Talk:Northwest Airlines Flight 188

Operator

Since Delta owns northwest, shouldnt the operator be Delta in the flight summary? Also Delta has been answering questions about the flight as well. Crd721 (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No, because Delta is the owner, not the operator. - BilCat (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

"Overflight of airport"

Is this really the form that should be used? 76.66.198.193 (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw this term used on a pilot forum discussing this incident. I think its better to use what is apparently an official term but if you think its better to use something that may be easier to understand I guess that works. Crd721 (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Falling asleep in the US

The BBC is comparing go! (airline) flight 1002 to this one. 76.66.198.193 (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

They didn't fall asleep, so the point is irrelevant. - BilCat (talk) 05:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Says who, that they didn't fall asleep? Says the two pilots? Certainly, they are not a source of valid, reliable, unbiased information. I have seen no other source (other than the pilots' accounts) indicating that they did not fall asleep. And, as mentioned, the pilots' testimony is to be regarded with skepticism at best ... and considered a flat out lie, trying to save their own skin, at worst. Not to mention, a federal crime -- probably -- to lie to the FBI, FAA, etc. Thanks. (64.252.124.238 (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

The explaination given by the pilots is more damning than falling asleep. They say they were fully awake and ignoring everything thrown at them. Atleast if they fell asleep, something should wake them up. 70.29.209.91 (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

CNN has now also made comparisons with the "go!" flight. 70.29.209.91 (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Help with re-writing sentence

I knew I wrote poor English, which I need help to improving it:

“ In U.S.A., FAA is prohibit knapping, but other carrier, which they include British Airways, Qantas and Air France, permitting knaps of one pilot in cockpit because of they help alert during take-off and landing. ”

I try to include, but other editor BilCat didn't like my poor English, so needing help to improving it! --B767-500 (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

“ In the U.S.A, the FAA prohibits pilots from taking short naps, but airlines from other countries allow short naps whilst outside of US airspace. These airlines include British Airways, Qantas and Air France. ”

I don't think the references you have supplied are reliable enough to include this though. Martin451 (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

References

Did aircraft carry enough fuel?

Article should include "did fuel almost be run out"? Can you found source? --B767-500 (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Is that even relevant? The focus of this incident were the pilots' actions. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 23:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to speak for the original poster ... but, yes, it is relevant. It could very well be that due to the pilots' actions, the fuel ran out or ran low. If they went an extra 150 miles beyond the destination -- plus the extra 150 to circle back and correct for that -- they may have either run out of fuel ... or ran into a dangerously low level because of the extra travel distance of 300 miles. So, yes, I believe that that is very relevant ... if, indeed, it is a factor in this case at all. Thanks. (64.252.124.238 (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

All aircraft are required to carry enough fuel to reach their diversion airport plus enough fuel for at least 40 minutes of extra cruising time. If they were low on fuel they would have had declared a fuel emergency, the fact that they didn't means they were not in an fuel emergency situation.Spikydan1 (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

All of what you say may, in fact, be true. However, it is certainly not common knowledge to the average lay person. The original poster's point is that such information should be included as relevant to the article. Thanks. (64.252.124.238 (talk) 04:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

Also, my understanding is that the extra distance took about 15 minutes of flying time ... so, double that to 30 minutes for the round trip to correct the extra distance. According to your post, that would leave a mere 10 minutes of "wiggle room" ... which sounds like cutting it pretty close to me. In any event, your information is not common knowledge ... and the article does not mention the extra time passage required for the 150 mile (300 miles, round trip) diversionary trip. Thanks. (64.252.124.238 (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

Right now, we don't know how much fuel the plane had on board at the beginning or the end. If you can find the info in a relioable source, we can look at it, and determine if it's relevant or not. Until then, we have no idea if it's relevant or not. - BilCat (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It is relevant. Whether or not we have a source for it has nothing to do with its relevance. Whether (or not) the fuel situation became endangered as a result of these pilots' actions is clearly relevant to the incident. The answer may be "yes, the fuel situation was endangered" or "no, it was not". Either way, it is still relevant. Because we do not have a source, either way, in no way removes the relevancy. That only means we cannot add (relevant) information due to lack of source. Thanks. (64.252.124.238 (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

What I ment was that what I said is that was the minimum amount of extra fuel required by law. They likely had extra fuel on top of the minimum required. If they were dangerously low on fuel, I am sure that the media would have picked up on that and made this into a HUGE thing (I'm sure many reporters have already asked about fuel in any press conferences held). Spikydan1 (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. However, absence of information about a fact does not necessarily mean that the "fact" did not occur. Just because there are no news reports does not mean that it did not happen. Case in point: there are no news reports that the pilots were definitely sleeping. That simple fact (that there are no news reports) does not mean that the pilots were not, in fact, asleep. The absence of a report does not "prove" any factual information. Thanks. (64.252.124.238 (talk) 13:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

All I'm trying to say is if they were dangerously low on fuel, they would have declared a fuel emergency and they did not declare one. Spikydan1 (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

They, who? The pilots? Or someone else (as in the airline)? If the "they" refers to the two pilots ... there are a lot of things that they should have done and did not do. "They" also did not report that they overshot and missed the destination. If there was a low fuel level, maybe they kept their mouths shut, hoping to eke out the last few gallons to make it to the airport. They probably have a good sense of how much fuel will go how far. (Just like when I drive my car and the gas gauge is on "empty" ... but I know that it's not really empty ... and I can drive for another 10 minutes.) So, in that analogous situation, maybe these two goons felt it best to keep their yaps shut and hope for the best. Thanks. (64.252.124.238 (talk) 13:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

You clearly don't know what you're talking about, User 64.252.124.238.—Quicksilver^{T @} 14:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Airliners always fly on an instrument flight plan, even in clear weather. According to F.A.R. Part 91.167, Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) fuel reserve requirements are sufficient fuel to fly to the destination, then to the alternate, and still have sufficient fuel on board for at least 45 minutes beyond that. The ground crews know the requirements prior to the flight and load sufficient fuel to meet the requirements. Therefore, it's safe to assume that Northwest Flight 188 had at least one hour of reserve fuel on board, and probably more, with the expectation that they could be put in a holding pattern at the destination. Barring a leak in the fuel system, the aircraft in this instance would have had plenty of fuel, and was never in jeopardy for that reason. There have been absolutely no reports that the aircraft had any such leak. Most of the posts below the initial post in this section are wild, uninformed speculation and irrelevant to the Wikipedia article. —Quicksilver^{T @} 14:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, cool ... I did not realize that we had the King of Wikipedia here to help sort it all out. Glad to know that you, Quicksilver (User Hydrargyrum), know everything about this topic. That will be an invaluable tool to the rest of us low lifes who know nothing and who "don't know what we are talking about" (your words). The initial point -- and the following dialogue -- raised the issue of whether or not the flight had enough fuel, given the "extra" distance of 300 miles. (A) That is clearly relevant to this article ... whether there was or was not a fuel emergency. (B) All of the mumbo jumbo that you spouted in your above post is not common knowledge accessible to the average layperson. Remember, that we are not all brilliant and omniscient, as you are. Regardless of the high opinion you have of yourself, all that you spouted is not common, everyday knowledge. Only punctuating the fact that the issue of a potential fuel emergency is indeed relevant to this article. Get your head out of your ass, dude. You are not as brilliant as you may think. And -- even if you are -- thanks for suffering us low-life dolts who are not as genius as yourself. Thanks so much for casting your pearls before us swine. Ass. (64.252.124.238 (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

You could have done due diligence on your own and looked up FAR 91.167 on your own before spouting off here. —Quicksilver^{T @} 19:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What a horse's ass. I did not know that reading an encyclopedia article required due diligence. Yea, my bad. I should have known to look up FAR 91.167. Geez, what was I thinking?!?!? Geez, silly me for not knowing that clearly obvious fact! How stupid of me! I am sure that 99.999999% of the other Wikipedia readers (a) all did their due diligence before reading this article ... and (b) went and read FAR 91.167. You are so full of yourself. I am not impressed with your level of genius as you are clearly impressed with yourself, your ability to conduct due diligence, and your vast knowledge of the FAR reports. What an ass, seriously. (64.252.124.238 (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

On second thought, Quicksilver ... you are right. All of that info in FAR 91.167 is indeed common knowledge and is indeed accessible to the average layman reading this article. I mean, everyone knows to conduct due diligence before reading an encyclopedia article. And, everyone knows all about the FAR reports and faithfully carries one in their pocket -- you know -- just in case. Not sure what I was thinking here. Silly me. (Please not sarcasm.) Thanks. (64.252.124.238 (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

(Unindent) Please try to remain somewhat civil, IP 64-238. Whether or not you agree that the fuel information is relevant, no news source has reported on such info, as far as we know, so we can't add anything to the articel anyway at this point. Also, no one else agrees at this point that it is absolutely relevant, which means there is no consensus to add it, especially since there's nothing to add! When such information is forthcoming, that might change. Until then, I doubt we will accomplish anything by leveling insults at each other, other than perhaps to get one of ourselves blocked for incivility. - BilCat (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I found source, so update article: FAA revokes wayward Northwest pilots' licenses. Sorry my poor English; can you fix grammer? thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by B767-500 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 29 October 2009

The Sun-Sentinel author drew the same misguided conclusion as the above wikiers. The FAA letter mentions the fuel summary of the flight but does not ever state that it was an "issue" - just that it was a factor in the decision to revoke the licenses. Had the distraction not been corrected sooner, fuel might have become an issue later, maybe around the time the plane got to Lake Michigan. In any case, the AP didn't ever mention fuel being an issue. --Tjsynkral (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As I look at the history, it seems that this user, B767-500 was intent on accusing Flight 188 of being in danger of a fuel emergency from the outset. He started this thread looking for a source so he could mention fuel in the article. Of course, if you dig through enough news stories you will find one with an error - but Sun-Sentinel is the only outlet that somehow got "The revocation letter also indicated the plane's fuel supply could have become an issue" from "The planned fuel summary was based on NW188 beginning a descent into MSP at approximately 2 hours and 50 minutes into the flight." (This is from the actual letter located here.) A proper news editor would have taken that part of the letter, and approached an industry expert (say, a pilot) for clarification on the meaning of that bullet point, and then made his comments a direct quote in the news article. But then again, a proper news editor would have done that and been told by the same expert, no, there was no fuel issue on Flight 188 - and proceeded not to mention fuel at all. That's probably what the AP did. --Tjsynkral (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

License vs. certificate

There is no such thing as a "pilot license" in U.S. aviation. See "Pilot licensing and certification". It is correctly and legally called an "airman certificate". The news media seem to consistently get this terminology wrong, with the possible exception of aviation industry publications. Also, the two pilots in question would not have had a "commercial license"; to fly in scheduled passenger service, U.S. Federal Aviation Regulations require one to hold an Air Transport Pilot (ATP) rating. Even though the various sources cited for the article are wrong, there's no reason that Wikipedia should also get it wrong.—Quicksilver^{T @} 14:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Uhhhh ... except for that fact that Wikipedia only reports from -- not corrects -- the reliable sources. Other than that trivial point, your post is correct. Ha ha. I guess you are fallible, like the rest of us? LOL. (64.252.124.238 (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

Not true if other sources exist that prove the given source is in error, as they do. - BilCat (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sleep issues

I try to add two types, but User:BilCat is delete it. Type was = Pilot distraction and Pilot error

I try to add these two, but he is delete it!

• Sleeping while on duty
• Sleep deprived piloting

Thanks --B767-500 (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reference that they were sleeping or sleep deprived? To my knowledge, that was just a theory, and has never been proven. The FAA report cited in the article does not mention sleep or sleep deprivation as a cause in this incident. That's why I removed it. - BilCat (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• I agreed with Bill. B767-500, we need to have reliable sources for reference because this is not a simple case that warrants unwanted speculation on the part of anyone, which in this case qualifies as you spreading a baseless facts/rumour. Wikipedia is not a place for any individual editor, who are in no way related to the case, to issue such irresponsible statement which is a clear contradiction of Wikipedia's editing guidelines and policies. You have been warned~! (second time, if I might add!) --Dave1185 ^talk 01:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, the original reports by the media speculated that the pilots had fallen asleep. Perhaps B767 did not realize that sleep/sleep deprivation had been ruled out. He's not fluent in English, so that may be part of the difficulty, and there may not have been any good reports in his native language on the more-recent FAA findings. This is one reason I advise those with limited English skills to be careful about editing the articles on English.WP (talk pages are different), and instead to consider concentrating on building up the wikipedias in languages in which they are fluent. While I sometimes use the German, French, Italian, and Spanish WPs, I never edit on them beyond some minor copy edits, and adding interwiki links to new English articles. - BilCat (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I know my poor English is still learning. But I practiced writing on Wikipedia and nice editors able to correct my poor English, which help to improved learning. Thanks. --B767-500 (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I did got so many free English tutors on Wikipedia, you! Haha! Thanks. --B767-500 (talk) 05:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Good article

I found good article, which you should reading it due to good informations:

• At 35,000 feet, pilots' main job is fighting fatigue

Thanks. --B767-500 (talk) 00:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Why was the CVR(cockpit voice recorder) not reviewed?

Most are on 2 hour loops these days. Listening to the recorder would automatically solve the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.18.168.153 (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It was taken out of the aircraft and reviewed...The model used in this aircraft was only a 30 minute loop so it proved useless to the investigators because they flew for for almost an hour more after regaining contact with ATC. Spikydan1 (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Update

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/03/15/wayward.pilots.licenses/?hpt=T2 Pilots who overflew airport drop attempt to keep licenses - CNN.com

Under a settlement with the FAA, the pilots will not contest their license revocation but can reapply for their licenses in 10 months instead of 12, the agency said.

The FAA declined to say why it settled, but the settlement pre-empts the need for an appeals hearing next month before the National Transportation Safety Board that could have resulted in protracted litigation.

The FAA said it reached the settlement Monday.

If the pilots reapply for their licenses, they would need to take tests required of new pilots and would need simulator training to get certificates allowing them to pilot commercial planes, FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.125.3.73 (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"Denver controllers..." statement

A prior editor inserted a line stating "Denver Air traffic controllers admitted to being unaware of being out of contact with the flight for several sectors", which I removed. It was reverted shortly thereafter with a citeneeded tag added. Sorry, but that doesn't meet WP:BURDEN of proof. ATC procedures make that impossible; an aircraft simply can not cross "several sectors" NORDO unnoticed. Among other procedures, you can take a look section 5-4-5 of FAA JO 7110.65, which mandates the requirements for a handoff between sectors, including advising receiving controllers of "pertinent information not contained in the data block or flight progress strip", e.g. a NORDO aircraft: http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc/atc0504.html#atc0504.html.2 . Trust me, I work in a similar facility. A NORDO aircraft doesn't go unnoticed. 50.113.107.91 (talk) 04:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

And I suppose Nigeria Airways Flight 2120 took off fine, because similar rules prohibit taking off with underpressurized tires? Procedures don't mean anything, especially not in a case where the very issue is the rules being broken or ignored.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a non-sequitur argument, spoken with all the wisdom of somebody who doesn't do the job. Of course procedures are meaningful, and if you had experience with the En Route environment, you'd understand that the suggestion is simply not possible. In any case, the burden is on the editor to prove something added to the article, especially if challenged on it. Because it didn't happen, you're not going to find something to support that. But if you'd like to spend some time looking, knock yourself out. Until you find proof, it stays out of the article. 50.113.107.91 (talk) 05:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/recletters/2010/a-10-042-043.pdf says "This lack of standardization allowed NWA188 to pass through two Denver ATC sectors without controllers being aware that it was NORDO." Procedure meant shit in this case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Note on previous AFD

There was a previous AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwest Airlines Flight 188 but it seems to pass WP:GNG and the Smithsonian Channel did a program on this disaster. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)