Jump to content

Talk:Tenerife airport disaster/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

"Airline's preferred pilot for publicity such as magazine advertisements"

I have some doubts about the reliability of this particular claim . Somehow , it's rumoured that vZ was a kind of "star pilot" who constantly was used as a model for adverts and such , but I learned that it's absolutely not true . Yes , he appeared in that famous ad we all have seen (http://image2.findagrave.com/photos/2012/84/44488204_133269698461.jpg) , but that was pretty much it . He was neither a star nor a well-known person . His name doesn't appear in the ad , he was just another KLM crew member who appeared in an advert , and that doesn't make you a star . So I believe this sentence should be removed , or at least marked as doubtful. NaturalHeaven1979 (talk) 06:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I have rephrased it. His photograph was used in magazines, so his face was known to the public. That's probably why they wanted him to deliver the public statements. Richard 09:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi Richard . That sounds a bit better , but still : the possibility people knew his face is pretty slim , to put it gently . How many of us actually look at adverts and remember all the models on them ? I think the only ones who really cared about the ad were his colleagues and family members . The rest of the people who saw the advert just looked at it for a second and moved over . There have been lots of similar adverts in 1976-1977 , with the same B-747 and different crew members , mostly pursers . VZ was just another one among them .

And by the way : can I replace your link with mine ? The ad from my link is sharp and of a rather good quality , unlike the blurry one that is being used for vZ's article .

Best Regards NaturalHeaven1979 (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought about that, but your url contains '/2012/' - which looks like it could be date-related. I don't know how dynamic url's on www.findagrave.com are, and I didn't want to reference a file that might no longer be there in the near future. If the link is 'permanent', 'your' image is indeed of a better quality.
How well known Veldhuyzen van Zanten was to the larger public - I don't know. But had he not previously appearanced in the media, why would KLM want him to make public statements now? Richard 15:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I uploaded that pic on Find A Grave, but I believe the link would stay there as long as I won't remove the pic ;-) I'm not sure if other users have the possibility to delete images that were uploaded by others.

I believe he was the one KLM decided to contact , because of his relatively high status in the company and a good knowledge in B747s . It probably wasn't for the sake of public appearence , but to be a part of the investigation , and in order to do that - you don't have to be known , but you must have a good knowledge in a certain subject .

This info is a matter of dispute , so I'm not claiming I'm right : it's just a suggestion . There's still no clear evidence about his status : some say he was one of the most important people in KLM, others argue this statement , and even say he only was a reserve Captain , who could fly planes only when there weren't any other available pilots of similar rank . NaturalHeaven1979 (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Oh , thanks a million in advance , John :-) NaturalHeaven1979 (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Here it is: Job, Macarthur (1994). Air Disaster Volume 1. Fyshwick, Australia: Aerospace Publications. p. 165. ISBN 1875671110. --John (talk) 10:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
    • "During the flight, many of the passengers were intrigued to find that their pilot in command was the handsome and esteemed Jacob Veldhuyzen van Zanten, KLM's chief training captain for Boeing 747 aircraft, featured in company advertisements and in the current issue of the company's inflight magazine placed in the back pockets of all the cabin seats." --John (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh , I know that article . But I'm afraid it's not very realistic and is also heavily based on speculations . Lets think logically :

1) How could the passengers know the man in the advert is their Captain ? His name isn't mentioned there ;-) The ad is about KLM and Holland , not vZ . I have the original advert , and even by looking at the scan I placed before - it's claerly lacks his name or any info about him .

2) Even if some people would look at the ad for more than a few seconds , they would forget his face a second after they will turn the page . He was a handsome man ( I say that from a female point of view ) , but his beauty was very standard : lots of men in Northern Europe have a similar prototype . He looks just like thousands of other well-groomed , middle-aged men of an "Arian" ancestry . When the passengers boarded the plane , the crew most probably already was in the cockpit , so nobody had the chance to see the pilots who fly them .

3) KLM was always very careful with sharing the info about their pilots . That was an unsafe era , with terrorism and hijacking of planes , so the company knew that if they would give too much information about their Captains - there's a risk that the terrorists would contact the pilots and blackmail them into cooperating . So no , making one of your pilots into a "celebrity" is not a good idea .

4) And : he almost stopped the line-flying and pretty much become a "simulator pilot" . He spent most of his working time on the ground and not in real planes . Regular flights become very rare for him .

NaturalHeaven1979 (talk) 12:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

  • It's not an article but a book. Your speculations about the accuracy of the material are very interesting but we cannot use them per WP:NOR. Do you have a better source than the Mac Job book I provided? --John (talk) 12:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I meant to say that that particular part of the book was used in some articles that can be found online :-)

But even if he indeed was a huge star among the pilots - it still has no importance in relation to the crash . It's just one of those many small myths that surround this disaster , maybe making it look more interesting and mysterious in the public eye .

I guess knowing people who knew him is not a good source , so I'll leave it here :-) NaturalHeaven1979 (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

There are several issues here: 1) The assertion in ref. 30 reads: "Later, when KLM executives first get word of the crash, they will attempt to contact van Zanten in hopes of sending him to Tenerife to aid the investigation team." There is no mention of him making public statements. 2) Unless the book of Macarthur Job makes an explicit quote to an interview with Robina van Lanschot, it cannot be said for sure that "many of the passengers were intrigued to find that their pilot in command ...", since there was no other witness to this alive after the disaster. A speculation in a book is still a speculation, and does not become a reliable fact once the book is published. Bomwatty (talk) 12:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

  • The thought about "intrigued passengers" makes me fall from my sofa laughing. How in the world could they know who their Captain is, when there's no mentioning of his name in the ad?!? Anybody who ever seen the ad and could read the text should only use the simplest logical thinking to realize how unrealistic and ridiculous Macarthur Job's citation is. Although it's not just him: equally ridiculous opinion can also be read in "Tragedie Op Tenerife", where the authors say pretty much the same: when Klaas Meurs was introducing the crew ( which isn't 100% sure either, as neither of the authors was onboard the plane) and mentioned vZ's surname, the passengers could open up the inflight mags and see their Captain in them. Pathetic! NaturalHeaven1979 (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2014

Please add the Military Channel's Chaos in the Skies episode: Collisions because it features the Tenerife airport disaster and why it happened and what changes it caused in how we fly today. 98.162.151.71 (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - you have not cited a reliable source but the article is no longer semi-protected, so you can add this yourself,provided you cite such a source. - Arjayay (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

parameter in infobox not used?

Currently in the infobox, there's a parameter: |plane2_remarks = The tour guide who did not reboard the plane is not counted as a survivor, nor as a passenger. - the infobox does not currently implement this parameter and thus this should be remedied. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 18:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

For some reason, I seem to remember that the infobox once did show this information. In any case, i.m.o. this should be addressed on Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence. Richard 09:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the line from the infobox, it doesnt display and is not really infobox stuff. I also tidied up the text in the article on the left behind passenger. MilborneOne (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I have added it as a remark in the hope of preventing people from counting her as a survivor (which was done several times, once quite recently). Richard 08:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Sentence About Someone Who Survived The Crash But Was Killed In The Immediate Aftermath Of It

I just undid a revision to this article ("Tenerife Airport Disaster") that had been previously made on 16:32, 17 June 2013, by IP Address‎ 86.5.176.168.

That revision deleted a sentence, for no reason given, in the section titled "Collision" and under the paragraph beginning "Both airplanes were destroyed."

The sentence that had been deleted referred to the immediate aftermath of the collision, and to the surviving passengers and crew of the Pan Am flight, and to Pan Am's flight crew being unable to control or shut down the grounded plane's engines, as they awaited rescue.

The deleted sentence was "After a short time running at full power, the Pan-Am's engines began to disintegrate, throwing engine parts at high speed that killed a flight attendant who had escaped the burning plane."

I had remembered that interesting piece of information from reading this article last year, and noticed it was gone from the current version, and so I tracked down the deletion/revision, and seeing no reason at all given for it's deletion, I undid the revision, restoring the sentence.

I should add, that the sentence in question was originally sourced to Macarthur Job (1995) "Air Disaster Volume 1" ISBN 1-875671-11-0, pp.164–180.

The same source exists for this part of the article, both before and after the edit/deletion of the sentence on 17 June 2013.

And so again, I simply restored the deleted sentence which appeared properly sourced, as no reason was given for it's deletion in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.117.92 (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Job's book does not say that the PanAm engines "continued running at full power" nor that they "disintegrated and killed a flight attendent". On the contrary, Job writes that the engines "spooled down" after the collision (p.175). 86.5.176.168 (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Contributing Factor—Use of non-standard phraseology

There is a contributing factor that says "Use of non-standard phraseology..." but it is under "Contributing but not critical". Wouldn't the use of non-standard phraseology be critical? Use of standard phraseology is critical in maintaining air safety, especially in bad weather. The pilots and air traffic controllers need to have a mutual understanding in communications, so I am thinking of moving that factor to critical factors, right above this subsection. Sam.gov (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It's what the sources say that counts, if the reports say contributing then its contributing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok. Sam.gov (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Now that said, if there are sources that say that poor communications was more of a factor than the official reports make out, then that could go in. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Sam.gov (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't the claim that Tenerife was the deadlist aircraft incident be changed?

The problem is that 9-11 killed more—even if you count just one of the WTC towers. Will (Talk - contribs) 08:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It wasnt an "aircraft incident" more an act of terrorism. MilborneOne (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
It can be both. It is without a doubt an aircraft incident / aircraft disaster, although I wouldn't call it an accident. Most websites seem to count either 9/11 or Tenerife as the deadliest aircraft disaster. The Wikipedia article List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities lists 9/11 as the deadliest. - quispiamtalk [Anton Nordenfur] 10:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The article says it was "deadliest accident in aviation history" which is true, 9/11 was not an accident. MilborneOne (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


Which KLM crew members survived? / KLM captain involved in investigation

The article states that all passengers and 14 crew members on the KLM flight were killed: "All 234 passengers and 14 crew members in the KLM plane died...." If this is the case, how could the KLM pilot, Captain Veldhuyzen van Zanten, have been considered to participate in the investigation if he was already dead? It's not clear that anyone survived the KLM flight. Alliwalk (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Later in the article, it is clear that everyone onboard the KLM flight was killed - so it's even more confusing that KLM wanted the Captain to investigate. Alliwalk (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Guys - the article also says this: "KLM suggested that he should be part of the investigation team, before learning that he was the captain involved" (my emphasis added). No confusion - they would have wanted him to investigate but clearly could not have him do so. Echoedmyron (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The KLM ad/van Zanten's photo

  • Is this photo really necessary for a general article about the disaster? There is an article about vZ with exactly the same photo , so what's the point of spreading it all over Wikipedia ? I think this photo/advert is not really relevant here, just like it wouldn't be relevant to post a photo of PH-BUF on an article dedicated to van Zanten himself!
Some might argue and say that this advert has a direct connection to the disaster, but I said that before and would repeat it again: van Zanten's so-called "stardom" is nothing but an urban myth. He wasn't a poster-boy of the company, he was only featured on that one particular advert (where his name isn't even mentioned! Remember this next time somebody tells you that the advert was made in order to praise the "big famous Captain! This myth is absolutely not true and can be proven as completely ridiculous just by reading the text on that advert!), and that does not make you a celebrity. Shame so many people still believe in this joke after almost 40 years.

Peace, 176.22.13.195 (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I have removed it as it is an unfree image without a valid inclusion rationale. MilborneOne (talk) 11:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The football game

A very important football game was being listened to during this incident by the controllers. I've heard in the past that that was the principle cause. It only gets one line though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.179.137.196 (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It has been suggested that they were listening to a football match, but I don't think it was ever proven conclusively. In no way this would have been the principle cause though. Richard 08:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Tenerife airport disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for Article: Seating Plan of Survivors

Seating plan of the plane crash survivor of Flight 961

Hello.

I suggest adding an image, which shows the seating plan of PanAm Flight 1736, with the survivors. This example on the right does apply for ETH961.
But please note, that the Boeing 747 hasn't only got one deck.


But it would be interesting to have such a seating plan… --S536870912 (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Cockpit and ATC tower communications

The Cockpit and ATC tower communications is wrong the First officer said let's get the hell out of here and then the Captian said yes he is anxious is'int he and the engerneer one is the write one I have everdince at the crash investagation at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiV9ZH7QiLA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavinfu2016 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

A fictional account of what was said and done for a television programme made for entertainment is not a reliable source, please refer to the official reports, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The word "authorities"

This article has fallen in love with the word "authorities". Can we get rid of this editorializing? 110.55.1.110 (talk) 10:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed: "authorities" is rather vague, as though the author doesn't actually know who installed the ground radar. Good edit. 80.2.106.75 (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tenerife airport disaster. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 18:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Info box.

On the Introduction's infobox, I think we should have the KLM aircraft first and the Pan Am aircraft second, just as it says above the infobox. MattChatt18 (talk) 10:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I dont think we have any guidelines for which order they are in, but the default is probably alphabetical order so I dont have a problem if you swap them around. MilborneOne (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Adding similar Incidents

Hi

I wanted to suggest about adding a similar incident to the Tenerife disaster towards the bottom of the page which lists similar accidents. In October 2001, at Milan-Linate airport, Scandinavian Airlines flight 686 collided with a Cessna Citation on takeoff roll in heavy fog. All personnel aboard both aircraft died. The cause of the crash was due to the Citation crossing an active runway without knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrevorABrown (talk • contribs) 03:01, 10 December 2016‎

@TrevorABrown: and pinging Ian Rose - Hmm, the Linate Airport disaster is a tricky one. Unlike the two incidents which I added, in this case there there was only one airliner involved. I must say that this one had slipped my mind when adding those. However, unlike Court Line Flight 95 (which involved an airliner and a light aircraft and in which there was only one death), which I had considered but dismissed, all on board were killed. On balance, I think that the proposal to include it merits a weak support. Mjroots (talk) 08:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking more of accidents similar in overall magnitude, the size of the aircraft involved, and so on, but perhaps Linate should qualify because of the runway incursion, the fog, and ATC errors. I think that, ideally, entries in this section should be those considered similar by outside sources, not simply by WP editors -- from memory the Linate episode of Aircrash Investigations/Mayday explicitly compares Linate to Tenerife so that might be a starting point. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Tenerife airport disaster. 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) 00:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tenerife airport disaster. 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.

checkY 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tenerife airport disaster. 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.

checkY 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tenerife airport disaster. 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.

checkY 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tenerife airport disaster. 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.

checkY 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tenerife airport disaster. 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.

checkY 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Events category

@J 1982: and Richardw - re the March 1977 events category. The Canary Islands are a Spanish possession, and therefore part of Europe politically. I accept what Richardw says about being part of Africa geographically. How about we use two categories, Category:1977 events in Africa (will need creating) and Category:March 1977 events in Europe? Mjroots (talk) 07:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I have thought about putting the article in March 1977 events in Africa, but since that category does not exist, I refrained from doing so. Although I personally doubt the practical use of such a narrowmazed category structure, March 1977 events in Africa would fit the bill and I would not object having the article put in that category. March 1977 events in Europe is technically flawed, but if you were to put the article in both categories I would let that be. Richard 08:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Sure we can have Africa categories, I haven't just created them yet. J 1982 (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Aviation Jargon

The term "rotate" is clearly being used in the article in a specialist manner. Please would someone translate this for the benefit of normal people. Many thanks, Darkman101 (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Have you followed the link? There is an article explaining it. An in-line explanation would be redundant. --Deeday-UK (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tenerife airport disaster. 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.

checkY 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Survival of Pan-Am copilot

Does anyone else think we should mention that the Pan Am co-pilot survived? As far as I can tell the closest we come to mentioning this is he tried to turn off the engines but this doesn't mean he survived long term (I read in another source that 61 passengers 7 crew and 2 staff survived initially but 9 later succumbed to their injuries.) IMHO it's relevant since even if it'S the KLM crew who's actions are of primary concern, there are some issues like missing the 3rd taxiway and that they may have recognised the ambiguity of the messages which e could have potentially offered his memory compared to if it was simply based on cockpit voice recordings albeit bearing in mind the general failings of human memory especially after something as traumatic as this. Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

If you want to mention him, you should also mention that Grubbs, Warns, Cooper, Murillo Rivas, Kelly, Johnson, Jackson, and Donovan survived.ref Then again, crew members are no more or less important than passengers. In that light ...
Maybe it is better not to mention the survivors by name. You could add something like 'Cockpit crew (three people), two observers, and four cabin crew survived, as did 61 passengers'. Richard 12:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Long and messy lead

@Zin92: can you please be more specific on which part of the lead after my edit, which you reverted, would be unclear, and what 'key information' would be missing? --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Deeday-UK. Thanks for asking. Sorry, I would have added some thoughts to the talk page when I reverted but I didn't have time. Some of my thoughts...
You've changed bomb explosion and a terrorist threat of a second at Gran Canaria airport to just terrorist threat. But there was a bomb explosion and I think that this is important.
"Everybody on board the KLM jet died, while 61 occupants in the front section of the Pan Am 747 survived" reads awkwardly to me - when I get to the while, I'm expecting to be told how many people died on the Pan Am, not how many survived.
"The subsequent investigations concluded that the primary cause of the accident was the KLM captain's decision to take off in the mistaken belief that a clearance from air traffic control (ATC) had been issued. In fact, a misunderstanding in radio communications between the KLM crew and ATC had occurred." The "In fact..." seems to imply that what is said in the first sentence is wrong and that what is said in the second sentence is correct instead. However, I think that the second sentence applies in addition to the first.
I think that the lead does need seem to clean-up. I'd be happy to help.
Regards. Zin92 (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, why not address the specific points then, instead of bluntly hitting the Undo button? You are expected to make an effort as much as I am, or everybody else. Anyway, I've tweaked a couple of points: the number of bombs that went off at Gran Canaria is largely irrelevant and certainly not lead-worthy (and already covered in the article body); the main point is that Gran Canaria was closed for security reasons, and Los Rodeos was getting overwhelmed as a result. I don't get your last point; to me the paragraph reads "the captain believed he had takeoff clearance, but in fact he had not, due to a misunderstanding with ATC". By all means, reword it as you see fit, and we'll take it from there. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
The bomb explosion at Gran Canaria is highly relevant as it meant that the bomb alert was real and not a hoax. Thus the airport authorities had a very good reason to close the airport. The 'threat' of a bomb had by then become fact.
If after a bomb alert nothing had happened at Gran Canaria the authorities might have assumed it had been a hoax and kept the airport open, or re-opened it sooner, and the accident may not have occurred, however once the bomb had gone off they had no choice but to close the airport and divert all its traffic to Los Rodeos or elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.9 (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

References added 20180127

On 27 January 2018, User:Glacier109 added two references. Verifiability is a good thing, but these references date back to 28 and 29 March 1977 – the two days following the disaster, when still a lot of facts were not known. For example: one headline reads "580 killed in history's worst air disaster". In fact, there were 583 fatalities. Furthermore: how can an article from 1977 be used to prove that this disaster is still the deadliest in history? It could only be used to prove that it was the deadliest at the time. Like I said: verifiability is a good thing – but I do question the present day value of these particular references. Richard 09:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Glacier109 has moved the first use of these references so that my concerns expressed earlier no longer apply. Thanks for that. Richard 09:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

41st anniversary revamp

Today, March 27th, 2018, marks the 41st anniversary of this tragic disaster. Because of this, I have decided to revamp the article. Well actually, I'm probably just going to revamp the important sections and specify the cause of the accident in the info box. I'm determined to complete it in one day, but I may do it over the course of several days. We'll see what happens. I do however, have a few questions. Also I've only read one of the accident report (the one from reference 18) so far. I'll try to read more soon. Until then, I will only be revamping the sections I feel confident about.

I know there was no ground radar, but the report I read I couldn't find anything about there being a lack of runway/taxiway signs or markings. Is there a possibility that there could be signs or markings?

That is all I've got for now. I may update this section later if I feel like it. thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerdude9 (talk • contribs) on March 27, 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, the runway lights were out of order. Furthermore, 'revamping' an article for the sake of an anniversary does seem a good idea. Also, your edits so far seem to be based on the assumption that the Pan Am crew did in fact identify C-3 as such and that they deliberately skipped it. The official report (which was used as a reference until you removed it) does not support that claim. Richard 07:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Fourth Person in Pan Am cockpit

Hello, I was the lead researcher for the original (French) incarnation of the film "Deadliest Plane Crash," which later became the NOVA documentary. This is not particularly important, but I'll offer the fact anyway. An off-duty employee of Pan Am who asked for a quick lift to Gran Canaria was in the cockpit, sitting on a jump seat. I was just skimming through the transcripts on the Spanish version of this Wiki article, and he is noted as "NN," or "unidentified." I may still have his name in my old papers, but it has escaped my memory. I was not able to locate or contact the man. He certainly survived the crash. I interviewed Mr. Luis Carmona, who represented the NTSB at Tenerife. I mentioned the man in the jump seat and he said I was mistaken. I held my ground, and Luis brought out his original binder with his original report. He was surprised, but I was right. There was a fourth person in that cockpit. I remember many strange things from that very sad story. Fly Safe! Robert P. Helms — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.177.45 (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Spanish report changes

FirefoxLSD has made a couple of changes intensifying the culpability of the KLM captain - basically saying that the Spanish report says he deliberately ignored ATC instructions relating to the takeoff. This needs to be backed up with sensible references that the report actually says this. The lead and the investigation section already detail the consensus of events and the differences in interpretaion between the Spanish and Dutch views.

Also the report is already the reference for this section so adding it twice more is unhelpful, and the lead can only include details dealt with and referenced in the body of the article the lead should not contain details unsupported in the general text.

Should the current wording be changed? possibly! But it should be discussed here first as the recent changes are not acceptable in my view. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Page 9 of part II of the Spanish report has the Spanish investigators' conclusion for the captain's reason to take off despite ATC orders to the contrary. The very first reason suggested for his decision is a desire not to delay the flight any further, and also a desire to take off before the weather gets any worse: thus theorising that he deliberately ignores ATC orders for these reasons.ref Although the report also includes the suggestion that language barriers were to blame (as the Dutch investigation concluded), it is only a third reason for the crash. Thus, the Spanish investigation gives at least as much credit to the theory that the pilot wilfully disobeyed ATC orders as it does to the theory that the pilot accidentally disobeyed orders due to language barriers. The current version of the article makes it sound as if the Spanish conclusion focused mainly on the theory that due to a language barrier, Van Zanten took off in the mistaken belief that he had clearance. This completely misrepresents the actual Spanish report (see the above source), which gives most ground to the theory that Van Zanten took off deliberately having ignored ATC orders. This leads on to the second part of your issue: whether this should - briefly - be mentioned in the introduction to the article. The aim of a Wikipedia article intro is to give a potted summary of what follows below: a skeleton description with the essential facts. Since a major factor in this crash is the disagreement between the Dutch and Spanish investigators over whether the captain's disobedience was accidental or deliberate, it warrants a clear mention in the introduction. Perhaps this other source I have included above can be used instead with the appropriate page notation. I equally feel that the current wording of the article is inadequate, and misrepresents the main theory of the Spanish investigators. FirefoxLSD (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Where in the report can I find that Veldhuyzen van Zanten decided to ignore ATC?
The ASN report states "The KLM aircraft had taken off without take-off clearance, in the absolute conviction that this clearance had been obtained [...]" – which is more in line with how the article put it before the disputed change. Richard 07:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry - I thought I had posted the link. Here it is: http://www.project-tenerife.com/engels/PDF/spanish_report2.PDF. Quoting from page 9: "A growing feeling of tension as the problems for the captain continued to accumulate. He knew that, on account of the strictness in the Netherlands regarding the application of rules on the limitation of duty time, if he did not take off within a relatively short space of time he might have to interrupt the flight – with the consequent upset for his company and inconvenience for the passengers. Moreover, the weather conditions in the airport were getting rapidly worse, which meant that he would either have to take off under his minima or else wait for better conditions and run the risk of exceeding the aforementioned duty-time limit." That theory (which is given the most space in the report) clearly suggests that Van Zanten ignored ATC commands due to time/weather concerns.FirefoxLSD (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, that link was (and is) there, but in that document I did not find text that supported your claim. In my opinion, the text you cite does not support your claim either. It is a theory that suggests, but that's all. It does not proof that 'Spain' actually said that Veldhuyzen van Zanten deliberately decided to ignore ATC instructions. Richard 06:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it's a theory. It is the primary theory given for the crash. Similarly, the suggestion that Van Zanten took off in a misunderstanding due to language barriers is just a theory. My issue is that the intro to the WP article only credits this second theory, making it sound as if the Spanish report primarily focuses on the theory of an accidental misunderstanding even though in actual fact, as much (if not more) credit is given to the theory that Van Zanten deliberately ignored ATC commands.FirefoxLSD (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
If you truly want to be true to given source without giving into any kind of therorising on the how and why, The subsequent investigation by Spanish authorities concluded that the primary cause of the accident was the fact that the KLM captain took off without clearance from air traffic control (ATC) to do so (second paragraph in chapter 2.2: Conclusions) would be the best way to put it – at that point in the article. Theories are handled later on. Richard 08:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
This goes back to the other point though, of how much goes in the intro. The intro is meant to include the most important parts of the article. A major issue is that the Spanish investigators' prime theory - that is, the one they mention first and devote the most time to - is that the captain deliberately disobeyed ATC. The Dutch investigators took an opposing view: it was through no fault of his own. This is simply too important a dispute not to warrant at least a proper mention in the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FirefoxLSD (talk • contribs) 02:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@FirefoxLSD: With respect I don't think you have understood anything that has been said to you. Deliberately ignoring ATC is a pretty high bar to suggest - you need some pretty convincing evidence to suggest such. The Spanish report does not say that the KLM captain deliberately disobeyed ATC - your attempt above at saying it does is frankly WP:SYNTHESIS. There is no question the KLM captain attempted to take off without clearance - I suspect you should read what Richardw suggests above and suggest some wording based on that. The lead should only contain information dealt with later in the article - the concept of any deliberate disobeying of ATC orders is not canvassed in the article body. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, the word deliberate should not be used in the intro (or at all, for that matter). The report doesn't use it either. Richard 06:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
With the utmost respect, I don't think you have understood any of my points, and have willfully ignored points in the Spanish report. Let's try again. The first theory for the crash is not a language barrier. That is the second theory. The first theory states that Van Zyten was under high pressure to take off as soon as was possible. What exactly is this meant to suggest, other than that, due to this pressure, he chose to take off? It clearly isn't irrelevant, since it is the first theory they have given, and it clearly isn't a case of misunderstanding (as you guys have claimed) since that is an entirely different, second theory posited in the report.If you feel that "deliberate" is too strong, by all means change it to something more neutral like "decided" or "chose". Neither of you has given any explanation of what this first theory is meant to suggest other than a pilot's decision (for whatever reasons) to take off despite ATC orders. FirefoxLSD (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The stress he was under might have caused a certain state of mind that caused him to act in a manner he would not have in other circumstances. The Spanish report asks itself the very question 'how is it possible that a pilot [...] whose state of mind seemed perfectly normal [...] was able, a few minutes later, to commit a basic error?' and continues with 'an explanation may be found in a series of factors which possibly contributed'. The way the question is posed seems to indicate that they're not certain of the pilot's state of mind. Given the question, it seems logical to address factors that might have influenced Veldhuyzen van Zanten's state of mind first. The question arises from four listed facts: taking off without clearance, disobeying the tower, not interrupting the take-off, and the manner Veldhuyzen van Zanten reacted to Schreuder's question. The answer he gave ('yes') seems to indicate that in his mind, he really thought he could safely take off – as is voiced by ASN, the source given in the article as it is at this moment. Since it is impossible to verify that without any doubt, I have no problem with striking that part of the sentence. Introducing that he willfully, deliberately or however you want to put it, chose to ignore everything (thereby effectively committing suicide) – that's something I would not do. And yes, I do understand your points – I just don't agree with them. And 'willfully ignoring points in the report'... there's that combination of words again. Richard 12:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image & summary

I'm not very happy about this image. If you click on it, the description is given as "This photograph shows an certain time of two aircraft that were involved in the Tenerife Airport Disaster, before the disaster occurred." and the minimal use comment is "To be used in the article's infobox and illustrate a time photograph an few hours prior to the accident's occurrence." It's unclear exactly when the photo was taken, but if we were to use the words "shortly before the disaster" in the caption, this would suggest a few minutes, not hours, beforehand. As the image is crystal clear, it cannot be minutes before the collision because we've been told that the runway was "shrouded in fog", one of the very reasons for the accident happening in the first place. I have my doubts about this image anyway, I mean it's very convenient that someone just happened to take a picture of the one aircraft, neatly framed under the wing of the other, as a testament to the catastrophe that was about to occur. I'd be very surprised if it's not just a mock-up. Unfortunately we can't quite read the writing on the side of the KLM plane, which would at least provide some evidence of its authenticity. Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that we mustn't imply that the photo was taken just before the collision, which is why I thought it would be more accurate to say "hours before", as stated in the image details, rather than "shortly before".

As for the type parameter, which is displayed as "Summary", we do normally provide a brief indication of what happened and why it happened, i.e. a possible cause, and as the "primary cause" is given (in the lead) as communication errors between KLM pilot and ATC, that's what we should convey in the summary. Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

What if you omit a time frame and keep only 'N736PA (center) and PH-BUF (foreground), at Los Rodeos Airport'? Truth be told, I don't think it's a great picture either. It has no real added value. There has been a cgi depicting the collision in the infobox, but that too was not without issues. Last January, some images were added to commons:category:Tenerife airport disaster. Maybe File:Het_verongelukte_KLM-toestel_De_Rijn,_Bestanddeelnr_929-1003.jpg, File:Het verongelukte KLM-toestel De Rijn, Bestanddeelnr 929-1004.jpg or File:Het verongelukte KLM-toestel De Rijn, Bestanddeelnr 929-1005.jpg could be cropped and used instead?
Type: once upon a time, that parameter was filled with 'Pilot error, runway incursion, heavy fog, limitations and failures in communication', which was subsequently changed into 'Pilot error by KLM copilot, runway incursion, heavy fog, limitations and failures in communication', shortened into 'runway incursion leading to collision' and then 'runway incursion'. Now it's 'Runway collision caused by errors in communication between KLM pilot and ATC' again. Although the KLM pilot made the final, fatal error, there is that issue that PanAm should never have been at that location on the runway. They made a mistake as well. Maybe shorten the summary to 'Runway collision caused by communication errors'? Richard 09:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
PS: as for the images, I think #1005 is the most well-known. Richard 09:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
PPS: I was bold. Richard 10:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Guys, let's be reasonable; this picture ought to be in the article, somewhere. Doubts about its authenticity are groundless; it's been around for a while; higher-resolutions versions on the web show clearly the writing on the foreground plane as 'The Flying Dutchman'. It's certainly more relevant to the events being described than generic stock pictures of KLM and Pan Am 747s. Of course there are other pictures that could be even more relevant, such as this one, but they are non-free. The caption could simply say "The two aircraft photographed at Los Rodeos on the day of the accident." --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Just a thought: since there is a photo of only a similar plane used in the portion of the infobox dedicated to Clipper Victor, and this image is centered on Clipper Victor, could it replace this image? With a new caption like 'N736PA, the Pan Am Boeing 747-121 involved in the accident, parked at Los Rodeos behind the Dutch airplane'? BTW: 'The Flying Dutchman' (which is still legible in this low resolution image) is not the name of the plane, but a commercial slogan used by KLM. It was on all of their planes. Richard 12:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd be happy to keep the current infobox pictures and put the above one in the 'Diversion of aircraft to Los Rodeos' paragraph, probably the place where it would be most relevant. Deeday-UK (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
That also crossed my mind. If you would do the honors? Richard 13:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

"deadliest accident"

This has come up before ([1]) - in which someone has questioned the line in the lead that says "killing 583 people, making it the deadliest accident in aviation history." The existing phrasing was changed by someone to call it "one of" the deadliest, listing it after the deaths of 9/11. As noted, 9/11 was a deliberate act and not an "accident"; yes, the linked article in that passage is entitled "List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities", because there is no standalone list that only lists accidents. Rather than get into an edit war - as my revert was immediately reverted - I'm bringing it here for consensus. If it's necessary to compare it here to 9/11, then it should read "making it the deadliest incident in aviation history." But if there's no need to compare it here to 9/11, I would think that clearly there's a difference between an accident and a terrorist act, and leave it as "making it the deadliest accident in aviation history." Echoedmyron (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree that 9/11 is in a class of its own, so the deadliest aviation accident is still Tenerife. Deeday-UK (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Infobox summary

I have reverted the summary in the info box back to a simple "Runway collision" - I know that sometimes it is appropriate (but almost certainly not mandatory) to add an accident cause to the summary. The problem that arises from this is that subsequent editors say that this detail is not quite right I need to add this detail and soon the summary is not a summary anymore. In this case I would support "communication errors" as a valid and summary friendly addition but "other factors" adds nothing "pilot error" really adds nothing (note an interesting situation is that editors are so keen on the general pilot error - but never ever mechanical error) and ATC error can probably be subsumed within communication errors. But my view is that in this case (and most others) the cause of the crash is multifold and complex and is mostly impossible to detail appropriately in a summary so is mostly best just left for the body of the article for a proper detailed explanation. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree that in general for summaries less is more. Even more so in this case, for which it seems particularly tricky to condensate in few words all factors and mistakes by all parties involved, so better to leave it generic. The lead is short enough to quickly provide the missing details anyway. --Deeday-UK (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Agree Richard 08:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Agree Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Animation of collision

Where did this animation actually come from? Far from being misleading, I had thought that it was actually a very useful visualisation of what happened, considering that it's quite difficult to make it clear using words alone. If it's come from a reputable source then it might be OK to use it, but if it's just been botched up by someone in their bedroom, than maybe not. Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Previous consensus (at project level) was that made-up images and animations were not to be used as they could be misleading. Exception is any that have been sourced to the official reports or made available by the likes of the NTSB or AAIB. Commons page claim is that it is self made by the uploader and not official. MilborneOne (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. Shame though :) Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

CBS video of a testimony from a survivor

I found: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJkLrLwmV0Y WhisperToMe (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It might be OK to include that as an external link but not as a reliable source, if that's what you were hoping. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
External link was what I had in mind WhisperToMe (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Fog or low cloud?

Per my rollback, according to this Flight Safety Foundation article "low cloud" and "fog" are essentially the same thing. It does say "Low clouds that may obscure mountainous terrain generally are not defined as fog" but it then states "physically clouds and fog are the same thing" and "mountainous locations in the clouds simply report it as fog". As this is a moot point, I'd suggest it would be confusing to the reader if we started playing around with semantics, and just stick to describing it as "fog". Or alternatively, we could provide a footnote (with above source) explaining the point up front. Any strong opinions one way or the other? Rodney Baggins (talk) 06:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

One of the official report translations linked to says "Intermittent light rain and fog at distance", so might be best to just stick to fog. MilborneOne (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tenerife_airport_disaster/Archive_3&oldid=1134678792"