Talk:Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 182

Great Job

This is now a first-class piece of work; I corrected gross errors years ago, now I come back and find a masterpiece!

David ? Boswell

I changed the name of one of the Cessna pilots from "David T Boswell" to "David Boswell". The only source I can find that say the middile initial was T is this wikipedia article. Multiple independent sources found with google say his name was "David Lee Boswell". For now took the middle ground and eliminated the middle name altogether, but I'm leaning towards using "Lee'. - Itsfullofstars 02:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you've done the right thing aleady, mate. Macarthur Job just uses 'David Boswell'. No need to take a chance on the 'Lee', methinks. BTW, reckon your other recent edits have definitely improved the article. Cheers, Ian Rose 13:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. It's interesting that the official NTSB report states his name was, in fact, David T Boswell after all (I just found it in the report a minute ago). I wonder why so many other sources use David Lee Boswell instead? In any case, I agree that it's probably best to leave the middle name out. I guess an online social security death record search would clear it up, though... Or does that constitute 'original research'?? Itsfullofstars 00:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Social Security death record (easily found online) doesn't list any middle name or initial for David Boswell. - Itsfullofstars 06:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Dissenting NTSB opinion

I think an interesting section of the official NTSB report where a member strongly dissented with the majority findings deserved some mention, so I tried to summarize it in the main article. By all means feel free to edit that new paragraph I added if anyone feels my summary isn't quite right. Itsfullofstars 00:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me - definitely worth adding. Cheers, Ian Rose 08:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

how does one STRONGLY dissent, is there a meter you can read? Juror1 (talk) 06:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

'within the hour'

Each time I read the assertion in the article that the names of the deceased PSA employees aboard the plane were broadcast on TV within the hour of the crash, I have to wonder about that. Wouldn't the normal custom be that there would be a waiting period while the next of kin were being notified, or was that etiquette broached in this particular case? There were 38 PSA employees on board. I doubt the next of kin of that many people could have been notified so quickly, unless TV reported just the names of the PSA flight crew, which would still make the article's sentence misleading and in need of a re-write. I added a Citation Needed flag to the sentence in question. Itsfullofstars 05:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Tend to agree - if it can't be clarified/cited in the next week or so I'd say ditch it completely. Cheers, Ian Rose 08:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It turns out that the statement was added by an anonymous user ( Special:Contributions/70.59.192.134 on 9 July 2006, and another comment added at the same time wasn't very encyclopedic. I looked for any verification of the 'within the hour' statement, and was unable to find any so I've removed it. Itsfullofstars 03:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

well I am NOT anonymous - I was on I15 southbound, at 910am , I saw smoke on the horizon, but no news on radio. I arrived at NCR Randcho Bernardo plant. by 10:30 am my wife called me and said crash news was on TV and a list of some victims scrolling in Escondido. My Virginia high school buddy Richard Conway, ex navy F-14 pilotand now PSA a flight engineer was deadheading back from LA. He and I had played tennis a month before. I left work before 1130. I went to a wake for Richard and his sister gave me some personal possessions Juror1 (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I wont bother you w/ where I was when it happen, but i recall, on the radio, Red Cross, etc, asking for supplies, blood donors, blankets, then bout 20 mins later.. Nevermind, there were no survivors. And one of my dearest friends, at the time, worked for Pacific Bell. He had to go in there to restore phone lines. He told me later how nightmarish it was; the investigators were able to find remnants of bodies by looking for mounds/buzzing of flys. 76.218.250.61 (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Video?

I used to live in Northpark and was still in the San Diego area when this crash happened. At the time, I recall there was a brief video clip of Flight 182 going down (in fact, one of the more common photos you see from the crash looks like it might have been a still from that brief video clip). At one point a couple of years ago, I thought I stumbled across a site that had a link to that video clip, but when I clicked on it, it looked like the link no longer worked. Now I can't even seem to find the page that had that link. Does anyone else remember the actual video or know if that clip is online? JSDA (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I too recall a video at the time of a plane spiraling and headed straight down. You knew in an instant the people on that aircraft did not have a chance. It falls out of sight and then flaming pieces, which I assume are of the smaller plane come down. I suspect KNSD, who would own the copyright, has been active in making sure it does not appear on the Internet. The only mid-air photos I can find are Hans Wendt stills^[1][2] and not from this video. --Marc Kupper|talk 11:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Cameraman Steve Howell of Channel 39 recorded the final moments of the Cessna spiraling to its demise and inevitably landing on 32nd and Polk Street some 3500 feet from the PSA impact point. Howell did not record the descent of the PSA-182 but panned toward the PSA fireball after the Cessna crashed. Some of this footage has appeared in several aviation documentaries on NBC/MSNBC and other media outlets over the years. There is purported - unintentional - footage recorded from some distance away of the final moments of PSA-182. A commercial was being filmed some distance from the point of impact and the camera crew picked up the final moments of the flight. And finally, there is of course the post impact footage that was filmed by news crews. This uncensored footage eventually made its way into the highly sensationalized "Faces of Death" movie series. Halycondaze (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC) I was 19 at the time of the PSA 182 crash. I watched the evening news right after the crash, and I distinctly recall seeing video footage of the collision, or its immediate aftermath. I have never seen this footage since, as though there has been some attempt to conceal it from the public. Given some of the videos of subsequent crashes, I can't imagine why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.77.135 (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

eyewitness?

On The View in the spring of 2009 Whoopi Goldberg cited, as a reason for declining to travel by air, having seen in CY 1978 a collision between an airliner and a small aircraft. I don't know what connection Goldberg had to San Diego, but this seems to be the event that she was referring to. knoodelhed (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Whoopi lived in San Diego and worked in a South Park restaurant before she was famous. There is a small mention of it in this "article", however it doesn't mention what years she lived there. Huntingj38 (talk) 10:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[User:Huntingj38|Huntingj38]] (talk • contribs) 09:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

9-11-2009 ************************************************************************************** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.55.6 (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Whoopi used to live in North Park, She used to work at the Big Kitchen restaurant in the neighborhood. She was there at the time. - Jonnyredrum@Cox.net

Found the "Big Kitchen" and her decline to air travel at the IMDb, unfortunately the article does only state she moved to CA in 1974. --WideBlueSky (talk) 09:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I started going to the BK in around 1981 or so. Whoopi had 'just left the building'.. was on her way elsewhere, in 1980? 76.218.250.61 (talk) 02:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Was it heading downwind or turning final?

The article states:

"...heading downwind in an easterly direction and just beginning its final approach..."

It couldn't be doing both. I know the crash scene and the pattern for Lindbergh well and it couldn't have been on final there. In fact, it was where a lot of aircraft turn base for Lindbergh field. It must have been on downwind, base or turning base.

according to the page history, see above comment seems to be from Rsduhamel

You're right. Just read the NTSB report. It states that RWY 27 was in use and both aircraft were heading approx. E before colliding. Last transmission of PSA flight 182 regarding their actual position was "extending downwind". All this puts PSA parallel of the active RWY on a downwind leg. The base leg would ask for a southerly heading and final for the RWY heading. --WideBlueSky (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Both aircraft were headed east. The PSA jet was on its downwind leg just turning into a 180 degree right turn that would have put it into its final westerly approach into Lindbergh. Chloe93 (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If that is true, the PSA plane must've banked severely to the right after the collision for quite some distance as it was descending, because it hit the ground in a southwesterly direction, and Hans Wendt's lens was pointing toward the southeast when he took those famous photos. This suggests the plane followed a semicircular path above Wendt as it went down. Shirtwaist ^chat 09:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't read well

The following doesn't sound very encyclopedic- "Monday morning, September 25, 1978, was an unusually warm day in San Diego. Southern California was experiencing what locals call a "Santa Ana winds" day."

It also sounds like one person's opinion. Who decides if it is a "unusually warm day in San Diego"?

And this-"Southern California was experiencing what locals call a "Santa Ana winds" day." is just as bad. I will be removing it to make the article read better.--99.177.250.140 (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, even if it's true, that doesn't mean that paragraph should be there. It's un-encyclopedia-like and very WP:COATRACK. I'd say ditch that paragraph entirely and start with "Pacific Southwest Airlines flight 182 was a popular early-morning commuter flight ...." --Petzl (talk) 09:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Those weather details have no real bearing on the accident, so I've taken them out. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Aftermath: Flight Training

Currently, there is a paragraph stating that this accident is used in flight training. While this is true, it is also true about a lot of other accidents in aviation. Many flight instructors use examples to stress their point. As far as I know, it is never mentioned in other articles about aviation accidents and I feel it doesn't need to be mentioned. The major goal at accident investigation is to learn from mistakes - so it is kind of obvious that accidents are also mentioned in flight instruction. I would like to delete those two sentences about flight training (see Aftermath in the middle of that section). What do you think? WideBlueSky (talk) 10:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Use of copyrighted material

Dawnseeker2000-- the link to the video "Blind Spot," as placed in the External Links section, is entirely appropriate. As you can see. there are links to other copyrighted material there. Using your reasoning, we must remove all photos and links created by people other than wikipedia authors. This would apply to the thousands of other articles that have links to copyrighted material on wikipedia. In other words, you can't have it both ways. Chloe93 (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

We can link to material that is copyrighted like websites of news articles or even books that are hosted on Google. We give credit to the author and publisher. But we can't link to clear copyright violations on websites like YouTube that host material from artists, writers, or videographers without their permission. The uploader of that video is clearly not the copyright holder. YouTube won't usually remove videos unless the copyright holder makes an issue out of it and claim infringement and that's what has happened here. That video may very well be removed by YouTube in the future. YouTube really shouldn't be hosting it and we cannot link to it. I have placed a template in the article that states the issue here. Dawnseeker2000 23:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources

Both from the San Diego Union-Tribune:

• Rowe, Peter. "Documentary about PSA crash to have premiere." Tuesday April 6, 2010.
• "PSA Crash 30 Year Anniversary."

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Main Photograph

The main photograph was originally the famous photo of the plane right before it crashed into the houses. Sometime ago, that was changed to the "artist's impression" of the collision. When I logged on yesterday, someone had made the main photograph the image currently placed on the right-hand side of the page. When I logged on today, the image had been replaced with the artist's impression again. Is that because it is an impression of the actual crash, rather than the aftermath, or is it for some other reason? Could someone please explain what the policy is (if there is one)? Bzcoolness (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Bzcoolness

I don't know the answer to your question, but the "artist's impression" is horribly out of proportion: the 727's wingspan is 108', fuselage diameter is 12', yet the ratio in the picture is barely 3:1 even if you measure them at the wing root to ignore the perspective effect. In fact the picture is horrible full stop, like something out of a kids cartoon. If nothing else can be found, better to have no picture at all. 86.5.176.168 (talk) 12:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• I contacted the original artist and showed him this post. Perhaps he will fix the image? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

PSA 182 and non-essential conversation

Re: PSA 182 and non essential conversation. I got an e-mail from Cineflix. They pointed to p. 33 of the report.

• http://www.psa-history.org/museum/NTSBAAR7905.pdf

And I can confirm that it does say in the report, as stated in the e-mail,

"Since the extraneous conversation within the cockpit ceased after the flightcrew told the approach controller that they had the Cessna in sight, the conversation cannot be considered a contributing factor. However, this conversation persisted until the flight descended to 3,200 ft and while a checklist was being accomplished. Even though a flightcrew is responsible primarily for communications addressed to them, advisories to other aircraft can be valuable and may aid in their assessment of traffic which could become a factor. According to the CVR, at 0857:44, while the extraneous conversation was in progress, a company flight preceding Flight 182 was advised of the presence of the Cessna and its future flightpath. The first officer asked if the message, which included a clearance to the tower frequency, was for Flight 182. Since the message was not for Flight 182, noassumption can be made as to whether or not its flightcrew heard or understood the advisory preceding the clearance. Although the conversation was not causal, it does point out the dangers inherent in this type of cockpit environment during descent and approach to landing."

Cineflix said that the conversation was not a causal factor, i.e. the crash not attributable to this conversation, but that the NTSB has cited PSA 182 as an example of non-essential conversation, an example of what could be dangerous. Cineflix also said that examples like PSA 182 influenced the introduction of sterile cockpit rules. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• We could e-mail the NTSB and see which documents they used PSA 182 to illustrate the sterile cockpit conundrum aside from the final accident report and/or if they state "multiple accidents" WhisperToMe (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody else find that the CVR transcript (at least the way it is currently presented) detracts from the text of the article, rather than enhancing it? 86.5.176.168 (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

How so? The CVR transcript is weaved deftly into the narrative. Halycondaze (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Bias

What's with the writing in this?

"Flight 182's crew never explicitly alerted the tower that they had lost sight of the Cessna. If they had made this clear to controllers, the crash might not have happened. Also, if the Cessna had maintained the heading of 70 degrees assigned to it by ATC instead of turning to 90 degrees, the NTSB estimates the planes would have missed each other by about 1000 feet (300 meters) instead of colliding. Ultimately, the NTSB maintained that regardless of that change in course, it was the responsibility of the crew in the overtaking jet to comply with the regulatory requirement to pass "well clear" of the Cessna."

Seriously? No citations or anything, just useless assumption and afterthought. This is stupid. 2602:306:CCEE:CD90:6A1C:A2FF:FE02:4C44 (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC) I don't give a fuck about signiatures or wikipedia, just biased BS.

To whoever wrote the now-ancient, blatantly un-civil comments above, the citation was at the end of the paragraph, pointing to the NTSB accident report. Adding identical cites after each sentence is usually considered overkill, and would add visual clutter. Additionally, the things you complained so loudly and rudely about aren't figments of imagination designed to make someone look bad. I assume you didn't read the NTSB report, otherwise you wouldn't have made those comments. To future editors, please keep that in mind before taking a swinging axe to the section in question. It's been pretty much intact in the eight years since the complaint was made, so I guess that means it's not nearly as bad as the complainer alleged. – Itsfullofstars (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

The following paragraph is wholly uncited and appears to have been written with a desire to titillate rather than inform. I seek consensus for its deletion.— Spintendo^Talk 16:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

"The accident was notable for the extreme carnage it created, as the 727's fuselage from the cockpit to the rear stairs had been compressed into a roughly 12 x 6 ft area, which caused the left side of the aircraft to burst open all in less than one second. Most of the passengers and crew were ejected from the plane and mutilated from impact forces and compression. An officer from the San Diego Police Academy assigned to work the scene that day said, "There were no bodies to speak of - only pieces. One alley was just filled with arms, legs, and feet... I was no stranger to dead bodies, but I wasn't ready to see the torso of a stewardess slammed against a car.... The heat of the fires and the sun made the whole scene surreal. We couldn't drink enough water. All around us was the stench of kerosene and burning flesh. We did our job by rote, locating the pieces so the SWAT team could mark the spot and cover the body parts". Only four bodies, First Officer Fox, two flight attendants, and one passenger, were found intact.

• Agree MilborneOne (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• I agree, unnecessary gore. Samf4u (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• Agree, and wanted to additionally reiterate that much of what was incorporated into this paragraph was lifted from a piece written by Thomas Shess 10 years ago. At that time, Mr. Shess was editor of a San Diego lifestyle-focused magazine named SDM, a non-journalistic publication written to entertain. The original piece contains a few names attached haphazardly to the varous quotations, but transferring those details along with the quotes was thought to be unnecessary by the editor who placed it here. — Spintendo^Talk 17:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the para. MilborneOne (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree but you wiki censors will have your own way. it detail facts about air collision- names, and descriptive body parts dont need to be there. edit such as -> The 727's fuselage had been compressed into a roughly 12 x 6 ft area, which caused the left side of the aircraft to burst open all in less than one second. .... The heat of the fires and the sun made the whole scene surreal. Juror1 (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on PSA Flight 182. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.psa-history.org/museum/NTSBAAR7905.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090719104634/http://www.jetpsa.com/memorial/memorial.html to http://www.jetpsa.com/memorial/memorial.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080624211236/http://www.faa.gov/about/media/b-chron.pdf to http://www.faa.gov/about/media/b-chron.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090719104634/http://www.jetpsa.com/memorial/memorial.html to http://www.jetpsa.com/memorial/memorial.html

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) 11:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on PSA Flight 182. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090504084759/http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20080925-0942-bn25psa.html to http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20080925-0942-bn25psa.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070616051432/http://www.signonsandiego.com/ to http://www.signonsandiego.com/

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) 09:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Paragraph without citations & personal views

This paragraph doesn't have any citations, plus some of the sentences seem to be the writer's personal opinions. Some of these opinions are backed up by first class accounts that reported similar sentiment (such as the veteran newscasters), but aren't backed up by any sources.

"The compression and G-forces resulting from the approximately 350 knots (400 mph; 650 km/h) impact speed resulted in a scene of incredible carnage as the passengers and crew were mutilated and dismembered. According to an NTSB investigator, "[The NTSB] estimated that that the 727 was going a little under 400 miles per hour (350 kn; 640 km/h) when it impacted that garage floor. This created a pressure wave that traveled back through the passenger cabin, ripping open the top right side of the passenger cabin like it was a bag of chips and then expelling everything out of that passenger cabin through the rip at over 200 miles per hour (170 kn; 320 km/h). This had an effect like a paper shredder. Of all the people who were aboard this flight, only four bodies were recovered completely intact. Solace can be taken in the fact that it is very highly unlikely that anyone in the passenger cabin survived the initial pressure wave when it hit them. Their death while a horrible thought was very very quick and everyone was already dead before their bodies were ejected from the plane and dismembered. The reports of body parts in trees and bushes are correct and were not exaggerated. Veteran news reporters that had thought they had seen it all in their careers could be seen throwing up in the gutters along with some police officers. An aircraft crash site is never pretty and is something you won't soon forget if you have the unfortunate luck of witnessing one, but this one goes down as probably the worst of the worst. The NTSB ended up having to send their investigators of this crash to psychiatrists after they concluded their investigation and I had read that the S.D. police and fire departments offered the same thing to their personnel who responded to this crash site." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lheureuxe (talk • contribs) 22:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Well spotted, Lheureuxe. I removed it as unverifiable, I think it is creative writing. Fences&Windows 10:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 14 January 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

---

PSA Flight 182 → Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 182 – I think it is wise to move the page to be more consistent with Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771, and Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 710. If my proposal is unacceptable, we could do the opposite and replace the full names of the other two crashes with their abbreviations. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support per WP:TITLECON. INeedSupport ^😷 07:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For readability I changed the background color of the radio communications in the CVR/ATC transcripts

Sorry if this upsets anyone, but I >had< to change the dark grey background color of the radio communications in the CVR/ATC transcripts. Black text on dark grey is very hard on my post-middle-age eyes. I couldn't focus on the text, so I changed the background color to a pastel blue, chosen from a table at https://htmlcolorcodes.com/color-chart/. If someone thinks that's not an improvement (maybe the color I picked isn't good for the color-blind?), feel free to choose some other color, but PLEASE don't use a dark color as a background if the text is going to stay black. Thank you. = Itsfullofstars (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The photo of the Cessna involved shows the wrong aircraft.

Different aircraft can have the same registration (though not at the same time, of course). The aircraft shown is the initial 172 model, built between 1956 and 1959, recognizable by its straight vertical tail and "fastback" fuselage. The 172 involved in the midair is a 172M, built between 1973 and 1976. This model has a swept vertical tail and a cabin rear window. Raywode (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)