Talk:United Air Lines Flight 553

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

533 or 553?[edit]

Don't want to count beans, but is it flight 533 or flight 553?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.152.138 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good observation, the flight number was typo'd in two places. I double checked my sources before correcting it. Flight 533 is the correct number. Skywayman 08:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but 553 is the correct number. Someone needs to change the title heading to 553. I changed all the others. My source is the official NTSB accident report. That report consistently uses 553, not 533. Even in the CVR transcript, both approach control and the Midway tower addresses the flight as 553. --EditorASC 11:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've redirected about 10 incoming links on the 533 article to the 553 article, which previously had only 2 incoming. Most articles called it flight 533, which has now also been fixed to 553. László 09:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NTSB report linked in article has 553. Jokestress 16:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only changed the links, thanks for spotting that one. However, I think the header of this section ought to remain "533 or 553", not "553 or 553" :) László 13:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Flight Engineer" to licensed pilot[edit]

I changed the designation of "Flight Engineer" to licensed pilot. The union contract did require a third pilot, who was a member of ALPA and licensed by the FAA as a pilot. Although junior pilots on the ALPA seniority list at United, did have a "flight engineer" rating too, that was because that rating was required for them to operate the FE panels on planes like the 727, DC-8, B-720, DC-10, B-747. However, if one of those junior pilots bid to serve as the third pilot on the 737, there was no FAA requirement for that pilot to hold a FE certificate, simply because there was no FE panel on the 737.

The FAA did not require a third cockpit crewmember at all, but the union did---as an additional "safety pilot" (union's euphemism for featherbedding) in that cockpit. To be valid, FE certificates must be kept current, by periodic FE panel training in the designated airplane type simulator. Since the third pilot on the 737, never received any recurrent FE training, his FE certificate was not current and thus, no longer valid. But, that didn't matter, because there was no FE on the 737 anyway, just a third pilot, and then only because the union demanded it. --EditorASC 02:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel words and unsourced claim on FBI[edit]

I propose deleting the unsourced statement that "some claim" the FBI destroyed evidence in the crash. There is no source for this phrase, and I would also say that this page adequately addresses the fact that there are conspiracy theorists who believe this crash was caused by the U.S. government. At the same time, the page sources and adequately covers the fact that the crash was extensively investigated, and links to the findings of that investigation.

I would also join those who would oppose cluttering up this article with unsourced conspiracy theory statements, or those sourced to websites that are of questionable verifiability. Let's keep this page, like all of WP, appropriately encyclopedic.NYDCSP 15:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The unsupportable comments about conspiracies should be eliminated. EditorASC 09:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The US federal government is behind everything . 2601:192:100:3DD0:B4CC:2A54:99F5:BE87 (talk) 09:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation[edit]

I rewrote the investigation, since the previous version stated the the FDR had provided the NTSB with the necessary information about the flight profile prior to the crash. That was incorrect. The FDR had failed to operate, approximately 14 minutes prior to the crash. The data was actually created by the NTSB comparing the ARTS-111 radar system tapes, to Boeing flight profile data (for the 737) and then by correlating that with the CVR sound analysis, by General Electric. I also added that the probable cause was the stalling of the plane, as the pilots got "behind the plane." They apparently had a severe case of "tunnel vision," and failed to become cognizant of the low speed of the plane, until it was too late. They also failed to retract the in-flight wing spoilers, and that increased the stall speed of the wings, while they attempted to recover. EditorASC 09:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did a major rewrite to improve the tone (below the probable cause finding). I think it is much clearer now and the average layman should be able to understand it without significant difficulty. EditorASC (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyanide in the pilot's bloodstream?[edit]

There is no mention of it in the article, but is there substance to the claim that the pilot had cyanide in his bloodstream? Proof Reader 01:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"There was no evidence of any medical condition that would have incapacitated the crew, or of any interference with the crew in the performance of their duties; nor did the Safety Board's investigation reveal any evidence of sabotage or foul play in connection with this accident. The nature and severity of the injuries of the nonsurviving occupants was consistent with the nature of the impact and combined destruction of the aircraft and the houses. The finding of elevated levels of carbon monoxide and cyanide in some of the victims was consistent with death due to smoke inhalation in the conditions existing during the post crash fire."

Aircraft Accident Report, NTSB-AAR-73-16, pg. 23. EditorASC (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the guys, I can't remember whether it was Walt or Whitey, was killed instantly, the other ended up in the basement of a building and had time to inhale toxic fumes. Cyanide is a common byproduct of burning plastics and elevated levels are normal in crashes involving fires.

Cyanide is often a primary cause of death in survivable accidents. Mark Lincoln (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't trust Wikipedia[edit]

Wikipedia lies and otherwise cover-ups the truth about US government conspiracies. For example, the JFK assassination and 9/11 pages on Wikipedia are blatant lies.

So, there is no reason to believe anything in this article. Furthermore it is safer to assume to the worst, Flight 553 was sabotaged by the CIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.232.124 (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While it is very clear that Whitey and Walt never achieved a stabilized approach and caused the accident, it seems Howard Hunt assumed a different reason for the accident.

Given the CIA record of sabotaging airliners he seems to have considered the possibility of a shive in the back in prison and started singing.

I have often wondered if a botched approach led to the downfall of Nixon.

But that is speculation upon consequences and there is NO evidence of an Conspiracy So Vast. Mark Lincoln (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whew! Sure glad you put in that last sentence.... EditorASC (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comprehensiveness/section balance[edit]

Although many plane-crash articles have extensive discussions of the route, the aircraft, the mechanisms of the crash, etc., this article is dominated by the "Investigation" section. All of the facts of the crash are in the intro. While I realize that conspiracy theorists have an axe to grind, how does that explain the lack of other material usually in a Wiki-plane-crash article? Surely, it's not because there are no data: even the names of the pilots are absent.

C'mon, guys. Add (real facts) to the article. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation credibility[edit]

I don't believe there's a reliable source provided to conclusivley state that "the official cause reported by the NTSB above cannot be regarded as credible", as changed from "the official cause reported by the NTSB above are not regarded as credible by some parties", per this edit (which I also believe is a non-neutral point of view). Hence, my revision, per WP:BRD. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doubts about Oglesby[edit]

I was in two minds as to whether to include references to the Oglesby book. On balance I decided to do so, despite the following concerns:

  • He questions "why flight 553 was reassigned to runway 31L, which is shorter [than runway 13R] and lacks a glidescope".
    • In fact 31L and 13R are exactly the same length because they are the same runway, just used in opposite directions. This shows a less-than-rigorous attitude to fact-checking.
    • Both runways 31L and 13R had glideslopes. A very simple fact to check from available publications such as Jeppeson.
  • He misinterprets the Ruckelhaus letter "Approximately 50 FBI agents responded to the crash scene, the first ones arriving within 45 minutes of the crash" as "50 FBI agents arrived at the scene within an hour". A careful reading of the source can only justify the conclusion that at least two agents arrived within 45 minutes and 50 in total attended within 20 hours.
  • He describes Skolnick as having been confined to a wheelchair from birth. In fact his disability came about after he suffered polio at age 6. Obviously this is unimportant to the accident, but it further undermines his "reputation for fact checking" per WP:RS, especially considering the two were once colleagues.
  • Most disappointing of all, is the lack of a clear description of the sabotage theory (who/why/how).

82.1.57.194 (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Oglesby seems to have checked the facts, because he is right in both cases.
  1. The official (declared) landing distance available (LDA) of RWY 31L was shorter than the LDA of RWY 13R.
  2. RWY 31L did lack a glideslope indeed. This is why the flight had to perform this non-precision/localizer approach to RWY 31L in the first place. (The absence of the glideslope signal was acknowledged by two crew members during the approach.)
--195.246.100.57 (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United Airlines Flight 553. 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 to let others know.

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 23:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Air_Lines_Flight_553&oldid=1210796217"