Talk:Aloha Airlines Flight 243

intro

I removed "The safe landing of the aircraft with such a major loss of integrity was unprecedented and remains unsurpassed." from the introduction. The statement cannot be supported with evidence. Try to stay objective.

cycles

Question: how can a 19-year old plane have 80,000 takeoff-landing cycles? There are about 7,000 days in 19 years, so this plane somehow averaged 10 cycles per day? Maybe it was 8,000 cycles, which would average one cycle per day, which seems reasonable..

Answer: 80,000 takeoff-landing cycles is correct. Prior to Sept 11, 2001, Aloha and Hawaiian Airlines typically flew on the order of ten inter-island flights per jet daily. Daily service started at 5:00 am and concluded at 9:00 pm. Flight times were approximately 20 to 60 minutes depending on the route, and turnaround time on the ground was on the order of 20-30 minutes.

Capt Roberto R. MOLA Feb 6th 2008 17:55UTC

I agree completely to this concept and, additionally, would say the following:

1)The text I've added in the past about maintenance schedule for Aloha (A deep and thorough inspection of Aloha Airlines by NTSB revealed that the most extensive and longer "D Check" was performed in several early morning installments, instead of a full uninterrupted maintenance procedure. They also found that eddy-current testing inspections on the fuselage skin, as prescribed by Boeing, had not been performed.) is a transcription of NTSB findings. Citation needed? Well, everybody feel free to research that matter and know the truth. Period!

2)Insistence on the so called "Fluid Hammer" effect as the MAIN cause for the failure, neglects COMPLETELY all the official investigation fot the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.37.184.28 (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have carefully written that the Fluid Hammer theory is completely Austin's own thoughts. I have not written anything that brings forth FH as absolute truth regarding flight 243. --J-Star (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Since it is completely Austin's own thoughts, it most certainly does not belong on Wikipedia. No original research. --LonelyPixel08 (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Capt Roberto R. MOLA Feb 11th 2008 18:31UTC

carefully...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.37.160.240 (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

As in taken care to make sure his theory isn't presented as factual in the article. --J-Star (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Source question

Was the page as of Dec 23 plagiarized from this news article http://starbulletin.com/2005/12/22/features/story05.html, or visa versa?

This article was used as part of the source fore the story above. Trödel•talk 18:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The article shows both 80,000 and 89,000 cycles in the aftermath section. Which is correct? 141.228.106.135 12:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

01/12/06: "Vice versa". The article contains the following:

CORRECTION Saturday, December 24, 2005 » A portion of a review of the television show "Secrets of the Black Box: Aloha Flight 243" was taken verbatim from the Web site reference.com. The material was originally published in the online encyclopedia wikipedia.com. The article, on Page D6 Thursday, failed to attribute the information to either source.

Unreferenced details

The details section, while containing pertinent information and being well-written, generally lacks any sources. Given the specificity of the information contained in there, I am assuming that much of it was drawn from an NTSB report. Nevertheless, most of the claims in the section need to be cited for verifiability. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

As the article itself was tagged in 2010 and nothing was done about this problem, I have moved the unsourced material here. Feel free to add it to the article with appropriate citations. Doniago (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Details

As part of the design of the 737, stress may be alleviated by controlled area breakaway zones. The intent was to provide controlled depressurization that would maintain the integrity of the fuselage structure. The age of the plane and the condition of the fuselage (that had corroded and was stressing the rivets beyond their designed capacity) appear to have conspired to render the design a part of the problem; when that first controlled area broke away, according to the small rupture theory, the rapid sequence of events resulted in the failure sequence. This has been referred to as a zipper effect. First Officer Madeline "Mimi" Tompkins' head was jerked back during the decompression, and she saw cabin insulation flying around the cockpit. Captain Robert Schornstheimer looked back and saw blue sky where the first class cabin's roof had been. Tompkins immediately contacted Air Traffic Control on Maui to declare mayday, switching duties with Captain Schornstheimer, who from this point on took over control of the plane, as it is customary for the captain to take over a flight that enters a state of emergency. At the time of the decompression, the chief flight attendant, Clarabelle "C.B." Lansing, was standing at seat row 5 collecting drink cups from passengers. According to passengers' accounts, Lansing was blown out through a hole in the side of the airplane by the greater air pressure remaining in the cabin. Flight attendant Michelle Honda, who was standing near rows 15 and 16, was thrown violently to the floor during the decompression. Despite her injuries, she was able to crawl up and down the aisle to assist and calm the terrified passengers. Flight attendant Jane Sato-Tomita, who was at the front of the plane, was seriously injured by flying debris and was thrown to the floor. Passengers held onto her during the descent into Maui. The explosive decompression severed the electrical wiring from the nose gear to the indicator light on the cockpit instrument panel. As a result, the light did not illuminate when the nose gear was lowered, and the pilots had no way of knowing if it had fully lowered. Before landing, passengers were instructed to don their life jackets, in case the aircraft did not make it to Kahului.

Aftermath

The root cause of the problem was failure of an epoxy adhesive used to bond the aluminum sheets of the fuselage together when the B737 was manufactured. Water was able to enter the gap where the epoxy failed to bond the two surfaces together properly, and started the corrosion process. The age of the aircraft became a key factor in why the damage had been so severe: It was 19 years old at the time of the accident and had sustained a remarkable number of takeoff–landing cycles, the second most cycles for a plane in the world at the time, and well beyond the 75,000 trips it was designed to sustain. However, several other aircraft operating under similar environments did not exhibit the same phenomenon. A deep and thorough inspection of Aloha Airlines by NTSB revealed that the most extensive and longer "D Check" was performed in several early morning installments, instead of a full uninterrupted maintenance procedure. The crack was located aft of the front port side passenger door. The crack was probably due to metal fatigue related to the 89,090 compression and decompression cycles experienced in the short hop flights by Aloha. As a direct result of this incident, the FAA instituted additional and more thorough mandatory maintenance checks for aging aircraft. In addition, the United States Congress passed the Aviation Safety Research Act of 1988 in the wake of the disaster. This provided for stricter research into probable causes of future airplane disasters. Both pilots remained with Aloha Airlines. Robert Schornstheimer retired from Aloha Airlines in August 2005. At that time, Madeline Tompkins was still a captain of the airline's Boeing 737-700 aircraft, and remained so until the airline ceased passenger operations in 2008.

Inspection

==Inspection== In B 737, the fuselage is divided into four sections with sections 41, 43, 46, and 48. These sections along were met at butt joints. Disbonding of these bonds led to improper load distribution, and fatigue cracking. Additionally, the joint disbanding also led to corrosion which contributed to joint failure. Multiple site damage was the main cause of the fuselage damage. MSD can range from a few fatigue cracks among many rivet holes to the worst case of small, visually undetectable fatigue cracks on both sides of rivet holes. Even though the small crack is not visualized it may lead to catastrophic destruction of the system. In the case of this 737 after the accident, a passenger reported that as she boarded, she noticed a large vertical fuselage crack, but didn’t mention it to anyone. This small crack propagated by MSD and the final analysis revealed that MSD was most prevalent in the mid-bay areas (between adjacent circumferential tear straps). A fatigue crack up to 0.52 inches in length was evident in lap joints along s “10L” near body STA 520 (near the missing area). A section of S4R is found out from the right wing which contained many cracked portions that originated due to disbanding of cold bonded lap joints and hot bonded tear joints. Due to this, the function of the joint is lost and the rivets start to carry the loads. When a rivet hole is stressed, a knife-edged crack starts to form. The analysis shows that it is probable that a large number of small cracks at the S-10L may have joined to form a large crack. With the data obtained from damage due to accident, theoretical calculations on crack interaction, MSD propagation rate, and the service history of B-737 lap joint disbonded problems, the safety Board concluded that, at the time of the accident, numerous fatigue cracks in the fuselage skin lap joint along S-10L linked up quickly to cause catastrophic failure of a large section of the fuselage.

redirects needed for this article

• N73711
• AAH243

70.55.86.54 (talk) 00:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Matt Austin

I reinserted the section on Matt Austin since I feel it is not a violation of WP:SOAP. While Matt Austin did indeed climb the soap box and criticized Boeing for their "Fly 'til it breaks" design philosophy, all that has been left out of the section in the WP article. What remains is only technical information that is relevant. Matt Austin has been featured several times in media relating to the accident and I think he is worthy of a mention in the way that it is now written.

If we do not keep Matt Austin, then we have to also take out people like Joe White and references to Jan Brown Lohr.

The fact that some people do soap box activity does not automatically mean that mentioning them and some of the things they say make the Wikipedia article they are featured in a WP:SOAP violation. --J-Star (talk) 08:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the section once again. Matt Austin is in no way an aircraft authority and devoting a section to his theory violates WP:SOAP and undue weight. Unless Matt Austin has published his theory in a peer-reviewed journal or a respected online source (NOT his own webpage), this also violates the No original research policy:

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable

Clearly, this section should not be added to Wiki. Please do not re-add the section unless you can cite a peer-reviewed journal or mainstream publication. --LonelyPixel08 (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Matt Austin clearly does have expert knowledge on a subject closely related to this incident: pressure vessels and the failure of such. This was indeed a pressure vessel that failed. The pressure vessel just happened to part of an aircraft.

The section cannot be Original Research since I - who added the section - am not Matt Austin. The section does not make any "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the source" but simply cites Matt Austin's theory. Thus it is not Original Research. Several programs on the incident and newspapers have cited Matt Austin and people formerly from the NTSB have acknowledged that he is not on a wild goose chase. That ought to be good enought to warrant a mention here too.

The section is not WP:SOAP beacuse it specifically excludes Matt Austin's advocacy directed at Boeing. The section only includes technical information that cannot be said to be a standpoint, which is required for it to be a SOAP violation. The information is used by Austin to support his standpoint that Boeing has a faulty design philosophy, but the fluid hammer theory applied to Aloha 243 is not the standpoint itself.

I think that LonelyPixel08 has interpreted the WP rules much too strict, alternatively interpreted them wrong. Unless someone shows exactly what part of NOR and SOAP the section on Matt Austin violates, I'll add it again tomorrow. --J-Star (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No, what LonelyPixel08 should be referring to is Wikipedia:Undue weight - If Matt Austin's opinion is not held by a significant number of people, his opinion should not be represented. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well the thing here is that the "community" of people with held beliefs and whose beliefs are relevant since they have taken a deep interrest in the incident is very small. You basically have two schools of thoughts distributed on a mere three parties: 1) failure at multiple points simultaneously. That view is held by the NTSB and Boeing. It should be noted that Boeing also has an interrest in maintaining that belief. 2) The Fluid Hammer Theory, held by Matt Austin. Everyone else base their belifs on information from the NTSB, Boeing and Matt Austin. So I don't think Matt Austin is given undue weight concidering the very small amount of parties whose beliefs are relevant. --J-Star (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Original research is research done by an individual that has not been published in a way that ensures peer review and commentary. Matt Austin's own personal webpage is not an acceptable source. This information can not be in the article unless you can cite a real, respectable source. End of story. --LonelyPixel08 (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not how I read the rule. Original resarch - as I see it - is when the editor makes new claims or makes analysis, synthesis, etc of existing fact. If Austin presents Original Research, then the NTSB must also be said for have presented original research and must therefore not be mentioned in any article regarding transportation incidents/accidents.

Austin's claims and his arguments for them are readilly available, with diagrams, reasonings and illustrations, for peer review on his site and anyone willing to make commentary on it is free to do so. Granted that a Google search for Matt Austin in relation to Aloha 243 does not generate many hits. But this comment from former NTSB investigator Brian Richardson, is not insignificant: "In every accident I ever worked, all kinds of crazies came out of the woodwork with theories about what happened", "Matt Austin is not one of those people. He has good, solid credentials, and he’s not going off the deep end." "Matt may well have nailed the cause of the accident, I just don't know.". This quote comes from USA Today (accodring to the credits of this article). If this doesn't constitute peer review and publication, then what does? And just how much of Wikipedia will you have to slash if you don't accept this? --J-Star (talk) 08:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

J-Star, do you have a reliable source stating that there is a significant number of people who base their beliefs on what Matt Austin has to say? If not, we cannot include Austin as per WP:Undue. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that says that there is a significant number of people who base their beliefs of what cased the accident with Aloha 243 on what the NTSB has to say on the matter? This may sound like just being cheeky, but I'm serious here. Many don't even know about the accident... and even fewer has a distinct opinion about the exact cause of it. Use the guide you posted below on the NTSB report and you find that it too has trouble living up to the rule. Further more the (former?) NTSB chairman James Hall is stated according to USA Today to think that Austin's theory 'makes sense', even though the NTSB came to a different different conclusion. --J-Star (talk) 08:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the NTSB is the investigating agency, its viewpoint is inherently notable and we are obligated to include it. Alternate theories have to work at it in order to be included too. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, here is a guide: "* If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." - Pasted from WP:Undue

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Delving into the causes of aircraft accidents is a very narrow niche. You won't find much material about them. As such, Matt Austin, despite being just one(1) guy, cannot be said to be insignificant. The reasonings for his theory are easilly available for review, he is an expert on the subject, he has had significant people associated with the accident and the investigation comment on it, and he has been referenced and interviewed in publications and TV-programmes about the accident.

I am going to invoke Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. My justifications for invoking IAR are: the case of Aloha 243 and Matt Austin's investigation of the accident are rather unique and should be judged differently because of the unique context; his theory has been said to be relevant by people who worked within the NTSB investigating the accident; the theory is readilly availably for peer review; his theory has been reviewed; the fact that few have done a review so far is because this is a very narrow niche; the theory has been published in TV-programmes and newpapers; the rules - if followed strict - prevents improving the article with relevant information. --J-Star (talk) 08:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be perfectly satisfied with a summary of Austin's theory using the USA Today article for references, however I still think it's inappropriate to use his own website for references. Since the article is pretty in depth it shouldn't be hard to cite all the relevant information in it. --LonelyPixel08 (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well USA Today's source for the information is Austin, making it a secondary or possibly even tertiary source since Austin complies his theory from the information revealed by the NTSB investigation. I agree that using Austin's site directly is a touch risky and not quite according to normal practice on Wikipedia. But like I said: Austin's site is a secondary source and he references his sources quite well on the site. Also I'd like to stress - again - that we are talking about a very niched subject meaning that the findings of single individuals or other kinds of single parties - like the NTSB - become quite important which may make it acceptable to do an IAR for these unique cases.

I reviewed the USA Today article and it references Austin's site right on the money. I would very appreciate it if you were to review the Matt Austin WP section and check it against both the USA Today article and his site. If you find that all three say the same things, then we have consensus that the section can be returned as it was, no? (With the added reference to the USA Today article of course).

I agree that Austin's advocacy still should be left out. It borders too close to SOAP and it is not relevant enough for the article of flight 243. --J-Star (talk) 10:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that the section should be returned as it was, but I did put a summary into the article, sans Austin's damning of the airline industry. Frankly, the way it was written before, it sounded more like a conspiracy theory. I didn't include any links to Disastercity since it's hardly a neutral account, but there's a link to it in the USA Today article that anyone curious enough will be able to find without trouble. --LonelyPixel08 (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I like that re-write. Compact and to the point. Well done. :) --J-Star (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have searched recently for Austin's site and his original research. It has apparently been taken down and his former website now redirects to some other company. I could not find it. Any sources? Marcusyoder (talk) 04:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Arriving at the article page this section seemed absolutely WP:UNDUE shot through with WP:SOAPBOX so I have taken it out. Springnuts (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Austin isn't an aviation expert....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Matt Austin is a pressure vessel engineer and that is relevant to the accident. Austin has also been referred to in documentaries about the accident, being interviewed. However, since Austin's web page is no longer available, and news articles that previously linked Auston's statements and commenteray about them, are no longer available, we have no references to point to until someone digs out the documentaries where he is interviewed. So while I added that section, I also agree that it cannot remain. Not for WP:UNDUE though, we previously concluded that the number of people that have expert insight into this accident is so small that Austin, despite being only one, is significant enough. But with so many references now missing, we cannot have that section on any more. J-Star (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

speed of the air flow leaving the plane?

As part of the Matt Austin theory, the article references him as saying "As the cabin air escaped at over 700 mph..."

That sounds pretty high and unlikely. Doubly so since, in context, that's supposed to be the air inside the plane as it reaches the breaks in the aircraft skin.

Is there any further documentation for that? I couldn't find anything that looks at all reliable.

Thanks

wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

redirects

AAH 243 should redirect here as AAH243 does, as should Aloha 243. Also Queen Liliuokalani (airplane) , Queen Liliuokalani (airliner) , Queen Liliuokalani (jetliner), as this is the notable event in the life of aircraft with this name, as it is the notable event in the history of this flight number. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The fate of C.B. Lansing?

Did anyone bother to search for her remains? Was her body ever recovered? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.4.188 (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes her remains were searched for (they also searched for the missing part of the fuselage), and no they were never found. 2001:558:6040:82:7CD6:B941:F0A2:C349 (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

My wife and I had taken that flight from Honolulu to Hilo. It was on the return trip when the top blew off. We saw the report of the incident on the news when we got to our hotel room and remembered the flight attendent that was sucked out and lost. When we boarded the plane I put some items in the overhead and noticed that the fabric liner was torn lose from the cabin structure. I made a comment to my wife that they (the airline) didn't seem to maintain the insides of their planes very well.

W. Harris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.233.190 (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Added note about Lansing's memorial garden to pop culture section because doesn't seem to fit anywhere else. If anyone else has a better idea of where to put it, please do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.180.73.117 (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

What far-reaching effects?

"The safe landing of the aircraft despite the substantial damage inflicted by the decompression established Aloha Airlines Flight 243 as a significant event in the history of aviation, with far-reaching effects on aviation safety policies and procedures." In what way?

This is a very broad statement that is not qualified in any way throughout the article. If it drove new structural integrity inspections or new safety features or even increased inspection intervals it should be noted somewhere. By whom is it considered a significant event? I feel this entire statement is opinion-based or baseless altogether and not being otherwise qualified in this article is non-value added and should be removed.

There was some information on this that was itself removed for lacking sources; it can be found higher up on this page. Doniago (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Aloha Airlines Flight 243. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111201141420/http://www.ntsb.gov:80/investigations/summary/AAR8903.html to http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/summary/aar8903.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if this applies to this flight.

See

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWxxtzBTxGU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:102E:11:B5E3:8DC0:C7A5:3C90:940C (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

How did they even survive?

Most other cases of decompression are just that, a break in the hull making the air inside the airplane quickly run out through the break. Here, however, the entire roof suddenly disappeared, leaving the passengers completely exposed to the outside environment and the oncoming wind at thousands mph. I can't understand how they survived even 2 minutes of that, let alone 13. Can anyone provide an explanation?82.155.231.85 (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The 737 cannot fly faster than mach 1 and if it did the aircraft would have PROBABLY been destroyed by the loads. This aircraft absolutely was not flying at anywhere near that speed. The article also mentions that an immediate emergency descent was performed which suggests that they wouldn't have been exposed to that environment for very long. 12.186.169.130 (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• N73711 Aloha Airlines Boeing 737-200.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)