Jump to content

Talk:Eastern Air Lines Flight 401/Archive 1

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

Crew name correction

Corrected: Bert Stockstill's true name is Albert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deusdies (talk • contribs) 16:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Crew name correction

Corrected: Bert Stockstill's true name is Albert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deusdies (talk • contribs) 16:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Fatalities and injuries

How is it that no one was injured in a crash that killed 101 of 176 occupants?

The current numbers listed do not add up; it shows 103 fatalities and 75 injured out of 176 occupants. Also, AviationSafety lists 99 fatalities. It looks like the two injured individuals who died later were counted twice. I will change this. Johnskrb2 (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Fatalities and injuries

How is it that no one was injured in a crash that killed 101 of 176 occupants?

The current numbers listed do not add up; it shows 103 fatalities and 75 injured out of 176 occupants. Also, AviationSafety lists 99 fatalities. It looks like the two injured individuals who died later were counted twice. I will change this. Johnskrb2 (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Who is Borman?

Is the Frank Borman in the article the same as the one who worked for NASA during the Apollo program? Either way, this needs to be explained.

One and the same. He became CEO of Eastern in 1975. I clarified this a bit in the article. -- Kaszeta 8 July 2005 12:58 (UTC)

That bit made me do a double-take as well. In its current form the article does not mention Borman's NASA connection. I believe this is the correct decision; his former career isn't relevant to his role in the affair, and there is a danger that describing him as e.g. "former NASA astronaut Frank Borman" will (a) seem to be over-egging the pudding in his favour, as if to imply that he has a NASA seal of approval (b) it will be too granular and (c) it will imply that his career as an airline CEO was somehow meaningless. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Who is Borman?

Is the Frank Borman in the article the same as the one who worked for NASA during the Apollo program? Either way, this needs to be explained.

One and the same. He became CEO of Eastern in 1975. I clarified this a bit in the article. -- Kaszeta 8 July 2005 12:58 (UTC)

That bit made me do a double-take as well. In its current form the article does not mention Borman's NASA connection. I believe this is the correct decision; his former career isn't relevant to his role in the affair, and there is a danger that describing him as e.g. "former NASA astronaut Frank Borman" will (a) seem to be over-egging the pudding in his favour, as if to imply that he has a NASA seal of approval (b) it will be too granular and (c) it will imply that his career as an airline CEO was somehow meaningless. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Crash mentioned in worldwide sermon

Ashley Pomeroy: My inclusion of the reference to Dieter Uchtdorf's sermon may be more warranted than it first appears. As part of the LDS General Conference, his talk was translated into over 80 languages and broadcast/published to over 10 million people. I suspect this significantly increased the number of people familiar with the crash, making the reference, in my opinion, worthy of a mention. Richardkmiller (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Crash mentioned in worldwide sermon

Ashley Pomeroy: My inclusion of the reference to Dieter Uchtdorf's sermon may be more warranted than it first appears. As part of the LDS General Conference, his talk was translated into over 80 languages and broadcast/published to over 10 million people. I suspect this significantly increased the number of people familiar with the crash, making the reference, in my opinion, worthy of a mention. Richardkmiller (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Today show special about anniversary of Eastern crash

Here is a Today show special about the anniversary of the Eastern crash: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/34629551#34629551 - It could be used as a source WhisperToMe (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Today show special about anniversary of Eastern crash

Here is a Today show special about the anniversary of the Eastern crash: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/34629551#34629551 - It could be used as a source WhisperToMe (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Crazy rant

DEAR TO WHOMEVER:

RE: EASTERN FLIGHT 401 - JFK TO MIA IN 12/72.

ACCORDING TO MY DEAR DEPARTED FRIEND, THE FORMER SENIOR CAPTAIN, EASTERN AIRLINES JAMES G LAVAKE, THE SAD IRONY OF THAT L-1011 THAT WENT DOWN IN THE GLADES, IS, THIS:

THE PLANE WAS A RELATIVE VIRIN, WITH TOTAL COMMERCIAL HOURS NOT EVEN RECORDED YET; SHE'D BEEN JUST ROLLED DOWN THE DECK. AND, MORE ASTOUNDINGLY, THE FACT OF THE FOLLOWING:


1 CAPTAIN JAMES LAVAKE FLEW THAT BRAND NEW JET FROM
MIA-JFK; AND FOR THE FIRST TIME AFTER ONLY
30K HOURS THERE WAS NOTHING TO RECORD
ON THE MAINTENANCE REPORT.
2 THE GEAR LOCKDOWN WORKED JUST FINE
3 THE PLANE WAS HANDED OFF TO THE DOOMED CAPTAIN,
HIS CREW AND THE PASSENGERS
4 CAPTAIN LAVAKE AND CREW HANDED THE L-1011 TO
THE HEIR APPARENTS

OF COURSE THEY DID; UNFORTUNATELY SOMETIMES WHEN THINGS ARE WORKING SO WELL.....YOU KNOW, STUFF HAPPENS

AND, AS A FORMER PILOT I ALSO KNOW CRASHES ARE A RESULT OF MANY VARIABLES, MOST OF WHICH WE PILOTS ARE TRAINED TO DEAL WITH TO COMPLETE THE FLIGHT SAFELY.

THE $12 BULB SEEMS LUDICROUS. YES, THEY IN THE COCKPIT, ON THE FLIGHT DECK, WHATEVER, SCREWED UP...BIG TIME.

THE CAPTAIN BUMPED OFF THE AUTO BY NUDGING HIS YOLK TOO HARD AS HE PREOCCUPIED HIMSELF WITH THE FLIGHT ENGINEER IN THE "HELL HOLE" AND DOWN THEY WENT.

IT BROKE MY HEART AS A FLEDGLING FLYER AT THE TIME AND IT HAD AN IMPACT ON ME THAT STILL LASTS TO THIS DAY AFTER MANY HOURS.

IN THOSE EARLY YEARS YOU MUST KNOW YOUR EQUIPMENT, YOURSELF AND THE CULTURE IN THE COCKPIT.

NEVER TAKE ANY OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED FOR GRANTED.

THANK YOU.


WILLIAM TIBBY

it's good internet manners not to talk in all caps.80.7.79.108 (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
It's even better manners to use proper orthography, punctuation, grammar and terminology when communicating on the Internet.—QuicksilverT @ 07:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Crazy rant

DEAR TO WHOMEVER:

RE: EASTERN FLIGHT 401 - JFK TO MIA IN 12/72.

ACCORDING TO MY DEAR DEPARTED FRIEND, THE FORMER SENIOR CAPTAIN, EASTERN AIRLINES JAMES G LAVAKE, THE SAD IRONY OF THAT L-1011 THAT WENT DOWN IN THE GLADES, IS, THIS:

THE PLANE WAS A RELATIVE VIRIN, WITH TOTAL COMMERCIAL HOURS NOT EVEN RECORDED YET; SHE'D BEEN JUST ROLLED DOWN THE DECK. AND, MORE ASTOUNDINGLY, THE FACT OF THE FOLLOWING:


1 CAPTAIN JAMES LAVAKE FLEW THAT BRAND NEW JET FROM
MIA-JFK; AND FOR THE FIRST TIME AFTER ONLY
30K HOURS THERE WAS NOTHING TO RECORD
ON THE MAINTENANCE REPORT.
2 THE GEAR LOCKDOWN WORKED JUST FINE
3 THE PLANE WAS HANDED OFF TO THE DOOMED CAPTAIN,
HIS CREW AND THE PASSENGERS
4 CAPTAIN LAVAKE AND CREW HANDED THE L-1011 TO
THE HEIR APPARENTS

OF COURSE THEY DID; UNFORTUNATELY SOMETIMES WHEN THINGS ARE WORKING SO WELL.....YOU KNOW, STUFF HAPPENS

AND, AS A FORMER PILOT I ALSO KNOW CRASHES ARE A RESULT OF MANY VARIABLES, MOST OF WHICH WE PILOTS ARE TRAINED TO DEAL WITH TO COMPLETE THE FLIGHT SAFELY.

THE $12 BULB SEEMS LUDICROUS. YES, THEY IN THE COCKPIT, ON THE FLIGHT DECK, WHATEVER, SCREWED UP...BIG TIME.

THE CAPTAIN BUMPED OFF THE AUTO BY NUDGING HIS YOLK TOO HARD AS HE PREOCCUPIED HIMSELF WITH THE FLIGHT ENGINEER IN THE "HELL HOLE" AND DOWN THEY WENT.

IT BROKE MY HEART AS A FLEDGLING FLYER AT THE TIME AND IT HAD AN IMPACT ON ME THAT STILL LASTS TO THIS DAY AFTER MANY HOURS.

IN THOSE EARLY YEARS YOU MUST KNOW YOUR EQUIPMENT, YOURSELF AND THE CULTURE IN THE COCKPIT.

NEVER TAKE ANY OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED FOR GRANTED.

THANK YOU.


WILLIAM TIBBY

it's good internet manners not to talk in all caps.80.7.79.108 (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
It's even better manners to use proper orthography, punctuation, grammar and terminology when communicating on the Internet.—QuicksilverT @ 07:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Laughable line

The line "The Lockheed L-1011 TriStar aircraft involved in the accident (N310EA) was damaged beyond repair and was written off" is absurd.

It would have taken an roll of duct tape the size of the moon to put N310EA back together.

I realize it allows another citation, but don't you think it is a bit absurd? Mark Lincoln (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten the sentence to make it less laughable.—QuicksilverT @ 07:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Laughable line

The line "The Lockheed L-1011 TriStar aircraft involved in the accident (N310EA) was damaged beyond repair and was written off" is absurd.

It would have taken an roll of duct tape the size of the moon to put N310EA back together.

I realize it allows another citation, but don't you think it is a bit absurd? Mark Lincoln (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten the sentence to make it less laughable.—QuicksilverT @ 07:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Headings don't add up

The headings and runway designations in the Crash section don't make sense. The article refers to Runway 8L, but the longest runway at MIA is 9. The NTSB crash report shows runway 9/27 in the diagram, not 8L/26R. Why would the report do this unless N310EA was making an approach to Runway 9?

The sentence, "As Stockstill started another turn, onto 180 degrees, he noticed the discrepancy", doesn't make sense when compared to the NTSB crash report diagram. If N310EA was flying the typical oval "racetrack" pattern used for holds, it would have flown a heading of roughly 90 degrees, performed a 1-minute left 180-degree turn to heading 270, and just before the crash would have begun another left 180-degree turn to heading 80 degrees to be lined up with runway 9. At no time would this procedure have put N310EA on a 180-degree heading, except in a transient sense as it made the 180-degree turn. The only way it would have turning to a heading of 180 is if they were flying a traffic pattern with straight departure, crosswind, downwind and base legs. This sentence needs clarification.—QuicksilverT @ 07:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

They were to land on 9L. Runway 8 didn't exist then (it was added just a few years ago). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.96.171 (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, it was not a L-1011, L-1011s were not in service in 1972. It was a 727 that crashed in the Everglades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.58.85.32 (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. The first L-1011 was delivered to Eastern Air Lines on April 5, 1972 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.231.26 (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It was a Lockheed L-1011, N10EA, see NTSB report DCA73AZ005 available at: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=66756&key=0Gary217 (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Headings don't add up

The headings and runway designations in the Crash section don't make sense. The article refers to Runway 8L, but the longest runway at MIA is 9. The NTSB crash report shows runway 9/27 in the diagram, not 8L/26R. Why would the report do this unless N310EA was making an approach to Runway 9?

The sentence, "As Stockstill started another turn, onto 180 degrees, he noticed the discrepancy", doesn't make sense when compared to the NTSB crash report diagram. If N310EA was flying the typical oval "racetrack" pattern used for holds, it would have flown a heading of roughly 90 degrees, performed a 1-minute left 180-degree turn to heading 270, and just before the crash would have begun another left 180-degree turn to heading 80 degrees to be lined up with runway 9. At no time would this procedure have put N310EA on a 180-degree heading, except in a transient sense as it made the 180-degree turn. The only way it would have turning to a heading of 180 is if they were flying a traffic pattern with straight departure, crosswind, downwind and base legs. This sentence needs clarification.—QuicksilverT @ 07:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

They were to land on 9L. Runway 8 didn't exist then (it was added just a few years ago). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.96.171 (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, it was not a L-1011, L-1011s were not in service in 1972. It was a 727 that crashed in the Everglades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.58.85.32 (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. The first L-1011 was delivered to Eastern Air Lines on April 5, 1972 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.231.26 (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It was a Lockheed L-1011, N10EA, see NTSB report DCA73AZ005 available at: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=66756&key=0Gary217 (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for Appears to be the crash site of ValuJet 592 rather than Eastern 401

—97.182.154.48 (talk) 03:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

no Declined — Coordinates appear to be correct and correspond with what was reported in the NTSB report of the accident; ValuJet 592 crash was about 5.5 km NNE of this location, also per the NTSB report on that crash. If you still believe the coordinates to be incorrect, please remove the "tlc|" from the geodata-check tag and clearly state your reasons here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for Appears to be the crash site of ValuJet 592 rather than Eastern 401

—97.182.154.48 (talk) 03:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

no Declined — Coordinates appear to be correct and correspond with what was reported in the NTSB report of the accident; ValuJet 592 crash was about 5.5 km NNE of this location, also per the NTSB report on that crash. If you still believe the coordinates to be incorrect, please remove the "tlc|" from the geodata-check tag and clearly state your reasons here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Premature history in the lead

I am removing the following paragraph from the lead:

The effects of this crash on the airline industry continue today and resulted in the development of Crew (or Cockpit) Resource Management (CRM) [2], a technique that requires air crews to divide the work in the cockpit amongst available crew ensuring that someone continues focusing on flying the plane while troubleshooting continues. United Airlines Flight 232 is one of the most well known examples of effective CRM.[3]

For the following reasons:

a) "The effects of this crash on the airline industry continue today..." is meaningless. ALL crashes leave lasting effects on all subsequent history of airline operations.

b) This particular crash did not result in CRM training, any more than dozens of other earlier, and some later, crashes that also reflected poor cockpit management as a significant part of the causal/contributing factors. The first CLR (later changed to CRM) training course was given at United Airlines in 1980, almost 8 years after this accident. The crash that really did lead to the revolutionary pilot training curriculum of CRM, was United Airlines Flight 173, in December, 1978.

c) The statement is an overzealous attempt to sneak in the subject of CRM training, and its contribution to airline safety overall. There is an appropriate place for that, like in the Wiki articles on that subject, but the lead section of one crash that preceded CRM history by 8 years, is certainly not the appropriate place to divert off to that subject. Lead sections should always be as brief as possible, containing only essential information to explain the time and place and basic circumstances of an accident. All secondary and logically relevant detailed information, should be placed in subsequent sections of the article.

d) It is a historical non-sequitur to argue that CRM failure was the cause of an accident, 8 years before any pilot had ever received any CRM training. As irrelevant as blaming a CFIT accident on pilot failure to respond properly to GPWS warnings, years before such equipment was installed on the aircraft. 66.81.53.155 (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Premature history in the lead

I am removing the following paragraph from the lead:

The effects of this crash on the airline industry continue today and resulted in the development of Crew (or Cockpit) Resource Management (CRM) [2], a technique that requires air crews to divide the work in the cockpit amongst available crew ensuring that someone continues focusing on flying the plane while troubleshooting continues. United Airlines Flight 232 is one of the most well known examples of effective CRM.[3]

For the following reasons:

a) "The effects of this crash on the airline industry continue today..." is meaningless. ALL crashes leave lasting effects on all subsequent history of airline operations.

b) This particular crash did not result in CRM training, any more than dozens of other earlier, and some later, crashes that also reflected poor cockpit management as a significant part of the causal/contributing factors. The first CLR (later changed to CRM) training course was given at United Airlines in 1980, almost 8 years after this accident. The crash that really did lead to the revolutionary pilot training curriculum of CRM, was United Airlines Flight 173, in December, 1978.

c) The statement is an overzealous attempt to sneak in the subject of CRM training, and its contribution to airline safety overall. There is an appropriate place for that, like in the Wiki articles on that subject, but the lead section of one crash that preceded CRM history by 8 years, is certainly not the appropriate place to divert off to that subject. Lead sections should always be as brief as possible, containing only essential information to explain the time and place and basic circumstances of an accident. All secondary and logically relevant detailed information, should be placed in subsequent sections of the article.

d) It is a historical non-sequitur to argue that CRM failure was the cause of an accident, 8 years before any pilot had ever received any CRM training. As irrelevant as blaming a CFIT accident on pilot failure to respond properly to GPWS warnings, years before such equipment was installed on the aircraft. 66.81.53.155 (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

A little guidance (addressed to IP 108.171.192.209)

Four reverts within 24 hours

Hello, It appears you are a new user on Wikipedia and in which case you possibly don't know that you should leave an edit summary any time you make changes to a page. This is particularly important when you make large changes to a page as you did with Eastern Air Lines Flight 401.

It's important to let other editors know what changes you have made so your edits aren't labelled as non-constructive or vandalism. You should read and understand the three revert rule before you go near the Eastern Air Lines Flight 401 article again. You should also develop consensus with other editors for any major or potentially controversial changes on the articles talk page. Fraggle81 (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I concur with all that Fraggle81 has written to you above here. I am sure that you have sound intentions, but you must first explain why you want to revise this article, at least in the edit summary box provided, ideally on the article's discussion (Talk) page for all to read.
Regards, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 06:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

A little guidance (addressed to IP 108.171.192.209)

Four reverts within 24 hours

Hello, It appears you are a new user on Wikipedia and in which case you possibly don't know that you should leave an edit summary any time you make changes to a page. This is particularly important when you make large changes to a page as you did with Eastern Air Lines Flight 401.

It's important to let other editors know what changes you have made so your edits aren't labelled as non-constructive or vandalism. You should read and understand the three revert rule before you go near the Eastern Air Lines Flight 401 article again. You should also develop consensus with other editors for any major or potentially controversial changes on the articles talk page. Fraggle81 (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I concur with all that Fraggle81 has written to you above here. I am sure that you have sound intentions, but you must first explain why you want to revise this article, at least in the edit summary box provided, ideally on the article's discussion (Talk) page for all to read.
Regards, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 06:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Flight numbers do not designate aircraft accidents

I know that this topic gets discussed over and over again, but Wikipedia seems to be unable to fix that problem.

There were many more than just one Eastern Air Lines Flight 401, even more than just one notable Eastern Air Lines Flight 401 making it into the international headlines.

An article about an accident should be recognizable as such by its title, which is clearly not the case with all the Wikipedia articles about aircraft accidents.

I suggest using the same convention that the NTSB applies to its aircraft accident reports. The reporting style of mass media should not be the guideline for Wikipedia articles.

--Wikitanian (talk) 09:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the reporting style of mass media is indeed the guideline for Wikipedia article titles. "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.... The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name." See WP:COMMONNAME. TJRC (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Also airlines -- American ones, at least -- tend to "retire" flight numbers that have suffered accidents. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 04:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Flight numbers do not designate aircraft accidents

I know that this topic gets discussed over and over again, but Wikipedia seems to be unable to fix that problem.

There were many more than just one Eastern Air Lines Flight 401, even more than just one notable Eastern Air Lines Flight 401 making it into the international headlines.

An article about an accident should be recognizable as such by its title, which is clearly not the case with all the Wikipedia articles about aircraft accidents.

I suggest using the same convention that the NTSB applies to its aircraft accident reports. The reporting style of mass media should not be the guideline for Wikipedia articles.

--Wikitanian (talk) 09:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the reporting style of mass media is indeed the guideline for Wikipedia article titles. "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.... The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name." See WP:COMMONNAME. TJRC (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Also airlines -- American ones, at least -- tend to "retire" flight numbers that have suffered accidents. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 04:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Combination of circumstances.

Let us try and show some respect and understanding for the Flight Crew. To shout that they 'Screwed up' is unfair. The auto Pilot was switched on and off to see if the circuits were working. Some how it got turned off permanently. There is a back up warning that normally prevents anything serious coming from such an oversight. Namely a buzzer that warns of loss of altitude. Tragically the noise coming from the Hell Hole drowned out the Buzzer Warning. Add to that the Everglades with few lights to indicate Ground/Sky at night, put all those pieces of rotten luck together and is it any wonder Flight 401 Crashed. The Crash was notable for being the first Wide Bodied Aircraft Crash.Johnwrd (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What's missing is the original cause of the failed sensor light. The L1011 was brand, spanking new and while the light worked fine in the 24 hours before the crash, the whole damn thing was falling out of its fitting on that night. The article and report also fail to nail the cause of the crash. For example, there is no language that says something like -- "when the jet began its turn, the slight decrease in air speed caused by the increased resistance from the changed control surfaces caused it to stall and it fell into the swamp." I've ridden in plenty of jets and turning alone does not cause the plane to fall from the sky. 74.96.106.106 (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Original cause of the failed sensor light was the bulb burned out - it happens. That's mentioned in the The Cash section. Drpixie (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Combination of circumstances.

Let us try and show some respect and understanding for the Flight Crew. To shout that they 'Screwed up' is unfair. The auto Pilot was switched on and off to see if the circuits were working. Some how it got turned off permanently. There is a back up warning that normally prevents anything serious coming from such an oversight. Namely a buzzer that warns of loss of altitude. Tragically the noise coming from the Hell Hole drowned out the Buzzer Warning. Add to that the Everglades with few lights to indicate Ground/Sky at night, put all those pieces of rotten luck together and is it any wonder Flight 401 Crashed. The Crash was notable for being the first Wide Bodied Aircraft Crash.Johnwrd (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What's missing is the original cause of the failed sensor light. The L1011 was brand, spanking new and while the light worked fine in the 24 hours before the crash, the whole damn thing was falling out of its fitting on that night. The article and report also fail to nail the cause of the crash. For example, there is no language that says something like -- "when the jet began its turn, the slight decrease in air speed caused by the increased resistance from the changed control surfaces caused it to stall and it fell into the swamp." I've ridden in plenty of jets and turning alone does not cause the plane to fall from the sky. 74.96.106.106 (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Original cause of the failed sensor light was the bulb burned out - it happens. That's mentioned in the The Cash section. Drpixie (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Flash files

Flash files of the Miami Herald site:

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Flash files

Flash files of the Miami Herald site:

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Rescue and aftermath section

"In 2007, the Homestead, Florida resident was given an award plaque. He died on November 21, 2008, from complications stemming from injuries he sustained in a fall a month earlier."

This article is about a plane crash. I would think the information about Robert "Bud" Marquis that is relevant to this article is anything directly related to the plane crash. Is it really necessary to tell us where the guy lives and when and why he died? It reads like an obituary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tastyslowcooker (talk • contribs) 04:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Rescue and aftermath section

"In 2007, the Homestead, Florida resident was given an award plaque. He died on November 21, 2008, from complications stemming from injuries he sustained in a fall a month earlier."

This article is about a plane crash. I would think the information about Robert "Bud" Marquis that is relevant to this article is anything directly related to the plane crash. Is it really necessary to tell us where the guy lives and when and why he died? It reads like an obituary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tastyslowcooker (talk • contribs) 04:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Photograph

A number of photographs of Easter Air Lines L-1011s are avaialbe at airliners.net (though there seem to be no photos of the accident aircraft) ... why is an ATA L-1011 shown?

Because the airliner.net images are copyrighted. Dan100 (Talk) 22:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The article states that the aircraft was 4 months old when it crashed in December 1972, which means the plane had to be have been built no earlier than August, 1972, yet this photograph indicates it's of that same aircraft in March, 1972, 9 months previous (5 months before the plane could have been built). Both cannot be true (a plane photographed 9 months in the past can't be 4 months old). I see from other sources [1] that the tail number in the picture, N310EA, is the tail number of the plane that crashed, so this photo must be of the actual plane. How can this discrepancy be resolved? Christofer C. Bell (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ [1]The Ghosts of Flight 401 - with video, from Mystery Casebook

    2. Photograph

    A number of photographs of Easter Air Lines L-1011s are avaialbe at airliners.net (though there seem to be no photos of the accident aircraft) ... why is an ATA L-1011 shown?

    Because the airliner.net images are copyrighted. Dan100 (Talk) 22:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    The article states that the aircraft was 4 months old when it crashed in December 1972, which means the plane had to be have been built no earlier than August, 1972, yet this photograph indicates it's of that same aircraft in March, 1972, 9 months previous (5 months before the plane could have been built). Both cannot be true (a plane photographed 9 months in the past can't be 4 months old). I see from other sources [1] that the tail number in the picture, N310EA, is the tail number of the plane that crashed, so this photo must be of the actual plane. How can this discrepancy be resolved? Christofer C. Bell (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
    1. ^ [2]The Ghosts of Flight 401 - with video, from Mystery Casebook

      2. Hello fellow Wikipedians,

      I have just added archive links to one external link on Eastern Air Lines Flight 401. 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 16:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


      Hello fellow Wikipedians,

      I have just added archive links to one external link on Eastern Air Lines Flight 401. 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 16:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


      The Ghosts of Flight 401

      Do we really need such a big section about "the ghosts"? The text is a list of rumours (not especially interesting) and the references are not of particularly good quality (literally books of ghost stories). That much emphasis reduces the overall quality of an otherwise factual page. Drpixie (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

      We don't need any of it. Feeble-minded "ghost" manure removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.195.84 (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
      It is still relevant to the story of this plane. Parts of this plane are in the archives at History Miami and at the Occult Museum so I can't see a reason to remove that and the accounts of ghost sightings have received response from the airlines CEO countering the claims. Also it gives explanation to large portions of the In Popular Culture section. Fraggle81 (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
      This dim-witted "ghost" crap is not relevant. They are not fact-based, they are not encyclopedic, and frankly they are not something rational adults have anything to do with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.208.105 (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
      IP editor has a very good point, and following a recent revert I've been searching for a "rationale" to explain the section. I'm afraid I can't find it. The article is far better without it. If the Popular Culture section needs an extra line, OK, (but I think it should be trimmed too). I think the sources are not very suitable either - ghost story tales and a facebook page? Come on !! --Roxy the dog (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
      I'd say it belongs in the pop culture section—and, instead of being about the reported ghost sightings per se, make it about how the crash is mentioned by ghost books. Probably only needs a single paragraph of a few sentences. Brycehughes (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
      Done, by taking the Borman sentence and putting it into first para of pop culture, then deleting the dross. --Roxy the dog (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
      Yep that works well nice one Roxy. Fraggle81 (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
      As it is currently written, this story alludes to "ghosts" without detailing the various ghost stories that grew out of this incident. Its a total non sequitur. Of course there should be a section about the ghost stories. Whether they are substantiated or not has nothing to do with their role and importance in popular culture. They are important as a cultural phenomenon and should be discussed.75.34.84.217 (talk) 08:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
      I came to this page after seeing the 'Mayday' documentary. Like the previous poster said, 'this story alludes to "ghosts" without detailing the various ghost stories that grew out of this incident.' I spent quite a bit of time going back to read the earlier paragraphs, to find out where I had missed the info about the alleged ghost sightings, because the page simply does not make sense without them. That's the part that I came to Wikipedia for - to get more info on the ghost stories. Just because most of us do not believe that the stories are true, the 'claims' themselves are definitely fact. I'd like to know how many people claimed to see the ghosts, whether it was pilots who saw them or passengers who had eaten too many airline peanuts, etc. Taking out those parts because someone thinks they are irrelevant (feeble-minded manure / dim-witted crap) is pretty arrogant. The claims are a real part of the story, even if we happen to think the sightings are bogus. Please put the info back! It's interesting! 99.249.172.220 (talk) 03:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
      I too came here specifically for information on the alleged ghost sightings after seeing a TV documentary. There is a a case for keeping this as a cultural phenomenon regardless of whether the existence of ghosts is verifiable or not. What we can verify is that people claim to have seen something, what we cannot verify is what they have seen if anything. 92.10.243.127 (talk) 09:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
      There are ample reliable sources on the purported ghost to show that it is definitely notable, even in its own right. It is surely the main thing this flight is remembered for. Additional books on the subject, which I have not seen referenced in the article, include (in no particular order):
      • Innes, Brian; Ghosts of Flight 401
      • Walker, Kathryn; The Mystery of Ghosts of Flight 401
      • Fuller, Elizabeth; My Search for the Ghost of Flight 401
      There are not nearly so many books, if any, concerned only with the material flight and accident. It does need to be included here, with careful regard of course to a neutral point of view over the nature of the "ghost". Equally, I think that the ghost stuff needs fully separating out from the rest, especially with respect to the current the "popular culture" rag-bag - I might have a go at that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

      The Ghosts of Flight 401

      Do we really need such a big section about "the ghosts"? The text is a list of rumours (not especially interesting) and the references are not of particularly good quality (literally books of ghost stories). That much emphasis reduces the overall quality of an otherwise factual page. Drpixie (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

      We don't need any of it. Feeble-minded "ghost" manure removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.195.84 (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
      It is still relevant to the story of this plane. Parts of this plane are in the archives at History Miami and at the Occult Museum so I can't see a reason to remove that and the accounts of ghost sightings have received response from the airlines CEO countering the claims. Also it gives explanation to large portions of the In Popular Culture section. Fraggle81 (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
      This dim-witted "ghost" crap is not relevant. They are not fact-based, they are not encyclopedic, and frankly they are not something rational adults have anything to do with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.208.105 (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
      IP editor has a very good point, and following a recent revert I've been searching for a "rationale" to explain the section. I'm afraid I can't find it. The article is far better without it. If the Popular Culture section needs an extra line, OK, (but I think it should be trimmed too). I think the sources are not very suitable either - ghost story tales and a facebook page? Come on !! --Roxy the dog (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
      I'd say it belongs in the pop culture section—and, instead of being about the reported ghost sightings per se, make it about how the crash is mentioned by ghost books. Probably only needs a single paragraph of a few sentences. Brycehughes (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
      Done, by taking the Borman sentence and putting it into first para of pop culture, then deleting the dross. --Roxy the dog (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
      Yep that works well nice one Roxy. Fraggle81 (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
      As it is currently written, this story alludes to "ghosts" without detailing the various ghost stories that grew out of this incident. Its a total non sequitur. Of course there should be a section about the ghost stories. Whether they are substantiated or not has nothing to do with their role and importance in popular culture. They are important as a cultural phenomenon and should be discussed.75.34.84.217 (talk) 08:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
      I came to this page after seeing the 'Mayday' documentary. Like the previous poster said, 'this story alludes to "ghosts" without detailing the various ghost stories that grew out of this incident.' I spent quite a bit of time going back to read the earlier paragraphs, to find out where I had missed the info about the alleged ghost sightings, because the page simply does not make sense without them. That's the part that I came to Wikipedia for - to get more info on the ghost stories. Just because most of us do not believe that the stories are true, the 'claims' themselves are definitely fact. I'd like to know how many people claimed to see the ghosts, whether it was pilots who saw them or passengers who had eaten too many airline peanuts, etc. Taking out those parts because someone thinks they are irrelevant (feeble-minded manure / dim-witted crap) is pretty arrogant. The claims are a real part of the story, even if we happen to think the sightings are bogus. Please put the info back! It's interesting! 99.249.172.220 (talk) 03:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
      I too came here specifically for information on the alleged ghost sightings after seeing a TV documentary. There is a a case for keeping this as a cultural phenomenon regardless of whether the existence of ghosts is verifiable or not. What we can verify is that people claim to have seen something, what we cannot verify is what they have seen if anything. 92.10.243.127 (talk) 09:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
      There are ample reliable sources on the purported ghost to show that it is definitely notable, even in its own right. It is surely the main thing this flight is remembered for. Additional books on the subject, which I have not seen referenced in the article, include (in no particular order):
      • Innes, Brian; Ghosts of Flight 401
      • Walker, Kathryn; The Mystery of Ghosts of Flight 401
      • Fuller, Elizabeth; My Search for the Ghost of Flight 401
      There are not nearly so many books, if any, concerned only with the material flight and accident. It does need to be included here, with careful regard of course to a neutral point of view over the nature of the "ghost". Equally, I think that the ghost stuff needs fully separating out from the rest, especially with respect to the current the "popular culture" rag-bag - I might have a go at that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

      Delivered in July of 72?

      This article states that the aicraft had been delivered to Eastern Air Lines in August of 72, yet the photograph of the plane had been dated July 1927. What? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.238.18.100 (talk) 05:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

      The aircraft first flew in July 1972 so it could have been taken before delivery. MilborneOne (talk) 09:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
      Pretty sure that's a typo. This type of aircraft did not exist in 1927.Tvx1 21:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

      Delivered in July of 72?

      This article states that the aicraft had been delivered to Eastern Air Lines in August of 72, yet the photograph of the plane had been dated July 1927. What? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.238.18.100 (talk) 05:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

      The aircraft first flew in July 1972 so it could have been taken before delivery. MilborneOne (talk) 09:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
      Pretty sure that's a typo. This type of aircraft did not exist in 1927.Tvx1 21:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eastern_Air_Lines_Flight_401/Archive_1&oldid=1084067059"