Talk:Varig Flight 254

Untitled

I find it hard to believe that the survivers walked 40km in three hours...82.32.115.233 11:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)]

And what does "sintonize" mean? Paul Beardsell 00:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

As this last comment shows, the article has clearly been written by someone ('sintonize' suggests a native Portuguese-speaker) with a shaky command of English: 'was informed to the pilots', 'the same mistake of Varig Flight 254 crew', 'took notice of the initial mistake' (this can only mean he was aware of it but did not decide to take it seriously till later on, which would be seriously unprofessional conduct - 'take notice of' means something quite different from 'notice') and so on. Sometimes it's possible to guess what the author was trying to say, but without an original Portuguese text you can't always be sure - and I fear the author wrote the thing directly in English, so there probably isn't a Portuguese original. Even passages that look like idiomatic English may in fact not mean what the author intended. How I wish people whose first language isn't English would stop writing English Wikipedia articles without getting them checked first!188.230.248.85 (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to contribute and fix the English in the article. It's easy to just criticise and lay the task to others.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I've just fixed these three mistakes. Yes, that could have been done earlier. -- UKoch (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Portuguese reader wanted

I've made a start on cleaning this article up. The four external links and reference 1 are in Portuguese. My gut feeling is that the information there can be used to refer to the article as I have done with the two former external links. If anyone reads Portuguese and understands aviation terminology could they please incorporate the external link articles as references in the article. Mjroots (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Legend: Crew engrossed in soccer game on radio

Not sure how to start a new section of comment, so I'll just put this here. Under "Moments up to the disaster," this article repeats the old saw that the crew never noticed its wrong heading because they were "listening to a Brazil v Chile World Cup football qualifying match on the radio." For years, I too bought into this rumor, but while doing research into this crash for an article I'm writing for Aviation History magazine, I learned the truth, which is quite different. When the crew realized that something was amiss, they tried to figure out their position by tuning the ADF (automatic direction finding) radio to various commercial broadcast stations and then waiting for the station to broadcast its identifier and location, which the stations were required to do at least once every 30 minutes. Virtually all stations were, of course, broadcasting the football match. When one of the cabin attendants opened the door to the flight deck to ask a question of the crew, several passengers seated in the forward rows heard the broadcast, and later reported that the crew had been listening to the game. Thus began the rumor. As an unfortunate happenstance for the benighted crew, the soccer match had reached a crescendo when the Chilean team walked off the field because of a perceived injury to its goalkeeper (which in fact had been faked), and the commentary was so hysterical that several of the broadcast stations stayed with it rather than interrupting it for their callsign/location. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.192.39 (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Original research or referenced?

This text has been removed from the article as possible OR:-

It is interesting to note that a very simple fact could have made that crew notice their mistake very early during the event. When flight 254 took off from Marabá, it started heading directly [[West]], and it was around 18:00. At that time, the [[Sun]] was clearly setting, and was visible directly in front of the cabin. If they had been making the correct route, the Sun should be to the left of the plane, which would indicate a proper [[North]] heading. The crew, however, failed to notice this rather blatant geographical fact.

On the other hand, it may be referenced in one of the Portuguese references. Mjroots (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Coordinate error: Atlantic Ocean is not the jungle crash site :-(

{{geodata-check}} The coordinates need the following fixes:

• Coordinates seem off as they are in the Atlantic Ocean, not the jungle :-(

http://www.google.com/search?q=RG+254+coordinates

yields:

http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1318940

which seems to yield -10.276988,-53.554198

rather than the 10.444, -52.657

of the article. The minus of the latitude seem to be missing, but the rest of the coordinates seem a bit different too. Thanks Lent (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Lent (talk) 06:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. BrainMarble (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

left/right vs port/starboard

I made what I thought was a correction away from the nautical terms "port" and "starboard" to the more customary aviation use of "left" and "right." The change was reverted, but I still claim that "left" and "right" are the more appropriate terms to use when describing aircraft flight. The exceptions might be naval military aircraft or seaplanes, of which this was neither. Cvkline (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

There's an aplenty use of the terms "port" and "starboard" in the description of accidents at the Aviation Safety Network webpage.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

My claim is that "port" and "starboard" are less prevalent, not that they're unheard of, and therefore less appropriate in a discussion of aviation. But, I will drop it. Cvkline (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, "port and starboard" is ALWAYS used in aircraft, for much the same reason as they are in ships. "Left and right" can be confusing to crew members who may not be facing the front of the aircraft, while "port and starboard" ALWAYS refer to the proper sides of the vessel (and an aircraft is a vessel of sorts). It's possible that there are some casual civil aviators who use the terms "right and left" instead, but "port and starboard" are proper in an aviation setting, and indeed, I would remark on it if I noticed anyone besides a layman using the wrong terms. AnnaGoFast (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I`m flying American and European aircraft for 37 years now and I NEVER saw the nautical terms "port" and "starboard" in ANY aiplane flight manual or ANY related material. But - of course - I can be wrong! So, can you please cite me one or two official aircraft material using such terms. Tks. RobertoRMola (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Archive.today and final report

I archived the final report on Archive.today. I am unable to use any other archiving service. I tried both Wayback Machine and Webcitation and they weren't able to capture the Archive file or the Google cache WhisperToMe (talk) 07:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Map

I think the main thing which makes this article difficult to understand is the lack of a map to indicate the geography (where exactly the plane was, the location of the beacons it tuned into, etc.) Is there any such map available? I had a look myself on google and couldn't find anything, but with a creative commons map of Brazil it would be possible for someone with more knowledge of this sort of thing to knock up a basic indication of the plane's route. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.83.6 (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The Map provided is helpful to locate the referenced locations in the article, however the size is not ideal to contain all of the information without overlapping text. However if the reader expands the map file image, the locations on the map are not shown. Technically, I don't know why the locations are not included in the expanded image. SquashEngineer (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection

@Jetstreamer: and @123.201.183.43: - I've semi protected the page for now. - 123.201.183.43, you need to provide a source for your additions. Mjroots (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Distance

My maps says the distance from Maraba to Belem is nearer 440km, not 346 as in the article. 198.53.137.96 (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The number 440 appears nowhere in the article.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

FMS vs PMS

There was no Flight Management System (FMS) but a PMS (Performance Management System) on PP-VMK. They`re totally different in purpose. PMS controls the autothrottle and aircraft speed by changing its engines regime. FMS is a navigation computer where an origin and a destination designation is entered, not courses. So, had the aircraft an FMS, the accident, probably wouldn`t happen, since the pilot would enter SBMA for Marabá airport as origin and SBBE for Belém as destination in a FMS. The computer would so calculate the course automatically point to point or through airways. The PMS, according to Honeywell Performance Management System Handbook (PUB.NO.C28-3651-04 REV-02), accepts only destination distance, elevation, departure temperature, cruise flight level and departure baro setting on its initialization page (handbook page 2.A-2). The very own external reference regarding the accident`s official final report (in portuguese) states that PP-VMK got a PMS: "Foi ainda colocado no PMS ("performance Management System") a distância para Belém (187 milhas náuticas)". Transl.: "It was also inserted on PMS ("performance Management System") the distance to Belém (187 nautical miles)". The text was corrected accordingly. (ftp://ftp.cefetes.br/cursos/Transportes/EduardoCid/SMS/ACIDENTES/ACIDENTE%20A%C9REO/ceniparg254.txt) RobertoRMola (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Your latest edits have been reverted. Please provide inline citations for your changes.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Reverted back to my edition: read carefully the "inline" (sic) citation. Sorry if its written in Portuguese - all the investigation was done by Brazilian Air Accidents Investigation Department CENIPA. If you need a translation I can help you. If you need a photo of manual I can give you. I'm sure all the explanation above is well referenced and detailed. But please, do not revert articles anymore before reading carefully. RobertoRMola (talk) 11:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I reverted because you did not add a proper inline citation to support your additions. That was a violation to WP:VERIFY.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I`ve added references to the article text, despite the fact the original text is that REALLY needed confirmation or support (there was absolutely nothing). I.e., someone wrote FMS and everybody (including you) accepted that without reserves. Feel free to revert back to the original text, but understand that, this time, you'll need references to prove that PP-VMK had a FMS and not a PMS. Again: read the talks and articles more carefully! RobertoRMola (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

If the original text needed confirmation you should have added a {{cn}} tag close to it rather than modifying without references. Thanks for adding the new source.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

If the original text need confirmation and I can provide it I`ll do it. As you mentioned, I did it. tksRobertoRMola (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Engines, flaps and seatbelts

I've seen similar cases before, and I always wondered "why didn't they lower flaps, etc, before the engines ran out of fuel"? There are always the same difficulties due to lack of power, so why couldn't they just lower the flaps and cruise along at low speed/altitude for the last 15 minutes or so? Then they'd be all ready to land already. Next, it says that when they impacted "the passengers without seatbelts were thrown to the front of the aircraft"...why on earth was anyone unbuckled in an emergency landing!? Did they neglect to tell the passengers to buckle up, the whole "crash positions" spiel? Or did some stubborn passengers just refuse to buckle up for some reason? I can't imagine that there were actually seats without belts... AnnaGoFast (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The use of flaps for long range cruise is incorrect for this aircraft since any settling of flap will reduce range considerably (due to friction factor caused by slats and flaps), something they were desperately seeking. Additionally, maximum altitude for flap operation on that aircraft is 20000 ft (limitation factor) or approximately the altitude they would be "15 minutes or so" before the impact. To reduce the altitude and speed early in the flight is a bad management of aircraft potential energy. The correct management for a similar scenario - according to B737 manual - would be the so called "driftdown procedure". According to investigations, Capt. Garcez shutdown one engine and performed such procedure with the remaining engine at maximum continuous thrust (as per manual). This would provide the best range possible for any Boeing 737-200 aircraft. The loss of the remaining engine thrust wasn`t expected: it happened during final descent. The reduction of speed at landing (or crash landing) can be managed with flaps extension, that can be operated alternatively (in case of loss of hydraulic system B) by electric motors commanded on overhead panel well above the captains head (Alternate Flaps switch).

According to flight attendants testimony, some really stubborn passengers were very upset and mad about the situation, and refused to seat or buckle up, remaining standing at aft galley and aisle. Never heard anything about lack of belts in any aircraft accident, including this one. RobertoRMola (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

On the book writen by Ivan Santanna he mentions reports about a very drunk passenger who refused to stay seated. 201.55.240.4 (talk) 12:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

page structure fail to load (mobile view)

everything is placed under summary HanayoPlus LP (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

HF Radio vs. Relay Transmission

The Canadian airline disaster show, which is shown under various titles in North America (ie Mayday or Airline Disasters) did an episode related to Flight 254. They mentioned when trying to contact Belem, the pilots could not reach them using VHF radio and after several failed attempts switched to HF radio to make contact. The only conversation between the tower and the flight was to ask about the status of their landing beacon (which the flight could not detect) and then receive clearance to land. However in this article, it does not mention this and instead says they used another Varig flight to act as a relay to contact Belem. According to the documentary, it seemed as though the pilots only had HF radio contact with the tower and then later a commercial AM radio station they used as a location aid and were otherwise on their own.

Did the documentary get the use of High Frequency radio incorrect? Is there any controversy or debate over this issue? Having contact with another flight in their company is yet another resource the pilots could have used to help remedy the situation, so I see how this possibly could be a point of contention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.68.109 (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Reference point

Hi. Why is Rio de Janeiro being used as a reference for the landing point? Brasilia is much closer and as known as Rio. 201.55.240.4 (talk) 12:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding more airports to the map

The bulk of this article is about the incident, and that section references several airports not shown on the map: Santarém Airport, Carajás Airport, and Serra do Cachimbo Air Force Base. I think it would improve readability of the article if these airports were added to the map, perhaps in a different colour than the markers already on the map to show that they were not stopover or destination airports. (I don't know how to do this myself, which is why I'm discussing this in the talk page.) Edderiofer (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

On second inspection, why even show all the other airports south of Brasilia? The main incident takes place near Maraba, we surely don't need to know where Uberaba Airport is? Edderiofer (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)