Talk:List of airline flights that required gliding

India Airlines Flight 440

The flight refers to the incorrect incident. Could not find an existing description of the correct incident on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FireSalamander (talk • contribs) 04:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

The flight on the 24 May 1988 refers to the wrong airline and incident. Kegworth flight was not operated by TACA!

This was the result of an incomplete edit that garbled two entries. Has been fixed since. 2.28.232.48 (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

British Airways Flight 38

Strictly speaking, British Airways flight 38 does not qualify for this list as the engines were still delivering thrust (though less than commanded), Remove? 2.28.232.48 (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Dave Cornutt (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC) We have several other entries where, while the engines were still running to some extent, they delivered no thrust when called for. I think that meets the definition.

Gliding implies flying without engines, I don't think it does make the criteria. Or will you be adding every instance when engines falied to respond on landing? GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

[Senior First Officer John] Coward was more forthcoming in a later interview, stating: "As the final approach started I became aware that there was no power ... suddenly there was nothing from any of the engines, and the plane started to glide." 82.46.64.88 (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

This flight is back in the list. From the AAIB Aircraft Accident Report 1/2010 page 166: "right engine suffered an uncommanded reduction in engine power to 1.03 EPR and [...] left engine suffered an uncommanded reduction in engine power to 1.02 EPR. The right engine fuel flow reduced to 6,000 pph and the left engine fuel flow reduced to 5,000 pph, levels above those required by an engine at flight idle". The engines then failed to increase thrust when commanded to. The thrust may have been insufficient to maintain the intended flight path, however there was positive thrust, thus no gliding. Therefore the flight needs to be removed from the list. --193.201.236.2 (talk) 06:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Positioning Flights

Do airline positioning flights belong in this list? Positioning flights are flights that airlines operate in order to get an airplane where it needs to be for its next scheduled flight, without fare-paying passengers on board. I am aware of Pinnacle Airlines Flight 3701, a positioning flight that crashed after a double engine flameout. Does the group think it belongs in this list? Dave Cornutt (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes, provided that there are verifiable sources. But that might be a problem, if you have only hearsay on which to rely. In that case, is there some journal (preferably with an online edition) in which you could be publish an account of this incident first? We could then cite your account, and all would be well. Andrewa (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Number on board 1976 Yakovlev Yak-40 crash

Article currently [1] lists the number on board during the 1976 crash of a Yakovlev Yak-40 as 0. Unlikely, or am I missing something? Andrewa (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

SOB vs. Persons on board

The common term used by the FAA for the total number of passengers and crew on an aircraft is "souls on board" (SOB). See [2]. Because of the common use of this term there is nothing non-neutral about this term. reddogsix (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Merely because it's ubiquitous and the preferred nomenclature of one or more governments, doesn't mean it's neutral. For instance, in the US we find "In God We Trust" on all our currency despite the First Amendment's establishment clause on religion. In more current events, note that although the US government refuses to recognize what recently happened in Egypt as a coup, the Wikipedian consensus on neutrality has (after a heated and thorough debate) correctly labeled the article 2013 Egyptian coup d'état. We are not beholden to the linguistic whims of the US government or any government, least of all when it would mean endorsing political or religious propaganda or euphemism in what purports to be a neutral encyclopedia of knowledge. "Persons" is a neutral term for a human being, whereas "souls" carries clear religious connotations. Just as it is considered NPOV and thus Wiki-standard to say a person "died" rather than "passed away" (despite the latter being an extremely ubiquitous phrase), it is inappropriate for the article to use "souls" in this instance.

Now, I will grant that "Persons on board" does sound kind of awkward. What about changing it to "Total passengers and crew"? Matt Gies (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe it has a distinct religious connotation - I have not been able to find any reference in the FAA documentation that it relates only to non-atheists. (A little bit of humor.) Actually the term soul has a wider connotation that the common religious based term.

In this connotation it has no religious affiliation, beyond that it is a common term used by pilots and ground crew to describe the number in the column.

BTW - I am not opposed to the term "Total passengers and crew."reddogsix (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Gliding?

Most of these entries dont appear to have used any form of gliding, having lost power and then dropped to the ground is not really gliding. One would have expected this to be a list of accidents like Gimli Glider where the gliding was a factor not just the loss of power. Perhaps time for a bit of a prune. MilborneOne (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

By definition, any fixed-wing flight without power involved gliding. The fact that the subsequent landing was unsuccessful is immaterial. The title of the article is not "Airline flights that landed successfully without losing power". If it was, the article would contain only a few entries. Dave Cornutt (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure an aircraft in a spin or stall without power would be considered gliding. Also accidents listed here should have involved some element of controlled gliding like the Gimli glider rather than just completing the last few hundred feet with forward momentum. MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Gliding is gliding, whether controlled or uncontrolled. A spin is not gliding, as it does not consist of forward unpowered flight. —howcheng {chat} 20:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

That's what I'm getting at. E.g., the Southern Airways flight that was removed from the article glided for about 10 minutes after losing power and was still in controlled flight when it touched down; it only crashed after colliding with obstacles on the ground. Dave Cornutt (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Southern_Airways_Flight_242 (April 1977) now in the list. - Rod57 (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

United Airlines, Flight 173, MD DC-8-61, N8082U, 28 Dec 78

I think this also qualifies for the list. Details here: http://lessonslearned.faa.gov/ll_main.cfm?TabID=3&CategoryID=21&LLID=42

 Done - also as United_Airlines_Flight_173

Avianca Airlines Flight 52, B707, 25 Jan 90

I think this also qualifies for the list. Details here: http://lessonslearned.faa.gov/ll_main.cfm?TabID=3&CategoryID=21&LLID=70

 Done and linked to Avianca Flight 52

gliding?

I read somewhere that most flights glide mid-flight. Its called "flight idle" I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckmorris812 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Only on decent, if they did it mid flight they would descend. - Ahunt (talk) 11:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines Flight 836

I feel this does not belong in the list. According to the Source (Aviation Herald):

" over a period of 13 seconds engine #1 stalled twice and recovered itsself, engine #2 stalled thrice recovering itsself each time, engine #1 was commanded to shut down shortly after. A #1 engine restart at FL370 did not succeed, the aircraft descended to FL260 where the #1 engine restart was successful "

at no time during the flight were both engines shutdown, or even below idle power. A self-recoverable engine surge does not make an aircraft a glider, even if it occurs on both engines within a reasonable short period. During the period where engine 1 was shutdown, engine 2 operated normally. 193.201.236.2 (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

In reading the media account I agree, it was a decent under power, not gliding flight. I will remove it. - Ahunt (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Cathay Pacific Flight 780

I do not think this belongs in the list.

According to the wikipedia article about the flight, No 2 engine was at or close to idle (17% N1), and No 1 engine at a significant thrust level (70-80% N1). Both engines failed to respond to thrust lever command, but neither was shutdown until after the landing: " No. 1 engine remained at between 70% and 80% N1 throughout until the crew shut down both engines after stopping the aircraft " There was no IFSD (in flight shutdown). Instead the failure was of the LOTC (loss of thrust control) type. In fact the problem was overthrust rather than loss of power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.201.236.2 (talk) 07:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like you have already removed it, so we can mark this one as  Done. - Ahunt (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

"See also" links to non-airline flights

A IP editor has been edit-warring to include a "see also" link to 1999 South Dakota Learjet crash, which was a general aviation flight. I have removed it, noting that there have been tens of thousands of GA flights that ended in accidents following glides and that they don't belong here. - Ahunt (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

So what if there have been "tens of thousands of GA flights that ended in accidents [gliding]"? If they are notable to have WP articles, then they should be linked to from this article which is a "List of airline flights that required gliding". 96.41.32.39 (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

BTW -- do not confuse "airline" with "commercial airline". The Learjet that crashed is an airline. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

General aviation flights are off-topic for this article, as they are not airline flights and don't need to be linked here. You need to make a case here for including this one link and excluding all others that could be added. If you want to start a new List of general aviation flights that required gliding then you could try that instead. - Ahunt (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess I did not come in clearly. I am not making a case to "exclud[e] all others that could be added". I am just not aware of other WP articles about flights that ended up gliding that could be added to the "See also" section. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I need to be clearer - you need to make a case for including a link to an article that is out of scope for this list. Why should we start listing GA accidents on a page for airline accidents? - Ahunt (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The 1999 South Dakota Learjet crash is not out of scope to the list. It is related to the list since the airplane ended up gliding. It was a chartered flight with 2 crew members and 4 passengers. Because it was not a commercial flight it does get not listed within the table. But it is certainly related to the list. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It is out of scope because the list is airline flights, not chartered GA business jet flights. You already indicated it doesn't belong in the main table because it doesn't fit the article scope. I contend it doesn't belong on the "see also" either. - Ahunt (talk)

We'll have to agree to disagree. You cannot deny that there is a relationship, and hence, per WP:ALSO, "a bulleted list of internal links to related Wikipedia articles" is appropriate. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Well as per WP:ONUS, let's see if any other editors support your proposal to include this. - Ahunt (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

You're taking the policy out of context. There is no dispute on the verifiability of the content to be included in the article (WP:ONUS deals with who has the onus to show that the included content meets WP:V). Therefore, the onus is on you to show that including the information is a violation of policy or guideline. I have already shown via WP:ALSO that including the "See also" section is within Wikipedia's guideline. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

As per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, your inclusion has been challenged, so the onus is on you to gain consensus to include this. - Ahunt (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: To gain a wider consensus notification of the existence of this dicussion has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 11:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The Learjet article is very clearly out of scope for this article. "Everything is relevant to everything else" just leads to a mass of word salad in every article. If there were ever a list of equivalent GA incidents then that would be suitable for linking, but individual instances in a List article is just unacceptable. I am removing the link, If the IP insists, we'll have to take stronger sanctions. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion per above comments. "Airline flights" refers strictly to flights that were part of routine operations of an established airline. Business jets chartered out to private customers, even if nominally owned by an airline, do not belong here. — kashmiri ^TALK 13:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion mainly because it is not an "airline flight", I would also argue technically it didnt "require gliding" either as the aircraft was not under control, probably a point missed with some of the entries here they should really be under some sort of control rather than an uncontrolled engineless plummet. MilborneOne (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The 1999 South Dakota Learjet crash would have glided down to the ground once it ran out of fuel. There is nothing to indicate that it plummeted out of the sky. Just because there is no person in the cockpit to navigate does not mean that it did not glide down. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually the text at 1999 South Dakota Learjet crash makes it clear that that LearJet did not glide. The engines lost power, the aircraft stalled, the autopilot kicked off and "The target is descending and he is doing multiple aileron rolls, looks like he's out of control...in a severe descent, request an emergency descent to follow target" as the interceptors noted. It never did glide, as gliding is a controlled maneuver, it just ran out of fuel and crashed in an uncontrolled manner. So it is a non-airline flight that didn't glide. Regardless, there is now a consensus here not to include it as a "see also" and it has already been removed form the article. - Ahunt (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Rename the article

So if we rename the article to List of airplane flights that required gliding rather than the current name List of airline flights that required gliding then we could include the 1999 South Dakota Learjet crash in the table and the controversy would be solved? 96.41.32.39 (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I would definitely oppose widening the scope like that as it could potentially include tens of thousands of entries. It would run afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. - Ahunt (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose but also note the 1999 accident would still not qualify as it didnt require gliding. MilborneOne (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Even though I oppose doing this, I think this is a worthwhile discussion to have here and would request it stay open for debate. - Ahunt (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Airline is defined as "a company that provides air transport services for traveling passengers and freight". So it seems to me that if the 1999 flight actually included gliding, it would be eligible for inclusion. —howcheng {chat} 17:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

That is just a general statement, not an actual definition. Most countries define an airline operation similarly to the Canadian definition, which is an air transport service using an aircraft of 19,000 lbs or 20 passengers or more. This flight we are discussing would be classified as a "commuter operation". - Ahunt (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

But it would be internally consistent with what we present here. —howcheng {chat} 19:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Why?

What purpose does this list serve? Category:Lists of aviation accidents and incidents does not have similar lists for hydraulic failures, bits falling off, pilots having heart attacks, etc. etc. Shouldn't this article be deleted? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree, this list is an odd aberration in many ways. Perhaps it should be sent to WP:AFD for a complete discussion? - Ahunt (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

AFD will likely fail - the article complies with WP:STANDALONE. — kashmiri ^TALK 13:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:STANDALONE notes that list articles must pass our standard content guidelines. I cannot see this topic passing WP:NOTABILITY. If that is anybody's best argument for keeping it then I agree with Ahunt that the next step would be to take it to AfD. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

KEEP: I'm glad this list exists as I and people on Quora were wondering what happens when an airliners engines all stop. I'd argue that type of failure is more notable than most other anomalies, and gets wider press coverage. - Rod57 (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Could add glide time and/or distance to the table

Perhaps as one or two new columns ? - Rod57 (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

9 August 2019

On May 9th 2019, a Citation Medivac Flight with 4 crew and 3 passengers would experience a DUAL engine failure caused by DEF Fuel contamination, the aircraft glided to Savannah Airport. pilot interview : [3] Details here : [4] [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.3.41.175 (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

It is not an airline flight, so does not belong here. - Ahunt (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)