Talk:Western Airlines Flight 2605

Untitled

'Your other left stupid.' - the eternal DI

Western was founded by a guy who flew for the RAF in WWI. Mark Lincoln (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Information?

The Spanish language page of Wikipedia cites the other runway, not 23L. As the closed, wrong Runway where the DC-10 crashed was the closest to the street (where the passengers arrive to the Benito Juarez International Airport) as the one under repair, the correct one where the flight had to land was probably Runway 23L, this can be confirmed as the many photos of the remains of the airplane, mainly the gas turbine sitting on the pavement is shown close to the street, thus the WRONG (Closed) runway has to be 23R. It has been said that the crew was in a strong disagreement, and that the pilot continued the landing in spite of first officer strong disagreement. This behaviour was a contributing cause of the accident, but is completely ignored in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.180.19 (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• This is blather with ludicrous speculation. The Spanish language page is similar to the English version. Key details are the same: 23L was closed, 23R was the open runway with a NOTAM many days before.
• The CVR has no indication of strong disagreement. Ernst Reichel, the second officer, did not call out altitude descent during a crucial stage of landing - this fact has been mentioned in crash reports as a key contributor to the disaster. Pilot fatigue has also been mentioned. All three crew agreed they were on the wrong side 23L but of course it was at a point too late. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.153.15.41 (talk) 01:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Flying the cleared approach?

The NTSB seems (from our article) to have believed tht the crew improperly chose to descend below decision height while 'not yet quite' having visual contact with the runway: "In continuing toward 23L below [decision height, 600ft aal], by definition the crew was deviating from their cleared approach". Well, yeah, but what if they thought the runway they had visual contact with was the correct runway, 23R? so they thought they were flying their cleared approach? – SquisherDa (talk) 10:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• The crew did not have "visual contact" with any runway probably until the left wheels hit the dirt to the left of 23L which apparently surprised the crew. However they (specifically the pilot Charles Gilbert knew based on what he said) they were at 23L. Question is misinformed.

They had "stayed on the correct flight path to Runway 23 Right for most of the time between the outer marker "Metro Eco" and [the] Airport, and only deviated to the runway closed to traffic (23 Left) when at a height of (600 feet) above the ground during .. final approach": it looks as if they were intending to maintain a lateral separation from the ILS path (to 23L) so as to keep them in line to come straight in to 23R. (That is, do the sidestep "in advance", out by "Metro Eco".) But then, with fog-banks etc giving them problems, visual contact was with 23L but not 23R; they reckoned they had slightly overdone the lateral separation and moved left to correct it, and so lined up with 23L . . then realised rather late tht they were now on the ILS path so this must be 23L - wrong runway - and they better go around.

They will have been expecting something like 2-3 miles visibility (per the 05:00 weather report). With a fogbank unluckily placed they would not see 23R; and this is at night, so they likely wouldn’t see the fogbank itself either. They’d have no obvious warning tht 23R was in front of them but hidden.

This explanation is not addressed by our article as it stands. It ought to be (if at all possible). Is it not discussed in the reliable sources? (any of them?) – SquisherDa (talk) 10:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• What explanation? This is a paragraph of speculation about what happened with some accurate details of what did. The pilot knew they were at 23L or in his words "the approach to the goddamn left". This Wikipedia page doesn't thoroughly describe what happened, so speculation or additional questions might be expected by anyone hoping to gain a better understanding of the accident. That is certainly my intent by contributing to the talk page.

• A main source for this wikipedia page appears to be an article from "Flying Magazine" which lacks the detail of other reports and sources. Presumably the "Flying Magazine" article abridged content from 'official' reports and other sources.

And, thinking of sources - do we have the CVR? Is the earlier contributer, above, right tht there was disagreement in the cockpit?

• The CVR has been widely available for years. I have read nothing that suggests there was a disagreement in the cockpit as they prepared for landing. The 2nd officer, Reichel, crucially did not call out altitude on approach.

Hard touch down?

"the flight touched down hard on the unpaved left shoulder of Runway 23L with more than 2 g of force, at 130 knots of speed."

The left landing gear was off the runway on the left side of runway 23L. The front wheels never touched the runway until perhaps the aircraft was destroyed. Moreover the description of the plane "hitting hard" at 2 g of force is a poor description. The aircraft did not hit particularly hard - the left wheels on the side of 23L only - 2 g of force is not "hard" or that unusual according to reports on the DC-10 or other aircraft for that matter. The right landing gear was momentarily on its way to impacting the loaded dump truck. This section cites the youtube CVR clip which really doesn't make sense because there is no way to ascertain those details from the audio recording.

Accident details

This section states that the pilot saw the dump truck and then exclaimed "..Jesus Christ". Do we know this is correct? The CVR recording has a violent crashing sound which could be the initial collision with the dump truck and immediately following this is pilot Charles Gilbert's exclamation of "Jesus Christ" and a complete change of intensity in the cockpit. The sound and tone of his exclamation is one of complete shock. or profound horror - perhaps with a terrible awareness of the fate of the plane. 9 seconds later the CVR ends, or at least what is available on youtube ends. Presumably this is the point of destruction of the plane.

Would touching down (2 g) on the left wheels have elicited such an ominous outcry? Maybe if the pilot saw obstructions ahead. Things moved very quickly. Pilot Gilbert got on the power (100%) before the impact with the truck and after Reichel calmly called to go around after everyone agreed they were at 23L. (Did they know where they were more specifically?) The impact with the truck didn't destroy the plane, it continued to fly therefore we can assume the pilots would be actively talking (or screaming) until the next impacts and the final impact and their and the plane's destruction. Most reports I've read seem to state that Pilot Gilbert saw the truck. I don't know how this can be verified but perhaps it is correct.

Reading the "Jumpseat: A Tale of Twisted Fate" book from surviving flight attendant Eduardo Valenciana - he wrote of a violent impact and then a dramatic attempt at a climb with full power - note, not two impacts but one. However, this could very well have been the initial touchdown. The plane then quickly hit the truck, the electric pole, the excavator cab and finally the building. (?)

In order to have a satisfactory answer to this question the first crashing sound in the cockpit needs to be definitively either the touchdown of the left wheels or a collision with the truck. As a lay person with a recent fascination with this crash, I'm assuming this was the truck collision by the noises on the CVR. But this may already have long been determined to be the left wheel touchdown - but I haven't read a report specifically stating this yet. Making things even more confusing the recorder was apparently pierced and an erase mechanism was reported to have been briefly actuated. So the CVR may in fact be missing details. To be continued..— Preceding unsigned comment added by an IP user

The report published by the International Civil Aviation Organization states that "On the transcription of the cockpit voice recorder the pilot-in-command is heard to have said that he was on the flight path to Runway 23 Left, just before the left landing gear wheels touched down on the grass to the left of Runway 23 Left and the right landing gear wheels on the runway shoulder." The report also states "After covering 224 m and again airborne, the aircraft's right landing gear collided with a truck" and that the CVR and FDR "sustained some damage during the accident, but the tapes were in good condition and provided the required information".

Therefore the sequence of events would be as follows: The Capt. states "No, this is the approach to the goddamned left" - The main landing gear touches down - The First officer states "Yeah, climb to 8,500" as he applies power for a go around - The aircraft becomes airborne - The aircraft's right landing gear collides with the loaded truck - The aircraft remains airborne, the Capt. states "Oh Jesus Christ!", the aircraft crashes to the ground approximately 13 seconds after impact with truck. We also can see that approximately 3.3 seconds passed between touchdown and collision with truck.

I will work on making changes to Accident details section in my sandbox and post it here when done. - Samf4u (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

My proposed changes to the article may be viewed at User:Samf4u/sandbox4. If nobody objects I'll make the changes in five days time. - Samf4u (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Accident details revision of 12/4 - What happened to Pilot Gilbert's "Jesus Christ!"

How much information is too much information? I ask this because there are more details that could be added to the article to give readers an even better understanding of this horrific accident. Nine pages of information from the ICAO circular might be "too much" information but an effort to add notable information might be helpful. The challenge is being able to discriminate and select what else could be added. Here are some ideas:

Lay readers still have no idea what a "more than 2g force landing" means. "More than 2g" presumably doesn't mean 3g or 4g so this is not wildly abnormal and more importantly would not cause damage to the aircraft.

20 minutes before the accident a 727 from Mexicana airlines landed normally on 23R using the "same procedure which the Western aircraft was instructed to follow".

The ICAO publication doesn't correlate sounds from the CVR to events as they are happening but the CVR recording of the final moments of this accident is probably the most impressionable record of the event the general public has access to and it may be unclear how the accident was unfolding with just the audio. Is this necessary? Whether the motivation is morbid curiosity or not I think it is worthwhile.

We can surmise (?) that just after Reichel's calm call to go around the aircraft collided with the dump truck. The violent crashing is clearly heard. This is not a touchdown this is the aircraft being destroyed.

Gilbert probably knows (his hands on the yoke?) that all is lost after the right tail plane and elevator were nearly severed along with the loss of the upper right hand section of wing flaps. This is presumably the point he is yelling "Jesus Christ!" along with what sounds to be "turn left."

Finally, I have read no analysis of the final statement that one of the 3 man crew says loudly under Gilbert's screams. Walsh (?) seems to say the following: " We're (He's?) done flyin'."

A point tht certainly needed explaining to me - I think I've got this right - is tht the stationary condition, with the aircraft landed and stopped, is a 1g state. So yes, 2g isn't as much of a thump as an uninformed reader may suppose.

Other than that kind of thing - technical explanation - we'll get into swamps of WP:OR very easily if we don't watch ourselves. I've seen this accident described on forums as pretty much the hardest to understand / explain . . so there's plenty of scope for guesswork - which has no place in the encyclopaedia - and people far more knowledgeable than perhaps any of us have tried and failed.

The source I most wish we had access to is an Airline Pilots Association report, apparently written after the Mexican accident inquiry report came out. It's mentioned on forums: ALPA was said to have felt the inquiry was a lot too comfortable blaming the pilots. Their report seems to include important context-setting points. Like, apparently 23L had been (nominally) closed for some weeks - and a lot of flights had landed on it during that time. That immediately made me wonder if there was a reason why the co-pilot's tone of voice re going around was so humdrum. It's reported tht he and the captain weren't getting along too well: maybe he thought the captain was just being difficult / making a point of some kind.

• There's no indication they are having a disagreement of any kind during the landing phase or minutes before it. Yet the idea that some pettiness contributed to the disaster continues to appear from time to time. There is no official report that we know of that gives any credence to this rumor. Ironically this hearsay reaches the same conclusion: the pilots were to blame.

• Reichel's tone of voice is consistent with not knowing the right landing gear is going to smash into a dump truck, destroy the aircraft and lead to his death in just seconds.

• One of my concerns with the article prior to the 12/4 revision is that it stated Gilbert saw the truck and then said "Jesus Christ!". This is most certainly not what happened.

• Is the ALPA report secret or proprietary? I can't guess why it would be hard to obtain. Flying Magazine discredits the ALPA report. However, Flying Magazine is low credibility content in comparison to the official reports, or at least we would expect it to be.

Hard to imagine how we could ever source such a conclusion (even if it's right). But we could lay out the facts tht suggest it, if they can be properly sourced: then it's up to the reader. Whether we'd feel the ALPA report was a WP:reliable source is a question, of course . . probably sound enough for us to state in Wikipedia's voice tht "An ALPA analysis circulated some weeks after the inquiry report questioned some of its conclusions etc etc". But that's only if we can get hold of it!

- SquisherDa (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Approach Lights

Excerpt from Section 1.8.2 from the ICAO Circular 173-AN/109:

"It was established that the high-intensity runway lights, the approach lights, and the VASIS of the runway closed to traffic (23 Left) were inoperative...all the lights for the runway in use (23 Right) were operating."

Transcript between MEX tower and 2605:

ATC: Can you see the approach light to the left?

2605: Negative

ATC: "O.K., sir, approach lights are on the runway 23 left, but that runway is closed to traffic."

2605: "Ok"

This is incorrect information from the control tower at Mexico City (assuming the ICAO circular Section 1.8.2 is accurate).

The ICAO circular makes no mention of this, presumably because it wasn't determined to be a contributing factor.