Jump to content

Talk:Gimli Glider/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Error?

Ten nautical miles is actually 18.52 km, according to the current definition of "nautical mile," not 15 km. Cos111 22:28 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Another odd coincidence

I (the articles original author) was telling the story one day at a local skydiving club. When I finished one of the "long timers" said "yeah, I was there". They had just finished jumping for the day when the plane came in, and they were first to get to it when the slides came down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maury Markowitz (talk • contribs)

Possible copyvio

I removed the following as it is an exact copy of http://www.wadenelson.com/gimli.html. If permission has been given to reproduce this, it can go back in. Angela 07:33, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

The "Amazing Coincidences" of Gimli:

Pilot had extensive glider experience, co-owned a Blanik L-13 sailplane

Co-Pilot had once been stationed at Gimli, was familiar with it.

Wpeg ATC had old style radar which allowed them to track the 767 once the transponder stopped working

Sports car club had fire extinguishers galore, Jaws of Life

ER Physician Colin Nesbit was in a Cessna performing a preflight at end of 32R

Air Canada mechanics driving a van to Gimli to begin repairs of #604 ran out of gas in the backroads of Manitoba.

One of the few people in Manitoba who owned a videocamera (rare in those days) was at Gimli that day. In a classic case of being in the right place at the wrong time, he left the airfield approximately 30 minutes before it landed because he needed to run into town to get some parts for his go-kart

Gimli Glider at Royal Canadian Air Force Base, Gimli File:Gimlix.jpg

Gimli Glider Remembered

I remember my mother Bev telling us and showing the picture of her in the local Gimli paper. She was in a bingo hall playing bingo when she saw a big shadow fly over. It was probably one of the scariest things that she'd ever saw, I know it was for me at age 11 just hearing about it. I haven't seen the picture since she last showed me quite a few years ago, in the 80's. It was a amazing story, one I will tell my children about. Thankx for an amazing memory from Michelle in Calgary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.25.40 (talk • contribs)

The narrative in this article is outstanding. Tempshill 21:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's a good story. 24.6.66.193 21:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"The calculations were based on weight instead of volume"

a couple of questions: aren't all fuel calculations on all commercial airline flight made using weight instead of volume? why is that (aside for the obvious reason that it allows for the gross weight of the aircraft)? perhaps this is worth noting in the article. Streamless 17:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The volume of fuel changes with temperature (and, I assume, air pressure), but the weight remains constant. David 02:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
See, that was the real problem. The contents were based on weight, not volume -- and they settled some during shipping! Eaglizard 21:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm puzzled why the article refers to Imperial Units. First, it refers to pounds only; secondly I'm pretty sure that Boeing don't use Imperial Units anywhere. They may well use American Customary units - so-called "English Units" - but these are sometimes different. Especially noteworthy is that while the pound is near-as-darnit the same, the Gallon in England (Imperial Gallon) is 10lbs of water, but in the US is only 8lbs. Number774 18:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm no expert but I believe aircraft can use any system the operator wants. A fuel tank holds 'X' amount, and if the operator chooses to measure 'X' in pounds and gallons (U.S. or Imperial), the aircraft's manual (i.e. dip- and drip-stick) and computerized measuring systems can accept that. As for Boeing not using Imperial Units anywhere, don't forget that in the west (at least in the English speaking west - not sure about Europe), aircraft still fly at so many feet, not meters. The use of measurements in aviation are a complete mess. As for the pound (weight), isn't that the same everywhere? --FactotEm 05:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Fuel requirements are calculated by mass but dispensed by volume. That's why the conversion is done. The fueler has to know how many litres are required since no one makes a pump that dispenses in kg. (identical concept in lbs/gal).
In this particular case, of course, the supplier delivered the fuel to the airport in Canadian gallons, not U.S. gallons (FactotEm doesn't seem to understand that imperial gallons aren't peculiar to England); but the aircraft conversion tables were for U.S. gallons and pounds or for litres and kilograms. With tables for drip-stick lengths in inches or in centimeters. Gene Nygaard 01:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I did not know whether Canada used U.S. or 'English' gallons. I also thought that the term 'Imperial Gallon' was universal, though it seems that elsewhere in the world it is known as an 'English Gallon'. Learn something new every day. --FactotEm 11:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
That's one of the points! The "Imperial Gallon" is the 4.5 litre one used in England (and parts of the former British Empire); the "English Gallon" is the 3.5 liter one used in the USA...Number774 (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I worked at AC at that time and was responsible for part of the fuel software in AC's Flight Ops computer system. I had made some minor updates to the fuel software a couple of days before this and the changes were specific to the 767. I was more than just a tad nervous after I got the call for the incident. I had to go through all the computer logs and track the entire flight's fuel messages to see if there was a software error. None were found and I was called and told they knew it wasn't a software problem just as I finished.
One of the first changes I had to make after this incident was to print out the conversion factor for the fuel type (Jet A, Jet A1, Jet B) on the fuel request sheet. This is printed on the flight deck computer and at the fueler's office.
BTW - there's a manual crank to force the nose gear down and locked in a 767 (probably others). However, AIUI, it wasn't well documented and the pilots didn't think of it. Hence the collapse. --Michael Daly (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
To clarify the "not well documented" statement. Again - this is my understanding of the situation as it was explained to me at the time. The info was in the procedures manual on the flight deck, but it wasn't easy to find or perhaps wasn't in the same place (or indexed in the same place) as other emergency info that the pilots would automatically turn to. Hence, it wasn't obvious and they had other concerns besides pouring through the manual. --Michael Daly 20:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

fuel stat discrepency

The Gimli Glider Article in "Uncle John's Bathroom Reader #17: Slightly Irregular" (copyright 2004, Bathroom Readers' Press) indicates on page 128:

-that there was 7682 Litres of fuel before the flight, NOT 11,525 as is stated in your article.

-They needed 22,300Kg, NOT 20,400 as is stated in your article

Please review facts to verify correct quantities

note: copyright remains unbreached as quotes are FULLY cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.116.164 (talk • contribs)

How did he reach this speed decision?

I wonder how did the pilot decide that the 220Kts speed is the right one?

As a glider pilot, I was tough that a good rule of thumb for speed for "Max L/D" (Maximum Lift over Drag" is to add about 1/3 to the stall speed. Could this be the reason he decided on 220kts?

(Just wondering, like any glider pilot, what would I do if I was on an airplane in such a situation...) Penedo 07:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Image

There is a picture in the article that shows the "Gimli Glider Today". I am not an expert by any means, but aircraft shown appears to be an Airbus 320, not a 767. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.131.125 (talk • contribs)

Neither am I... but if you look at the source of the image here, [1], which is higher-res, you can make out the "C-GAUN" on the rear of the fuselage under the last windows. Shimgray | talk | 21:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It also says 604 on the tail and nose gear door. ~~ brandon_ha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.196.38 (talk • contribs)
No that's a 767, note that it's a wide body with the right proportions for a 767, and that it lacks wingtip fences that the A320 has. PPGMD 01:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and the A320 also has Dual main landing gear, not the 767's Dual-Tandem pictured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.91.37.33 (talk • contribs)

A picture of the landed aircraft

There's a very good picture of the aftermath of the "crash" at this website: http://www.silhouet.com/motorsport/tracks/gimli.html I wonder if we could get permission to use that photo in this article? I, however, have no idea how to go about getting such permission. Drepamig 21:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC) Ian

Hi Ian (I assume that's your name). Some people have constructed examples of requests that can be e-mailed to people and organisations. Probably the one in the "Informal (images)" section is the most appropriate in requesting permission as it looks like that's a personal website. I think the person to ask is Darren Galpin. However, one word of warning: if Galpin does give permission, somehow we'll have to establish whether he is able to give permission. For example, is the image his own property, or is it owned by someone else?--A bit iffy 10:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Gliding distance

It was around 40 miles, right? So stil less than the Air Transat incident. 217.86.46.6 23:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any sources, but 40 miles, at the speed this airplane was going, would take less than 10 minutes, and it seems that this took place over a much, much longer period of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.82.79.140 (talk • contribs)
"However, Captain Pearson was an experienced glider pilot. This gave him familiarity with some flying techniques almost never used by commercial pilots. He realized that, in order to reduce their rate of descent as much as possible, he needed to fly the 767 at a speed known as the "best glide ratio speed"."
This quote seems to imply that only 'experienced glider pilots' know what the "best glide ratio speed", while most commercial pilots 'never use these techniques' (is the forward slip reference the same thing?). That's pretty silly, if you ask me. I'm an instrument rated private pilot, and I've flown at 4 different flight schools in three different states, and knowing the best glide speed was important in every aircraft I've ever flown since I was a student pilot. Maybe I'm misreading this quote, but it's implication appears to me to be incorrect.
The Air Crash Investigation episode says the pilot used [[Slip (aerodynamic)] to loose altitude/speed instead of controlling thrust (like on a powered plane) to control where the airplane would land. Also the objective is not to decrease the "rate of descent" but get the best "glide ratio", except for the landing. 99.24.162.76 (talk) 01:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, when mentioning the lack of vertical descent information with the power loss, wasn't the aircraft equipped with a standard VSI (vertical speed indicator) in its backup gauge set? Drewster1829 (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It was 140 miles, according to my calculations. 30 minutes of gliding enough for you? --212.199.110.1 (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Fuelling errors

There's being bold, and there's stomping over someone's well written article. I want to add a new section which describes a series of misunderstandings between maintenance, the previous flight crew and Captain Pearson. This led the Captain to accept the aircraft as airworthy when in fact the complete failure of the FQIS meant that it was not.

I would also like to edit the Fuel Miscalculation section to bring out some of the nuances of what happened. For example...

  • Clarifying why the conversion was necessary (fuel requirement calculated in kg but dispensed in litres);
  • Both ground crew and pilot made the same conversion error;
  • Dripstick measurements after fuelling confirmed litre quantities on board without uncovering the erroneous derivation of these quantities;
  • The fact that the flight computer was calibrated to kg is irrelevant given that the pilots updated it with their originally calculated kg figure anyway;
  • My information also states 22,300kg instead of the currently quoted 20,400kg.

The story is written up in the book "Emergency" and I have already added this to the references section. Before I jump in I just need to check my ground on copyright and also allow the opportunity to discuss any changes first. FactotEm 21:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Mayday TV series

I was actually on this flight, and I just want to inform you that the TV series "Mayday" on the Discovery Channel, has just finished filming an episode on this incident. It is set to aire in April 2008.

Shouldn't the cause of the accident be fuel exhaustion since they used all available fuel onboard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.1.85 (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing it is "fuel starvation" because there is a wikipedia article by that name, hence the link. Good point though, I'll change it to fuel exhaustion, but keep the existing link. Thanks. --FactotEm 16:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Pretty funny if you think about it.

I hate to say this, but this article is one of the funniest things i've read recently. Kudos to the pilot though. Squiggle 09:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It is funny. And I'll bet no one laughs louder than Pearson and Quintal, given that they walked away. It could have been very, very not funny however. That's some fantastic piloting. Eaglizard 21:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Retirement

I just received this e-mail.

The Gimli Glider retires to the desert. On Thursday, January 24th, fin 604, the Boeing 767-200 better known as the Gimli Glider, will undertake its final voyage from Montreal to Mojave Airport (MHV) before it is retired to the desert. Employees and retirees (bring valid employee ID) are invited to come and say goodbye to the aircraft which has now become part of Canadian aviation history. Fin 604 is set to depart as flight AC7067, at 9 a.m. from the Montreal Line Maintenance hangar ?Air Canada Base, 750 C矌e Vertu West; Building 7, Bay 8/13 (West end), Gate entrance 5. Captain Robert Pearson and First Officer Maurice Quintal, the flight crew who landed the aircraft to safety in Gimli on July 23, 1983 are expected to be on hand for the aircraft's departure. The hangar will be open to well-wishers from 8:00 a.m


It probably could go in the main article, but other than me receiving an email, I have no source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.110.145 (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There's also a story on it in today's Globe and Mail [2]. -- Flyguy649 talk 15:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Gimli Glider to be retired

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/3811846/

http://www.yulaviation.com/vbb/showthread.php?p=95407#post95407 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.175.251 (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Note the section above. Already in the article, although it needs tweaking. -- Flyguy649 talk 04:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Still flying with Air Canada?

I've noticed that C-GAUN does not appear in the current list of Air Canada aircrafts: http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/fleet/fin.html If someone can confirm this information, maybe it's time to update the article. Tinchote 3:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Flights are still being logged for C-GAUN with Air Canada codes by this spotter site. The aircraft is due for a major check this month and when I was researching my edits to this article I saw suggestions that it would be more economical to retire the aircraft (other 767-200's have already been retired by Air Canada) than complete the check, so it may only be a matter of time. --FactotEm 16:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I work at YVR, and take note when I see this bird, and I just was her a month ago, so she is still flying.
Gimli is going to the runway in the sky. Employees and retirees are welcome to see her before departure at the AC line maintenance hangar in YUL on 24 Jan 08. Apparently, Pearson and Quintal are expected to attend.Phobal (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Injuries

The summary box states that there were 10 injuries, but in the fifth paragraph of Landing at Gimli it says there were no injuries. Which is it? TopherGZ (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

They're actually not in conflict. It says there were no injuries in the landing. As the same paragraph later points out, injuries occurred during evacuation of the aircraft after landing. The injuries occurred because rear slides were higher off the ground than intended due to the collapsed nose gear. Ikluft (talk) 04:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I see, I didn't look at it that way before. If I recall correctly, (at least in the US aviation) injuries can be attributed to an accident up to 30 days after the accident. I'd have to look for the particular FAR if anybody wants more details. TopherGZ (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Addition to 5. Similar Incidents

I suggest adding an item in "5. Similar Incidents" about the recent gliding descent of USAir flight 1549 on January 15, 2008 into the Hudson River. The plane lost both engines, due apparently to a bird strike, at about 3000 feet if I understand correctly. The pilot, Chesley B. "Sully" Sullenberger III, apparently was also a glider pilot as Capt. Pearson was. The pilot did a masterful job as did Capt. Pearson in bringing the plane down, missing dense population areas, and bring the plane in without damage to the fuselage allowing the plane to remain floating long enough for all 155 passengers and crew to be rescued by ferry and police boats. 24.13.34.10 (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

First, thanks for coming to this page to discuss things (so often people don't). Anyway, sorry, but I still think that the Gimli Glider isn't similar enough to Flight 1549. There isn't any indication in the Flight 1549 article to suggest that Pearson used his glider experience to rectify things once he knew there was a problem. And the causes of the problems in each case were entirely different - a human miscalculation, and a flock of birds.--A bit iffy (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it's time to fork off this section to it's own article, if there is not one already that covers notable unpowered gliding incidents by normally-powered aircraft. Otherwise, Flight 1549 should be included here, as none of the others seem to touch on the pilots' gliding experiences (or lack of it, in the case of the two crashes.) - BillCJ (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
See Category:In-flight airliner loss of all engines which I created to help with the development of the Flight 1549 article. (The name was made to be consistent with existing "In-flight airliner..." categories.) If you break out a list of similar incidents/accidents to a separate article, it may be worthwhile to consider making it a list article to correspond with that category. As far as Wikipedia article-writing is concerned, I don't think that too much emphasis should be made of whether the pilots had glider ratings, at least not as a criteria for inclusion in a list. Air Transat Flight 236 appears to be a counterexample, where Captain Robert Piche succeeded in gliding an A330 to a runway at the Azores after a leak threw all their fuel overboard in the middle of the Atlantic - I didn't find any statement that he had a glider rating. It was still a case of total aviation experience being a key factor in his success. (Though I personally respect what worthwhile experience a glider rating is, having completed mine recently.) Ikluft (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"Dripstick"

I have never in 50 years of working with aircraft and racecars, as well as ordinary cars, heard a dipstick referred to as a "dripstick." Granted fuel (or, more typically oil) does "drip" off it when it's withdrawn to take a reading, but the proper name "dipstick" comes form the fact that you "dip" it into the tank or sump of liquid that you're trying to measure. A dipstick usually is just a fancy wooden ruler.

Stephan Wilkinson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.192.39 (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's called a "dripstick" because it is not a dipstick. It is not stuck into the fluid and withdrawn. It is actually mounted into the bottom of the tank. If you click on the blue word in the article, it takes you to an article that explains how a dripstick works. Basically, it's a tube that is pulled down until fuel starts dripping into it. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 01:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You beat me to it by two minutes. I just learned what a dripstsick is, from another site, and you're absolutely right. Live and learn. Stephan Wilkinson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.192.39 (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

fin 604, Please Clarify

"C-GAUN, fin 604, was patched at Gimli and flown out two days later". What's fin 604, what is that reference for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.119.93 (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

604 is the manufacturers serial number, which is typically written on the tail fin. The registration code (eg 'C-GAUN') often gets changed (eg new owner, perhaps in a different country) but the fin number doesn't. Stepho-wrs (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The manufacturers serial number for this aircraft is/was 22520. 604 is the tail fin number Air Canada gave the aircraft. Air Canada numbered their 767s starting at 601. 604 would have been the 4th 767 purchased (or numbered since I think they were all purchased at the same time). Also, you're wrong about the fin number, that can change from airline to airline.--Lagerhog (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Stepho-wrs (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice Writeup

Wikipedia is better than an action novel! w00t! Simoncpu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC).

Landing at Gimli...gap in the story?

This is a fascinating article. One of those really fun finds on Wikipedia. I'd like to comment on the landing section. They talk about how the strip was being used for a family fun day and was packed and seemed to indicate all the reasons NOT to land there, and then the next paragraph says they landed there. It appears to be missing a paragraph that discusses the reasons why they ultimately landed there and what precautions they had to take on the ground to accommodate the landing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.98.170.193 (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

They landed there because there was no where else to land - it was there or crash. There were no precautions on the ground because it was not an arranged landing, and was very much a surprise to the people on the ground. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 19:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Correct. The engines were out and they needed a runway or road within gliding distance to avert disaster. At a distance the pilots would have been just looking for a runway. By the time the pilots noticed there were people on the runway, there was no other choice left but to proceed anyway with intent to stop before them or hope that they'd move out of the way. One more lucky detail in the story... Ikluft (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the article needs clarifying on this. It clearly says there were TWO landing strips at Gimli (the second paragraph of 'Landing at Gimli'); one available as a runway/airstrip, one being used as a dragstrip.
Without explaining why, the next paragraph implies the plane landed on the dragstrip and not the airstrip. Presumably there was a reason why the airstrip was not available? or the pilots (lining up their approach from several miles away, and quite understandably in the circumstances) faced with two apparently viable runways, chose the 'wrong' strip?
This is not clear in the article at present. In fact, it is not even explicitly stated that they DID land on the dragstrip, it is just implied/assumed. Were the visitors/spectators parking on or occupying the other strip and preventing its use? Or something else?
As the parent poster noted too; was anyone at Gimli notified while the plane was gliding as to what was about to happen? Did Gimli maintain some sort of air traffic control for the active runway? and were they contacted? (Or did they simply not have enough time to do that? The glide time of the plane from the engine loss is not noted either).
I don't know enough details to fix it up but that section, as written, contains holes in the incident narrative. EasyTarget (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I think this is the problem sentence "The other runway was used regularly and maintained to a serviceable condition year round." From memory, the airbase was decommissioned. One runway was used as a dragstrip, the other was completely unused. This lack of use meant that it was not visible from the air, which is why the pilots ended up landing on the one 'runway' they *could* see: the dragstrip which, due to its alternate use, was visible from the air. At least that's how I recall it. Don't have access to sources though. FactotEm (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah-hah, I'm not the only one who was confused. See, it says that "cars and campers" were on the ground. Those can't be moved in a few seconds. Yet there's not a car in sight in the picture of the airplane after landing and no mention of damage on the ground. How did this happen? A paragraph is missing. I know nothing about this incident except for this article and what my seventh grade science teacher told us when he explained why units are important, so somebody else needs to add this. Please; it's a big hole in the story.
Also, the other runway was in use. From the article: "These were treated by a doctor who had been about to take off in an aircraft on Gimli's remaining runway." If one runway appeared blank while the other had a visible plane, this would explain it, but cars are visible from that height.
Finally, I still don't see any note of how long it glided. --Elemarth (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Repair

In spite of what a persistent SPA vandal thinks, C-GAUN flew out of Gimli - page 200 of The human contribution: unsafe acts, accidents and heroic recoveries, J. T. Reason is just the first Google Books hit that confirms this. The wings of a 767 don't come off, not if you want to use teh aircraft later. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Landing at Gimli

The section on Gimli mentions how the captain choose it without being aware of it's new function. The landing section mentions how various things like the plane scraping along the ground and slamming a guard rail help slow it down. In one of the shows (Mayday I think) it was suggested this may have reduced the chance of injuries or deaths to the people on the ground. I don't know how well supported this is but as it stands, there's little mention of them other then helping put out the fire and treating the injured. Nil Einne (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Rename page?

Hi,

Do you think the page should be renamed to Air Canada Flight 143? This would bring it into line with other air incidents / accidents for example Air Transat Flight 236. Its also probably worth noting that the aircraft is refereed as the Gimli Glider not the incident itself.

Thanks

--JetBlast (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

No. Do not rename. Air Canada Flight 143 is an un-notable regularly scheduled flight. This incident is notable for a) being in Gimli and b) glding a 767. "Gimli glider" captures this perfectly. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Other articles regarding air incidents have been renamed in this format, i cannot see why this should be any different. Other incidents have other notable names, for example the Lockerbie Bombing, on wikipedia the article is called Pan Am Flight 103, it is not called the Lorkerbie Bombing. This is why i think this article should be called Air Canada Flight 143. The reasons you stated above are not good reasons to buck the trend in my opinion. --JetBlast (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Then perhaps Pan Am Flight 103 should be renamed, because it is widely called the Lockerbie Bombing in the outside world. bobrayner (talk) 07:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page not moved.--Breawycker (talk to me!) 23:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Breawycker (talk to me!) 23:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


Gimli Glider → Air Canada Flight 143 – This would bring it into line with other air incidents / accidents for example Air Transat Flight 236. Its also probably worth noting that the aircraft is refereed as the Gimli Glider not the incident itself. Other articles regarding air incidents have been renamed in this format, i cannot see why this should be any different. Other incidents have notable names / more commonly known names An example is the Lockerbie Bombing, on wikipedia the article is called Pan Am Flight 103, it is not called the Lorkerbie Bombing. This is why i think this article should be called Air Canada Flight 143 and not Gimli Glider. JetBlast (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: That would mean all these articles will not follow this. I think this article should follow the same naming convention of all these. --JetBlast (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Examples
Air Transat Flight 236, Pan Am Flight 103, Singapore Airlines Flight 006, Alliance Air Flight 7412, Alaska Airlines Flight 261, CityFlyer Express Flight 8106 Crossair Flight 498, Korean Air Cargo Flight 8509, Korean Air Lines Flight 007, UPS Airlines Flight 6, United Airlines Flight 811, South African Airways Flight 295, Qantas Flight 1, Qantas Flight 30
The vast majority of those flights have no more common name than that used as their title; this one does, therefore that's what it should use. (The only exception is Lockerbie; I don't know why that title was chosen for that article, but I see no reason for it to govern the titling here). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. As I type this, Air Canada's Web site claims AC143 is on time for arrival in Ottawa at 7:12 PM, using an Embraer 190 aircraft. On the other hand, the "Gimli Glider" is uniquely the Boeing 767 that was forced down in Gimli in 1983. If we want arrival time for an air flight, we don't look in an encyclopedia; if we're interested in a famous air (near) disaster, we might look in an encyclopedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

missing redirects

There are a few redirects missing... Air Canada 143 , C-GAUN , AC 143 , ACA143 , ACA 143

70.24.248.23 (talk) 12:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Well Done Article

Thank you to all that have contributed and edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt6617 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Repairs

I find it remarkable that the repairs were completed so quickly that the aircraft was flown out of Gimli only two days after it landed there. Was it fully repaired in Gimli or just "patched up" to a point where it could be taken elsewhere for further work, inspections, and testing?

Thanks for this fascinating article. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It was just temp repaired there and flow out to a maintenance base where a more permanent repair could be made. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I recall seeing a short video from CBC.ca (probably still on their website) that shows footage of the aircraft departing Gimli. It was stated that the aircraft was being flown to Winnipeg for further repairs. Segelflieger (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Minor error in section: Running out of fuel

The last sentence of the 3rd paragraph has a minor error in it. The sentence in question states; "While these provided basic but sufficient information with which to land the aircraft, a vertical speed indicator – that would indicate the rate at which the aircraft was descending and therefore how far it could glide unpowered – was not among them." Obviously what is really meant here is; "how long it could glide", not "how far". The time in minutes that one could remain alot is just the altitude divided by the sink rate in feet per minute. Without a VSI, Bob Pearson had to guess at how long they had aloft.

The "how far" calculation is obviously of interest, but it can be actually calculated without any knowledge of the sink rate. It requires a knowledge of the aircraft airspeed, winds aloft, and the aircraft "polar" (the "polar" was not available as hinted elsewhere in the article). Bob Pearson made an educated guess (and in hind sight, a damn good one) on the best glide, or best L/D speed to fly for calm winds. As a glider pilot who also flies power planes, I learned that a speed right around what gives maximum rate of climb under power is a good starting guess for best L/D if no other information is available. A good guess for the speed that minimizes sink rate is the best angle of climb under power from the POH. See the Wikipedia article Speed_to_fly for a summary of these technical details.

Anyhow, that sentence should obviously say "how long" rather than how far.

Segelflieger (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, this has been corrected. Just so you know, you could, if you so chose, edit the article yourself if there's anything else needing to be changed. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Origin of nickname

The article states in the first sentence that "Gimli Glider" is a nickname. Yet nowhere is it stated where the nickname came from. Newspapers? Television? A book? Amateur aircraft enthusiasts? — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

How about common sense?--82.113.99.160 (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Read the question again. — Hex (❝?!❞) 08:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Protected

Again. So let's decide: "a chain of human errors"? "a chain of major human errors"? "a chain of minor human errors"? "a chain of relatively minor human errors"? "a chain of individually minor human errors"? Something else? I don't particularly care, but the two of you going back and forth over it is not solving anything. Present your arguments here, hopefully agree, if not bring in a third opinion, but if this protection expires and you start up again I'm going to block both of you, because this is getting ridiculous. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

There are many more ridiculous things on Wikipedia; we had an entire imaginary Russian physicist for a while, for instance. (There's entire bureaucratic processes that are at least as ridiculous.) It's not like they wake up some guy at the bus terminal and hand him the keys to a 767 - in this instance, we had a bunch of professionals individually making errors ( the likes of which are still happening today) and the concatenation is what lead to a serious incident. It's not that the pilot thought "Doot de doo, time to fly" and took off - he did the maths, checked the lists, and came up with the wrong answer. I think its important to identify that these errors individually were relatively minor and that its only the combination that gets it to be a Wikipedia-notable incident. It's an important illustration of the principle that in highly-reliable systems, the cause of breakdowns is the simultaneous occurrence of a bunch of individually unlikely events. If this article doesn't recognize this, Wikipedia is the poorer for it.
I've no idea of what algorithm my fan club uses to decide which of my edits to battle over; but as I've observed, there's no upwind side to the snow blower, and if you're going to clear the driveway, you're going to get some blowback. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
As has been pointed out to you numerous times, other editors tend to battle with you when you are wrong and to not do so when you are right. This would not be a problem for you if you followed WP:CONSENSUS. If you go through life having conflict after conflict while those around you seem to not have this problem, you might want to analyze these social interactions and figure out what the common factor is. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Having just spotted this, I see that this edit war has been going on for quite while. Wtshymanski seems determined to hammer into the article that the chain of errors were all minor, but at his last reversion, they became 'relatively minor'.
Now my two penn'orth. Whether the errors were minor, major or a combination of minor or major would seem to be entirely Wtshymanski's personal opinion, because the claim is not backed up by any authoritative source. 86.157.171.34 claims that flying with no functioning fuel guages is a major error. In my opinion, he is quite correct because the regulations strictly prohibit flying with no functioning fuel guages - something the captain chose to do. Wtshymanski's contention is that the captain's belief that checking the tanks with the dripsticks was adequate and thus turns the major error into a minor error is entirely erroneous (especially given that if he seriously did believe it, then his belief was misplaced as it totally failed to identify that something was seriously wrong). If belief does change major errors to minor, then the chain of major errors that led to the 2000 Concorde crash in France, would become minor errors because at each stage, someone believed that what they were doing was right (sometimes because of a lack of evidence that it was not the case, but also sometimes down to sheer incompetance).
The article currently refers to, "... a chain of human errors ...". That is entirely accurate and needs no unreferenced qualification as to whether they are major or minor. It is my opinion that at least two of the errors were major, but Wikipedia articles are not constructed on my opinion and it would be quite wrong of me to insert the word 'major' before 'human errors'. The same argument equally applies to Wtshymanski's unqualified opinion that all the errors were minor. I B Wright (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with "a chain of human errors". In the absence of reliable sources classifying the errors as minor, major, etc., it violates WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and MOS:OPED for us to add this kind of value judgment on our own. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I have to confess, but the unqualified opinion angle had not occured to me (though perhaps it should have done). In view of the support for the point above, it has to be noted that once again an admin has protected an article such that the editor who is apparently right is prevented from ammending the article, but Wikipedia's resident edit warrior is still allowed free reign.
As far as Wtshymanski's point above is concered, the article refers to a chain of human errors (which, in itself, does not seem to be in dispute). As to whetehr they are "individually unlikely" is, in the absence of a supporting reference, once again a personal opinion and has no place in the article. 86.157.171.34 (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm confused by the above IP editor's comment. Per WP:PREFER, "When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies". The IP editor appears to be complaining that the article was protected in favour of Wtshymanski's disputed version, but in fact the last edit made before protection was imposed was by the IP editor (undoing Wtshymanski's edit). If I've misunderstood what the IP is trying to say, I hope he/she will clarify. In any case, the point of fully protecting an article affected by an edit war is to force a stop to the edit warring and force people to try to resolve the content dispute on the talk page — it is not intended to constitute a permanent endorsement of whichever version was protected. Let's discuss the content issue (not whether some specific editor is "Wikipedia's resident edit warrior"), try to reach a consensus on what the article should say, and stay as far as possible from anything even resembling a personal attack on anyone involved here. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Drip vs dip

"Dipsticks" go down into the reservoir and you pull them out and see how much liquid clings to the stick. "Dripsticks" go up underneath the reservoir (aircraft wing tank) and you lower them until you see liquid spill out. Advantage being, you don't have to climb on top of the wing. Disadvantage is obvious to anyone who's watched Wile E. Coyote clear a jammed rock. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Since the point does not seem to have arisen in nearly four years, that momentous contribution is going to improve the article how? 86.180.161.250 (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
[3]] --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Had you given a sensible (or even accurate) edit summary, it may have been noticed. As you note above a dipstick is not called a dripstick in the jet business, so why claim that it is?. Oh, and dripsticks are not confined to jets either. 86.180.161.250 (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
[4] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Gimli (Middle-earth) which relates to this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Information from Captain Pearson

Hello. Today, I was pleased to listen to Captain Pearson speak about this incident at the Canada Aviation and Space Museum, Ottawa, ON. There are a few points in your story that, perhaps, I can add a few words to help flesh out the story.

"The aircraft's cockpit warning system sounded, indicating a fuel pressure problem on the aircraft's left side. Assuming a fuel pump had failed[3] the pilots turned it off,[3] since gravity should feed fuel to the aircraft's two engines."

Captain Pearson mentioned today how they had an indication of a problem with a fuel pump. As there are two fuel pumps in each wing and a fuel pump on each engine, so thinking something was wrong with one fuel pump not a concern.

"The aircraft's fuel gauges were inoperative because of an electronic fault which was indicated on the instrument panel and airplane logs (the pilots believed flight to be legal with this malfunction)."

When the aircrew reported for the flight, they were advised the fuel instuments were inoperable. They were also told it was legal to use the aircraft if they measured the fuel load with the back-up (manual) method. Captain Pearson decided that because of this hassle, they would forego the standard practice of refueling along the way and take on the full load of fuel in Montreal.

The 767s of Air Canada were equipped with dripstick guages that were graduated in centimetres. It seems all other airlines in countries using the metric system had the 767s equipped with dripstick guages graduated in kilograms. The dripstick guages graduated in kilograms gave fuel load status very simply. Those graduated in centimetres required complex calculations to convert the data into kilograms. The maintenance people conducted this work. They used the formulae provided and came up with their results. Captain Pearson reviewed their calculations and came up with the same results. He noticed one wing contained 1000 kilograms of fuel more than the other. He insisted the refuelers balance the fuel load. After that was done, the dripstick guages were checked again. The calculations to kilograms were consistent. Those results were entered into the Flight Management Computer, which confirmed such a fuel load (calculated) was sufficient for the flight.

While in Ottawa, for the stopover, new dripstick guage measurements were taken and subsequent calculation results were again entered into the Flight Managaement Computer, which indicated there was sufficient fuel for the flight.

When they lost all power, the instrument panel went dead and all the lights went out. They were left with four instrument: the compass: the speed indicator; the altimeter; and the artificial horizon. Captain Pearson was very much wishing for an instrument to give them rate of descent.

"At this point, Quintal proposed landing at the former RCAF Station Gimli, a closed air force base where he had once served as a Royal Canadian Air Force pilot. Unknown to him, part of the facility had been converted to a race track complex, now known as Gimli Motorsports Park.[5] It includes a road race course, a go-kart track, and a dragstrip. A Canadian Automobile Sport Clubs-sanctioned sports car race hosted by the Winnipeg Sports Car Club was under way the Saturday of the incident and the area around the decommissioned runway was full of cars and campers. Part of the decommissioned runway was being used to stage the race.[6]"

Once the decision to land at Gimli had been made, the old airport slightly behind and to their right, 14 miles (22-23 kilometres) away. As they turned Pearson looked for and eventually found the runway in the distance. As far as he knew, there was just the one runway there. After the landing, he learned there are two runways, both more than 6000 feet long. One (I think he said the right one) was paved and 150 feet (45 metres) wide. The other was concrete and 200 feet (60 metres) wide. This was the one he had spotted and focused on. He had no knowledge of the current use for the runways.

While performing the side-slip, he had flashes of golfers on a nearby golf course with mouths agape. While landing, he recalls seeing (amongst the campers) a fellow having a beer, frozen as the beverage pored down his face and chest.

"As soon as the wheels touched the runway, Pearson "stood on the brakes", blowing out two of the aircraft's tires. The unlocked nose wheel collapsed and was forced back into its well, causing the aircraft's nose to slam into, bounce, and then scrape along the ground. The collapsed nose wheel helped to slow the airplane and prevent collateral damage to the people on the ground. The nose also grazed into the guardrail now dividing the strip, which further slowed it down.[3]"

According to Captain Pearson, he used the brakes twice. First to slow the aircraft. Then to apply right brake to steer the aircraft to the right, to avoid the oncoming guardrail. He maintains the guardrail was of no use in slowing the aircraft. When applying the right brakes, the tires on the right main landing gear blew out. This reduction of height to the right side of the aircraft resulted in minor damage to the right engine cowling, as it came into contact with the ground. The collapse of the nose gear did act as an anchor and brought the aircraft to a stop long before the end of the runway.

In the process of rolling along the runway, Captain Pearson spotted the bicycling kids and hoped they had the time, energy and good luck to get out of the way.

"A minor fire in the nose area was extinguished by racers and course workers armed with fire extinguishers."

Captain Pearson re-entered the aircraft seeking fire extinguishers. In the cockpit he encountered much smoke and had to exit the aircraft before he could retrieve them. After getting some fresh air, he went in again, this time intending to retrieve fire extinguishers from the cabin. With those small extinguishers they attempted to put out the fire in the nose gear area. The extinguishers were quickly expended without dousing the fire. The racers arrived with their larger extinguishers and succeeded in putting out the fire. The flames were not visible to those using the extinguishers as it was the insulation between layers of aluminum that was burning.

"On January 24, 2008, the Gimli Glider took its final voyage, AC7067, from Montreal Trudeau to Tucson International Airport before its retirement in the Mojave Desert.[12] An Air Canada newsletter "The Daily" states:[14]"

As told today, arrangements had been made with traffic control to have the flight proceed with the call sign "Gimli Glider". During the flight to Tuscon, their communications attracted several inquiries as to the call sign.

I hope this helps. A remarkable story. The entire crew performed tremendously. Remarkable people. Red.leaf.flyers (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

removed

I have removed this pending sourcing:

Two kids on bikes who were playing on the runway noticed Pearsons strickin plane barreling down the runway at them and decided to try and outrun it rather than exit the runway perpendicularily! This caused Pearson to consider steering the aircraft off of the runway and onto the grass rather than mowing them down.

Crum375 (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This anecdote with the kids was mentioned on the TV-show "Mayday" aka "Air Crash Investigations". No mention of Pearson considering to steer off was made, instead they said, that any change of course was simply out of the question. Since the show is "edutainment", I am not sure if its a reliable source and I cannot remember, if Pearson himself mentioned anything about that issue in his interviews for the show. Para-OZ (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
It is a ridiculous fable. How could Pearson have steered it off the runway? No nose steering wheel available and the rudder would be out of adequate hydraulic pressure at that point. In theory, he could have decided to let up on the brakes on one side, but since he already was trying his best to stop short of all the people, campers, cars etc., by jamming on BOTH left and right brakes with all the might he could muster, that would have been a stupid move to make during the last few seconds of deceleration. The only reason the brakes worked at all is that they have sytem accumulators which store pressure, even when there is no hydraulic pressure in the other parts of the hydraulic system. And, if that should fail too, there is an air-brake pressurized bottle, for further backup braking. EditorASC (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

glaring omission

NOWHERE in this article does it ACTUALLY TELL YOU how far the plane glided!!!! 82.7.152.107 (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Changes to procedures

It would be usual for a case such as this to result in mandatory changes to airline procedures, yet none are listed. Can anyone oblige, please?

The most important change was that the MEL no longer allows dispatch with BOTH fuel gauges inop. One must be working properly so that the inop one's drip sticks will match the drip sticks from the operative side. EditorASC (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Text correction - pounds vs. kilograms

I am not an editor so I'll put this up for someone qualified. I strongly believe that the section Refueling needs correction.

There is a segment that begins with
fuel required for the flight: 12,598 × 1.77 lb/L = 22,300 lb
Each of those 4 indented lines should use the abbreviation "kg" rather "lb". Also, the first should show division rather than multiplication. The last 2 lines are also expanded for clarity in the replacement text here: 

   fuel required for the flight: 22,300 kg  /  1.77 kg/L  = 12,598 L
   fuel already on board: 7,682 L × 1.77 kg/L = 13,597 kg
   fuel to be transferred to plane: 12,598 L - 7,682 L = 4,916 L, and 4,916 L × 1.77 kg/L = 8,703 kg
   Total fuel available for the flight: 7682 L + 4,916 L = 12,598 L, and 12,598 L × 1.77 kg/L = 22,300 kg

This correction is needed in order to be consistent with the rest of the page, namely 2 phrases:
"the pilot calculated a fuel requirement of 22,300 kilograms"
"Believing he had 22,300 kg of fuel on board"

It could be noted that the calculation of 13,597 is basically notional, since fuel was pumped based on volume, not weight. However since flight crews operate on weight, not volume, they could have (incorrectly) double checked their work using that number (albeit with the same math error); thus incorrect double checking logic would reason that 22,300 kg was needed in total; 13,597 existed; thus 8,703 kg was required, and 8,703 / 1.77 = 4,916. Either way, whether they did that incorrect division giving 4,916, or they got 4,916 by subtraction, or did both, they ended up with 22,300 lbs. in total while believing they had 22,300 kg.

These changes are consistent with http://code7700.com/mishap_air_canada_143.html which notably points out that fuel requests are by volume, not weight.24.27.72.99 (talk)

Not sure why it all needed to be so complex. I've simplified it to hopefully illustrate the error made, in line with the source, which I've also now added. I hope that's clearer now. Thanks for pointing that out, and BTW - no qualifications needed. You're at perfect liberty to be bold and make such changes yourself. FactotEm (talk) 09:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I concur with your changes, and the simplifications are very good. I would suggest removing the single quote marks which aren't useful here. Thank you for your confidence in my making the change but at this level of experience I would harm more than I helped. "A man's got to know his limitations" is pragmatically useful compared to an overconfident fool :) 24.27.72.99 (talk) 10:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gimli Glider. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Miracle tag

United Flight Number blah blah blah..just looked at it seconds ago and I can't remember the digits. But everyone remembers "The Miracle on the Hudson" - a vivid, memorable, tag. There's way too much grey mush on WP and it's important to retain these descriptions that stick in people's minds. Yes, we have a house style of referring to major aviation accidents by the flight number, but c'mon, this article is called Gimli Glider, not "Air Canada flight number blah blah who cares blah". We have "Lindbergh kidnapping", not "the Richard Hauptmann case" or worse yet "New Jersey police report from 1932". --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

OK so the reason(s) for this not being included are officially "unnecessary" because it "doesn't belong", which is totally not begging the question. I'm certainly convinced now I "understand", good job revert warriors, Wikipedia is better off without people knowing if it's that thing they hear of already. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 17:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh I found another reason hidden away on my talk page where Wtshymanski would presumably not see it, it goes "A Miracle is defined as an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs. Miracle on the Hudson is mentioned in the US Airways Flight 1549 article but I think it is unnecessary in the See also section of Gimli Glider. This is an encyclopedia not a news rag and I believe it should be held to a higher standard. " So yeah, WP:COMMONNAME would totally agree with that I'm sure. Thanks and good luck. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 17:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Wtshymanski for starting this discussion. I don't care for the phrase "The Miracle on the Hudson" but I understand that it belongs in the US Airways Flight 1549 article. In fact no miracle occurred and encyclopedias deal in fact not sensational titles. Anyone seeking flamboyant headings and colorful stories may usually be found reading the National Enquirer. Just my opinion and I will happily follow any consensus that is reached. Samf4u (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
You do understand that when Wikipedia says "aka the Miracle on the Hudson" it's not saying it's an actual miracle? Like with the Miracle on Ice or the Miracle at the Meadowlands, Wikipedia has no official stance as to whether divine intervention was really involved. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 17:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Grey mush rules the day. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Given that this incident is already listed at List of airline flights that required gliding, it is redundant to list it here also. I've removed it and the other incident also. Kept the Mars one. - BilCat (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC):

Now it will be easy to find, great job. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 19:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I always appreciate support. - BilCat (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
ghits are not persuasive, but oh, my, there are ever so many ghits for "Miracle on the Hudson" including plugs for a major motion picture. But Wikipedia only touches base with reality on an as-needed basis.--Wtshymanski (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Strange

Shouldn't an experienced pilot notice right on takeoff that the airplane is much lighter than expected if it only has half the needed fuel on board? --BjKa (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

How? Weight will vary with the load. The amount of fuel will vary with the distance to the next destination, and possibly with the weight of the load. It is not like the weight is the same for each takeoff. SlowJog (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

How far?

No where is it mentioned how far the plane glided before it landed. Just about every other number, figure, fact is given; but NO glide distance. By including the glide distance, I think it would make the 'successful' landing that much more impressive. 2600:8800:50B:6700:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

That's actually the reason I came to this article — looking for the glide distance. 71.235.184.247 (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gimli Glider. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Kerosene floats on water

I have mew sympathy for the pilots doing the calculation back int eh day, as I see our esteemed editorial model has also messed up the conversion. A liter of kerosene weighs less than a litre of water, which is about 1 kilogram. We have the most f'd up system of weights and measures in the world in this country - the SI system would be so much easier if we actually used it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I have renamed the page to Air Canada Flight 143

I have done this because I feel that it doesn't require a special name to the incident. For e.g., Air Transat flight 236 is simply called so rather than Azores Glider. Username006 (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted your bold move - such moves sould ideally be discuseed to gain (check) consensus that it is a good idea. I suspect in this case such consensus will not be forthcoming. The use of such common names for aircraft incidents is well canvassed and well accepted, even preferred. Andrewgprout (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
This gets discussed every few years. Please leave the article at the name Gimli Glider. There have been many Flight 143s since this incident. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
@Username006:, you moved it again, even when you've been asked not to do that. If you really think the article needs to be renamed, you should give convincing arguments and gain consensus. See WP:RM#CM. (cc @Andrewgprout: and @Wtshymanski:). --rchard2scout (talk) 09:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the undo of the move. This is commonly and widely known as the Gimli Glider. Meters (talk) 10:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I apologise

I apologise for moving this page as I personally felt that might as well keep the name still to Gimli Glider but also add "/ ACA143 " as one of you said that it gets discussed every few years so that other people don't complain about it in the future. That's the only reason I shifted the page. I won't do any changes without informing you next time. Username006 (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gimli_Glider/Archive_1&oldid=1198941280"