was lost when the engine was shut down. This may not be obvious to readers unfamiliar with the design of the DC-10. More information never hurts.

The engine was not "shut down", it exploded into, as you say "shrapnel". I deleted it as being redundant, and your argument here has not convinced me. More information can hurt, if it is misleading. Please sign your posts. --Guinnog 09:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is not coorect. The engine did not "explode". The fan disc fractured and it was pieces of that that damaged the plane. The rest of the engine was pretty much intact though and kept running for a short, causing vibrations to be felt all over the plane. This prompted the flight crew to initiate engine shut-down procedures.
I think some kind of explanation should be in the article that the numer 2 engine failure shut down the corresponding hydraulic system. It is not immediatly obvious to readers that the engines power the hyrdaulics. --J-Star 10:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was an uncontained disintegration of the fan disc, yes. The rest of the engine was irrelevant; the crew initiated shutdown procedures after the engine spooled down, according to Mac Job, usually a very reliable source. Job also has all three hydraulic systems' pressure and quantity falling to zero, and includes a diagram by Matthew Tesch adapted from one in the NTSC report showing in detail that all three systems were breached by the engine failure. If you have better sources than the NTSB report, please quote them. Failing that, I think I will stick to my guns on this one. I also might see if I can include the original diagram in the article, to clarify this matter. --Guinnog 10:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"All three hydraulic system reservoirs were examined and found empty. The system 1 and system 2 reservoirs and associated plumbing were found intact and undamaged mounted in their normal positions. The system 3 reservoir and its associated plumbing were found intact with minor blackening from fire damage in their normal positions in the right wheel well." (NTSB report, p35) --Guinnog 11:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified the wording and added a ref to the airdisasters.com special report, as well as the crash image requested above. --Guinnog 11:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


More nitpicking, I'm afraid[edit]

I've tagged this passage as needing a citation; it doesn't seem to make sense to me and I don't see it in any of the references: "At one point Fitch manually lowered the landing gear in flight, hoping that this action would force trapped hydraulic fluid back into the lines allowing some movement of control surfaces"

Also, the very useful transcription of the CVR contains at least one error as it refers to Fitch as "Jumpseat captain" when as far as I know (and according to all the refs I've seen) he was travelling in the passenger cabin. --Guinnog 19:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The landing gear info comes from the mini-documentary made by Errol Morris as an episode for "First Person". In it Fitch was interviewed at length (actually the entire documentary is a Fitch monologue) and he describes trying to lower the gear as a desperate last ditch effort to force hydraulic fluid back into the system. --Bk0 (Talk) 02:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I haven't seen that and I accept your word for it. I've put it back. Obviously, if we could come up with a verifiable transcript of that docu that would be ideal. --Guinnog 15:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plea for quote[edit]

I remember seeing a TV documentary where one of the flight crew said something about the height of the corn as they crashed. Can anybody provide the accurate quote? --Guinnog 02:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here ("Aircraft Accident Report United Airlines Flight 232" (pdf). NTSB. 1989-07-19. p. 37.) it says the corn was approximately seven feet tall (in the sixth paragraph). Is that good enough? — EncMstr 02:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that verifies the height of the corn. The quote (I think probably from Fitch) was something like: "When I looked out the window and saw corn above me, I knew we were in trouble. I knew that corn grows tall in Iowa, but...". Ring any bells? --Guinnog 15:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speed in knots, Km/h, and Mach.[edit]

I'm confused by the 'Chronology of the flight' section. It reads 'At 15:16, while the plane was in a shallow right turn at 37,000 feet, and flying at Mach 0.83, or 270 knots'. I don't see how the speeds stated are the same.
Mach 1 is ~1 225kmh. So Mach 0.83 is ~1016.75 km/h.
1 Knot = 1.000 nautical mile/hour = 1.852 km/h, so 270 knots is ~500.04 km/h.
So, what speed was the aircraft travelling? ~1016.75 km/h or ~500.04 km/h?
User:Shirt58 11:09, 19 Oct 2006 (UTC)
ps: NPOV be damned, how brave were those pilot guys?

I originally added the reference to the airplane's speed at the time of the engine failure, and I believe it was 270 knots indicated airspeed, not true airspeed. Mach number doesn't really matter. Indicated airspeed matters in this case because when the hydraulics failed, the trim was stuck in position for 270 knots IAS. The NTSB concluded that without trim control, the airplane was impossible to land safely (contrast with the DHL shootdown incident in Baghdad). I agree that this sentence is a bit confusing, and it probably should be cleaned up, but I'll let Guinnog do it. 71.105.148.155 14 November, 2006
Correct. Indicated airspeed (IAS) is the important number because it measures the amount of air pressure that is passing over the wings and stabilizers. Mach speed varies with changes in temperature, so the ratio between Mach and IAS is a lot different at low altitudes (Mach speed is much lower, while IAS is much higher). It is also why jetliners are flown according to IAS below FL 290 to FL 310, and according to Mach speed above those Flight Levels. EditorASC (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crew Resource Management[edit]

The crash is considered to be a textbook example of successful Crew Resource Management, due to the effective use of all the resources available aboard the plane for help during the emergency.

It would help if further explaination could be added to the above. What did the flight crew do etc that makes it noteable? Nil Einne 09:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crew Resource Management (CRM) originated from the need to improve aviation safety by improving communication within the cockpit. Capt Al Haines was faced with a nearly impossible situation with no precedents to provide guidance. By involving every crewmember in the cockpit, and soliciting input from each one, he was able to assign duties and create a team that successfully managed a situation that could never have been handled alone. CRM teaches skills and techniques of "synergy" that literally make the crew greater than the sum of its parts. Nibes 19:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's great but 'By involving every crewmember in the cockpit, and soliciting input from each one, he was able to assign duties and create a team that successfully managed a situation that could never have been handled alone' doesn't really explain what they did other then 'ask for input from anyone you can', 'work together' and 'have individual duties' all 3 of which should be what they always do. In other words, what was unique about this incident isn't really explained by your summary other the saying they did what they're supposed to do better, which is how we got here in the first place. In particular what the rest of the crew did to help isn't really explained and they were in contact with the ground so it seems likely they got great assitance from the ground too and with due respect to flight attendants, while they serve an important role, it's not entirely clear what input they could have provided in to actually flying the plane under the circumstances. (They obviously serve an important role in taking care of the passengers, keeping them calm, advising them what to do when they're about to attempt to land etc, but I presume that's something they always handle, not something the pilot has to tell them to do, or ever primarily tried to handle him/herself.) And perhaps more importantly as it stands nearly 3.5 years later there's still no explanation in the article other then the part I quoted in the first place. In fact although the WP:LEDE is supposed to be a summary of the article, there's no mention of CRM at all, the closest and only real mention of the crew's performance is the NTSB commendation "under the circumstances the UAL flightcrew performance was highly commendable and greatly exceeded reasonable expectations." and some mention of how they flew the plane. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate they were under extremely difficult circumstances and by all accounts they did very well, but why this is an example of good CRM is not really explained at all, even the simplistic summary you offered is not in the article.
P.S. The info offered in Crew resource management is better.
...the preparation that paid off for the crew was something ... called Cockpit Resource Management.... Up until 1980, we kind of worked on the concept that the captain was THE authority on the aircraft. What he said, goes. And we lost a few airplanes because of that. Sometimes the captain isn't as smart as we thought he was. And we would listen to him, and do what he said, and we wouldn't know what he's talking about. And we had 103 years of flying experience there in the cockpit, trying to get that airplane on the ground, not one minute of which we had actually practiced, any one of us. So why would I know more about getting that airplane on the ground under those conditions than the other three. So if I hadn't used [CRM], if we had not let everybody put their input in, it's a cinch we wouldn't have made it.
This seems to suggest that one of the key points is that previously it had been common for the captain to basically not bother with seeking help from the others in the cockpit (or I presume others on the plane who may be able to help as Finch did in this case) even in an unusual emergency where none of them were likely to have any experience or training which is rather strange but at least provides some better insight into why this example is considered relevant to CRM.
Nil Einne (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review[edit]

I've added a link at the top of this page to a peer review, to see how we can make this article even better. Any ideas are welcome. --Guinnog 19:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation link #17 (link to the NTSB) is broken.

Similar Accidents[edit]

I think I have improved it somewhat, by adding this new section which denotes similar types of accidents (where structural failures led to the loss of hydraulic control systems), and the results. The Eastern L-1011 would have been a loss of all SOBs, had it not had an additional 4th hydraulic control system, which the DC-10 did not have. Same for the Pan Am 747, that had one remaining system with fluid still in it. That too, saved all on board. EditorASC (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The odds of all three hydraulic systems failing simultaneously had previously been calculated as high as a billion to one." It seems to me that the probability is that low only if the three failures are assumed to have different causes. Grassynoel (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Despite the assumed extreme unlikelihood of such catastrophic failures occurring, other aircraft have lost all conventional control. Of these, United 232 was the most successful by far...". Wrong as the Phillipines Flight 434 of December 1994 incident was far more successful and preceded United 232. PatrickDunfordNZ (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"lap Childs"[edit]

On the "Lessons learned" section, it says that the 1 out of 4 kids to die was from smoke inhalation instead of injuries during the accident, this wouldn't have prompted the kid's mother to say what she said to Lohr and the subsequent reaction it had with her lobbying for "every child on a seat" law.

Isn't this a contradiction? Probably just for the benefit of the point against the law thing. Vizoso 21:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)J Vizoso —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vizoso (talk • contribs) 21:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I think the mother's logic was that if the baby had had a seat of his/her own, then the baby would have stayed in the seat and then been carried out of the wreck after the crash. As it was, the mothers that held their babies in their arms lost their grip on them during the crash. The one died from smoke inhalation because it wasn't with its mother after the accident. Shreditor 04:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article uses the term "lap child" without introducing it. It's poor style, and confused me as a reader. I feel like fixing it, but as there is already some other attention on this article, I'll let others improve it. Jra (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One out of four lap children died? That's a higher survival rate that for the crash as a whole. But I quess that's WP:OR. 140.247.242.40 (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bloated and confusing[edit]

I've done a lot of editing on this article in the past, but I left it alone and now its become really bloated with tertiary information which disrupts the flow of the article (though the information is good in itself). Someone ought to take on the task of moving many of those odds and ends in to more appropriate sections and restoring the readability of the article. Shreditor 22:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External link question[edit]

One of the external link is described as "Cockpit voice-recorder transcript (pdf) (NB contains error)". How are readers supposed to know what part of the transcript is erroneous? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. As the editor who added that note, I did so because the ASN transcript linked to mentions "Jumpseat Captain" and "Jumpseat Training pilot" as being two separate people. Macarthur Job and several other authors give them as being the same person (Denny Fitch). I assume it is just an error of interpretation on ASN's part. --John (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may well be right that there was an error, but it seems to be a different error than the one you suggest. In the transcript, until the top of page 6, there appear to be four people in the cockpit: the captain, the first officer, the flight engineer, and the jumpseat captain. However, originally there were only three people in the cockpit, so I don't know who the jumpseat captain would have been. Then near the top of page 6, Denny Fitch enters the cockpit for the first time and introduces himself, and from then on he is referred to as being the jumpseat training pilot. So the "jumpseat captain" could not have been Fitch, but I don't know who he was. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My reading is that he was not entering for the first time but returning from checking the external control surfaces; when he introduces himself, he has already been talking to them for a while. I don't have the Mac Job book to hand to check, but can do so later. There were definitely only three people there at the start, and four at the end, unless Job is wrong, which would be almost unthinkable to me. I will check though. --John (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further review, it appears that some of the things that the "jumpseat captain" said were actually things reported to have been said by Fitch according to the NTSB report. So the ASN editors apparently thought that the "jumpseat captain" and the "jumpseat training pilot" were different people, as you suggest above. I am not sure what we should do about this, though, given that the ASN transcript (a) could be a valuable resource but (b) apparently contains a significant misidentification. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death Count[edit]

The article says: "Of the 296 people aboard, 111 were killed in the crash, while 185 survived". I just watched this story on The History Channel, and they have the numbers nearly reversed: 112 survivors, 184 killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziffel66 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't speak for that programme but it you check the sources listed in this article, like the NTSB Report, you'll find it was 111 fatalities. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have also heard "112 killed", referenced MANY times. Captain Denny Fitch, a survivor of UA232, also stated on several televised programs ("Why Planes Go Down" and "Seconds From Disaster") that there were a 112 fatalities and 184 survivors and I've also heard Capt. Al Haynes, reference the same number. 111 initially died in the crash and 1 other person died of their injuries, later on. A documentary on National Geographic also references 112 dead/184 survivors. So, I will change the information and if someone can provide facts stating different numbers, it can be changed back. Here is are three references. The last reference is a YouTube link to the "Seconds from Disaster" program, detailing the crash of UA232. It was mentioned more than once that 112 perished and 184 survived ... http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view_details.cgi?date=07191989&reg=N1819U&airline=United+Airlines and http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20118288,00.html and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TVNrwXscrI —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryland Pride (talk • contribs) 01:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I just got through extensively correcting various details only to come up against an edit conflict, which I'm not yet able to find either here or in the article itself, but the difference between 185/111 and 184/112 is that 1 passenger died a month later - the sad final tally versus everyone who initially survived the crash. So any reference to who was "killed IN the crash" or the like should NOT be "112." Redbone360619 (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was contradictory with some places saying 112 and others saying 111. Based on the "official" NTSB report, I'm agreeing with Redbone that references to how many died in the crash should say 111. I've updated the page, and made sure that the additional post-crash fatality is mentioned where appropriate. – jaksmata 15:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Role of Dennis Fitch[edit]

In the article it says Fitch found out how to control the aircraft. However, from the transcript of the communication and from the interview with the captain, I get the impression that the crew had found that out themselves, even before Fitch entered the cockpit. At the end of the interview the captain makes it very clear that his regular colleague "was doing what he was told", but because Fitch apparently could handle the job better, he took over. --Bernardoni (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Haynes was the first to steer the aircraft with the throttles. During the engine failure the aircraft was in a shallow right turn. As the hydraulic fluid bled away, it slowly banked farther and farther to the right. First Officer William Records was flying the aircraft at the time and soon found that even with full left aileron input, the aircraft was still slowly rolling to the right. He told Captain Haynes that he couldn't control the aircraft. Haynes responded by cutting the #1 throttle and firewalling the #3 throttle. Soon after, when Fitch entered the cockpit, they put him on the throttles. It became clear that he had some skill at controlling the aircraft this way and so they left him there. Shreditor (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also got the impression from reading this article that Fitch came in and showed them how to stabilise/steer the plane, which seemed to contradict this docu: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU2mqOLzlfU&feature=related. Based on these comments I've made the paragraph that initially confused me a little less ambiguous. Chris (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billion to one?[edit]

I don't know if this is something to add to the article but has any party ever commented on the strangeness of

The odds of all three hydraulic systems failing simultaneously had previously been calculated as high as a billion to one.[10] Yet, similar flight control failures have

when you don't have

hydraulic fuses to isolate a punctured section and prevent a total loss of hydraulic fluid"

and:

but lines for all three systems shared the same ten-inch wide route through the tail where the engine debris penetrated,

Reason being while I'm not an aircraft designer nor a statistician, 1 billion to one seems a little extreme to me (unless perhaps you mean flight hours) when all you have 3 lines passing thru the same narrow section of the plane and without something to isolate a punctured section. Since it doesn't take a genius to figure out what may happen if you break that section and similarly the possibilities that could potentially cause that, e.g. being hit by a missile, tail strike, engine over the tail exploding, fire, and others like a bomb, seem fairly obvious. (I'm not saying it was an extremely likely possibility but the 1 billion to one thing is the kind of thing which me wonder, 'who calculated that' and 'how'?) Nil Einne (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I first heard the billion to one when Capt. Al Haynes spoke at an aviation conference. I interpreted at the time as a marketing boast, and never thought any different since especially since most engineering odds don't exceed hundreds of thousands to one. Obviously, once the event has happened, the odds changed substantially. It is now obvious that significant damage to a common duct containing redundant critical components is a breach of redundancy principles and that the odds of a complete failure of all three redundant systems is much higher than a billion to one—for any aircraft still configured that way (which there aren't supposed to be anymore). —EncMstr (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the odds of all three hydraulic systems failing simultaneously had previously been calculated as high as a billion to one. this figure actually refers to failure, as opposed to damage by external sources - in this case, an exploding engine. The former is predictable, due to wear through normal use, parts needing replacement etc., the latter is not. So when the likely odds are calculated the risk assessment only takes into account predictable modes of failure for the system. In a civilian aircraft design the likelihood of impact damage from an external (to the system) object is very low, or at least should be. If the aircraft had been a military one then no doubt the designers would have taken into consideration the additional likelihood of damage from an external source, e.g., exploding munitions, shrapnel, etc.
Unfortunately, aircraft designers at the time tended to view their design problems in the isolation of their own particular areas, e.g., controls, fuel systems, etc,. From the designer's POV the triple independent hydraulic systems were probably pretty good from a redundancy aspect, however, they failed to see the possible effect of external disruptive intrusions, i.e., physical damage caused by impact from foreign objects. In this situation it stands to reason that anything likely to cause significant damage to one hydraulic line is equally likely to damage the other two if they are all routed in parallel runs. To be really effective, triple or quadruple redundant lines or wiring needs to be routed along separate runs away from each other. That way damage in one area is unlikely to take out all the others. You only need ONE working system to make a safe landing. Any less and you get the result seen in the article.
In the case of this accident, in order to ensure against the accident happening the designers of the hydraulic system would have had to have factored-in the likelihood of an engine turbine wheel failing catastrophically, which, being outside their own particular area of expertise, i.e., engine design, metallurgy - as opposed to hydraulics, is perhaps too much to ask for the time when the aircraft was being designed in the late 1960s. So, with hindsight, the accident probably wasn't predictable with the knowledge available to the designers at the time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United 232 was the most successful by far paragraph[edit]

"Despite the assumed extreme unlikelihood of such catastrophic failures occurring, other aircraft have lost all conventional control. Of these, United 232 was the most successful by far, as the others crashed with the loss of all or nearly all persons on board. United 232's level of success was not exceeded until 2003, when a cargo jet lost all flight controls after being struck by a surface to air missile but was nevertheless able to land safely." Philippines Flight 434 landed without any additional deaths for example. PatrickDunfordNZ (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see 'notable survivors' but not 'notable victims'[edit]

eom

Shrapnel[edit]

"Shrapnel" is incorrect terminology. "Shrapnel" is a small ball-bearing sized projectile which is part of a Shrapnel shell. It incorrectly became used as a term for shell fragments and bomb fragments, and from there spread to any jagged metal propelled at high velocity. But it is not. Thus I find it doubtful that the explosion of the rear engine propelled "shrapnel" into the hydraulic system, since there was unlikely to be any shrapnel shells within miles of the aircraft..45Colt 18:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had read the word "shrapnel" in some NTSB accident reports over the years, but couldn't find it when I tried searching a few of them. So, tried Duck, Ducking this phrase: "Use of the word "shrapnel" in NTSB accident reports." Struck paydirt on the first entry, which led to an archived Wikipedia Talk Page, about the DC-10, where a Wiki editor had reverted that word because "Shrapnel generally refers to munitions."
An IP editor posted an extremely long (too long) refutation of that reverting argument. Shorted summary:
The term "Shrapnel" has been used quite often by aviation writers and investigating experts, to describe hot metal chunks hurled with great force from un-contained explosions of jet engines, in the same manner as grenades or artillery shells. Over 32,000 results if you Google "jet engine shrapnel." Ten major news sources world-wide used the word "shrapnel" as the cause of extensive damage inflicted by the exploding RR Trent engine on Qantas flight 32, in 2010.
AVWeb News (one of the most expert of all aviation news sources in the world): "Shrapnel from the engine disabled one of two main hydraulic systems, hampered the fuel transfer system, punched a hole in the forward wing spar and caused a major fuel leak."
The NTSB has used the word "shrapnel" numerous times in its accident reports:
  • -- HONEYWELL, INC. GRUMMAN G-159, N861H NEAR LE CENTER, MINNESOTA JULY 11, 1967
  • -- AMR B-747, SFO, September 18, 1970, AAR-71-7
  • -- Explosion of the #2 engine of a 727, during the takeoff roll on March 30, 1998, at Fort Lauderdale, Florida
  • -- UNCONTAINED ENGINE FAILURE/FIRE VALUJET AIRLINES FLIGHT 597 DOUGLAS DC-9-32, ATLANTA, GEORGIA JUNE 8, 1995. The word "shrapnel" is used 6 times in that report
  • -- JAL DOUGLAS DC-8-33, SFO, DECEMBER 25, 1965:
The NTSB has even used the word "shrapnel" in footnotes, that reference other accident reports. For instance, NTSB report on Alaska Airlines Flight 261 MD-83, near Anacapa Island, CA, January 31, 2000. Footnote, page 165, uses "Shrapnel" when referencing DAL MD-88, Pensacola, Florida: "Shrapnel from the uncontained engine failure pierced the fuselage and entered the rear cabin. Two passengers were killed, and two others were seriously injured."
In short, if the primary sources like NTSB and comparable Invesigative bodies in other ICAO countries, AND WP:RS interpretive secondary sources use that word repeatedly, then Wikipedia editors should too. Doing otherwise smacks of OR. EditorASC (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very well put. Andrewa (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have added this to User:Andrewa/purist#Some examples of purism. Andrewa (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you weren't so focused on mocking and ridiculing a well-intentioned Editor, it might have occured to you that in almost all parlance the word "shrapnel" as a "military explosives" connotation. No one hears "shrapnel" and thinks "airplane accident"' they think "bomb" or "grenade". Just because the NTSB uses the word, doesn't mean the manner in which it uses it falls within common parlance. And so an Editor that actually cares about improving the Article might consider adding some kind of language, pop-out box or whatever to explain the idea that, despite what most people's ears may hear, the word "shrapnel" is actually a correct term. Someone that actually cared about the Article might consider this, instead of using another Editor's well-intentioned mistake in order to ridicule them into maybe going away and never coming back, because they were unfortunate enough to run into an Editor that cares more about mocking other Editors than they did improving the Article. Also this: WP:GF, and this WP:BITE. Tym Whittier (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New book[edit]

Flight 232: A Story of Disaster and Survival by Laurence Gonzales is due out July 7, 2014.211.225.33.104 (talk) 08:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

26th Anniversary[edit]

It has been 26 years... Any update?--NewTypeDivision (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United Airlines Flight 232. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 09:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on United Airlines Flight 232. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Notable survivors[edit]

We dont normally list notable survivors in aircraft accidents any reason why we should here? MilborneOne (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United Airlines Flight 232. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed trivia[edit]

I've proposed have a trivia,which will be put in a new note to make the article look clear.

"However, at the same time, the deaths make the crash the fifth-deadliest involving the DC-10 (behind Turkish Airlines Flight 981, American Airlines Flight 191, Air New Zealand Flight 901, and UTA Flight 772, and (at the time) was the deadliest crash in United Airlines' history. This was later surpassed in the September 11th attacks, when United Airlines Flight 175 was hijacked and deliberately crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing all 65 people on board and an estimated 900 people in the South Tower."

It looks important, but it does look bloated, so I'm not sure if I will add it, but this trivia about DC-10's has been in other articles. Or If you have a trivia that's sounds less bloated, then post it in your response. I'm not going to add this until I get your thoughts. Don't worry, you may take your time. Tigerdude9 (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Current project thinking is that this "my accident is bigger than yours" stuff is not really needed or encyclopedic, it adds nothing to the article. A few exceptions to the most deadliest may be of note but the fifth blue-painted aircraft with yellow spots that crashed is not. MilborneOne (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then. In that case, I won't add the trivia. But what is that blue-painted aircraft with yellow spots that crashed? Tigerdude9 (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Operated by Air Hyperbole MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MilborneOne: Wait, you said that the deadliest DC-10 crash should not be in the trivia, but United Airlines' deadliest crashes are those few exceptions? Or, if I misread it (I read closely about how the trivia is unnecessary, don't worry), then what are the exceptions? Tigerdude9 (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exceptions are for example the worst accident for the type. MilborneOne (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MilborneOne: Well in that case, I'll say the same thing but remove the stuff about "and (at the time) [it] was the deadliest crash in United airlines' history" part. UPDATE 11/19/18: I have added it and I made sure it reaches your requirements. Tigerdude9 (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't that line be removed entirely? American 191 happened 10 years earlier and killed more people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191 104.33.210.101 (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I misread - "United Airlines" can easily be misread for "United States", because of which I would still argue to remove that line. 104.33.210.101 (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


On the Subject of the Mysterious left turn on the Flight track of UNITED 232 Heavy[edit]

My theory on how it made that left hand turn towards Sioux City Gateway Airport, was that Dennis Fitch oriented the throttles in such a way that he was able to make a stable left hand turn with out stalling, specifically he put the N.3 engine in about a range of 75% to 85% thrust, and the N.1 in a thrust power level of 25% to near Idle, which in turn pushes the aircraft's right side up and makes it turn left. It probably was difficult for Dennis to make it happen but he managed to do it. Now this is just a theory, Dennis Fitch is dead so we will never know what he did to cause the left turn so if you have any theories put them up. I'd love to hear them.RaydenAG (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More and More Definitive Attention to the Loss of Hydraulics and Remediation[edit]

A lot of attention is paid to the cause of the loss of the engine, but the crash was the result of a total loss of hydraulics, and not enough attention is paid to the primary cause of the crash, particularly to include whatever government or regulatory measures have been taken (or not) to make certain something like this never happens again. This sentence, in particular, is annoying: Newer aircraft designs such as the McDonnell Douglas MD-11 have incorporated hydraulic fuses to isolate a punctured section and prevent a total loss of hydraulic fluid. It's very passive, as if the manufacturers have "done something different" and voluntarily, but the large gaping hole in this Article is if the NTSB (or whoever) made certain that this type of total loss of hydraulics in the DC-10 can ever happen again. The interested Reader, and the interested flyer, want to know this. They make "redundant systems" for reasons, and when three redundant systems all simultaneously fail, that's a much bigger problem than technical minutiae about metal fatigues and cracks. It would improve the Article if more attention were paid to that which is most important, vs. that which is comparatively less important. DC10's are still flying. It would be nice to know if this problem of a total loss of Hydraulics has been taken care of proactively, and explicitly, particularly before you board one to fly somewhere.Tym Whittier (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About the "similar accidents" section[edit]

Isn't that list slightly deviating away from the main subject? Is it to cluttered? Shouldn't it just go in "see also"?Tigerdude9 (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but remember most of the are not actually relevant to this accident. MilborneOne (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the general summaries which point out the specifics of the similarities and give a quick overview of outcomes, it allows for a faster comparison than needing to click into each related link with no context.
However I don't see how the "similar accident" categorized as "in contrast to deploying landing gear" is at ALL related other than being an air disaster with a crash landing, of which I assume it is only one more of many. The immediate initiator of the accident was different and there was no loss of hydraulics. To me it reads like it was put in to implicitly criticize the decision to deploy landing gear instead of belly landing, which obviously is inappropriate. It is well cited but none of the citations justify the comparison to 232, only the specifics of that accident. I may remove it unless someone can give more context for that one.
The remaining entries have pretty clear similarities to 232 in my view, and seem well organized and worth keeping.
-jerodast (talk) 04:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Related AFD[edit]

A discussion has been underway concerning the restored article Al Haynes that some may be interested in. Otr500 (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Injuries and deaths" distinguishes those who were in first class[edit]

This seems to attach special importance of people's deaths based upon financial status, and it seems like an irrelevant statistical element, so I recommend removing mention of first class passengers from this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.49.211.216 (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the seating chart, I do find it striking that so many deaths were in first class compared to the rows behind them. It suggests something of general interest about the physical arrangement of the plane and/or seats, which only happens to be correlated to financial status. I wouldn't remove those notes but I wouldn't mind someone changing them to break it down by sections of the plane - if there is appropriate terminology that's just as clear. However "first class" may be the easiest and clearest distinction to make instead of more vague or arbitrary sounding terms like "front of plane" "first 4 rows" etc. -jerodast (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with jerodast on this one. It seems clear to me that the intent was to demonstrate the disparity in the casualties, not attach importance to class. Perhaps there should be a bit more clarity in the article to show that? 167.248.90.96 (talk) 06:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does having a seat in first class somehow axiomatically correlate with socioeconomic status? Maybe a particular passenger used a frequent-flyer-miles upgrade. More likely, they were on a business trip and their company booked a full-fare, fully refundable coach seat that the passenger was able to parlay into a first-class upgrade (which I'll tell you is a thing that happens all the time). The fact that someone's job involves flying places at the last minute doesn't make them rich or distinguishable based on financial status; it just means that's what their job involves. This is a practically and logically indefensible train of thought. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Airlines_Flight_232&oldid=1219507507"