Talk:Saudia Flight 163

Untitled

There seems to be no official report about this disaster on-line. The airlines.net forums offer some interesting additional reasons -- not found elsewhere -- for why the doors were not opened. It is said there that the cabin pressure was still set for the landing at Jeddah (sea level), and the outflow valve was damaged by the fire, keeping the cabin pressure a bit too high -- enough so that you wouldn't be able to open the doors. It's also said that the FA would wait for the engines to be turned off before opening the doors. The first part (pressure reason) sounded authoritative but a forum is not a good source so need another source for that... --GregU 03:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• The final report has been posted at Skybrary.aero. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Proper Title

The title of the page shouldn't be "Saudia Flight 163". Use the proper name, "Saudi Arabian Airlines Flight 163". There surely is space to fit that in. 202.95.200.12 05:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This article has been moved back to Saudia Flight 163 for consistency purposes. Saudia, not Saudi Arabian Airlines, was the name of the carrier at the time of the incident. In general, airline accidents and incidents should be titled with the name of the airline at the time the incident occurred. oh my yes (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Cockpit recording transcript

A transcript from when the fire was discovered to when the plane landed can be found at http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cvr800819.htm Adding a link may make a nice addition to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.156.70.112 (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Noted that Aviation Safety network indicates that there is a break in the Cockpit voice transcript between 18:20:50 and 18:23:07. Looking in the linked copy of the accident report there are missing pages (105 to 108) in the document. A more complete copy (If it exists.) should be located. The transcription was carried out by the NTSB so that might be a good place to start.Graham1973 (talk) 10:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I just found a better quality copy of the report. The pages in the transcript are mixed up with pages 105-108 going between pages 110 and 111. It might be worthwhile to prepare our own copy of the transcript. Comments?Graham1973 (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Needs work. Inaccurate and POV.

Needs somebody to look up the references and sort this out. (Don't have time myself)

I work for Saudia and remember at least two things from that time that are not correctly or NPOV report4ed in the article.

Firstly, the rescue crew delay in getting to the doors was caused by the fact that the wing engines were still running and the plane was pressurised - not by failure to act as is suggested here.

Second is that the flight and cabin crew would have been semi-concious at best, due to heavy fumes and toxins in the cabin from the fire. This was the caus eof the run-on and failure to shut engines. By that time the flight crew were certainly incapacitated if not dead. That the captain got it down at all before passing out is a miracle.

These guys deserve a fair shake.

Incidentally, Bradley Curtis the flight engineer was dyslexic. But was a nice guy. Knew him. 212.76.91.106 (talk) 11:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What we need is a reference. Your personal recollections are not helpful.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The plane was NOT pressurized after landing. That clearly conflicts with the findings in the final accident report:

-- The fire started in the lower C-3 cargo Compt and eventually burned thru the floor above and began filling the passenger cabin with toxic gases. The story about the portable gas stove starting the fire in the cabin, was a speculation RUMOR mentioned in some news articles, but the Investigation found no evidence to support that fairy tale.

Just another example of the irresponsible and sensationalistic media constructing their "FACTS" from rumors they picked up from those who had no actual knowledge or expertise on that subject.

-- The fire damaged the controls to the #2 engine (the thrust lever couldn't be moved, because the cables for that engine ran thru the floor of the cabin, just above the fire in the C-3 cargo hold). That is why they shut that engine down, before landing.

The # 1 & 3 engines did continue to run after the Captain took his merry time in slowing and finally stopping the plane. He did NOT bring the plane to a rapid emergency stop on the runway. Instead, he continued to taxi it off the runway after the landing was safely completed.

The fire rescue crews performed poorly and were lacking adequate training. They still could have proceeded immediately to the two forward cabin doors, to get them open, in spite of the two engines still running, but they failed to do so for a significant time.

The Capt not only told the crew while descending back to the airport, to NOT evacuate, but he also failed to give any instructions about preparing for an immediate evacuation after the plane was stopped.

-- The FE (who had previously been fired for not being able to properly carry out the duties & SOPs of his job), was later reinstated. He was of no real help to the Captain and stated several times during the descent that there was "No Problem." when in reality they were faced with a very severe problem.

-- The FE further exacerbated the problem when he turned off the AC packs after landing, even though the two engines were still running. Had he not done that, the passengers would have been able to breathe fresh air for a lot longer time. But, once those packs were turned off, all that got into the cabin was toxic fumes from the fire.

-- The FO had been fired and reinstated later, too. The accident report stated it was not good safety policy to reinstate any pilot, once they had been discharged for incompetence. The low time and experience of the FO proved to be of no significant help to the Captain during that dire emergency.

-- The cabin was NOT pressurized after touchdown. The outflow valves automatically moved to the full open position when the cabin shifted from flight mode to ground mode (with MLG strut compression) as it was designed to do. However they closed again, after the FE made the terrible mistake of turning off the AC packs.

-- Finding #12 in the report stated: "Upon landing, the cabin and ambient differential pressure was negligible." The doors could have been opened at anytime after the initial touch down, however the Capt's failure to bring the plane to an immediate stop, extended the time to when it actually stopped on the taxiway -- by an additional two minutes.

That was crucial and the final conclusion was that the accident was survivable and there would have been many survivors had the Capt made the required emergency stop on the runway and then started the evacuation, without any delay.

-- The Capt failed to properly utilize his cockpit crew to carry out the emergency descent and to plan for an immediate evacuation, once the plane was stopped. None of the cockpit crew ever donned their oxygen or smoke masks. Thus, there was a real possibility that they had inhaled some of the toxic smoke before landing, AND that the resulting reduced oxygen to their brains, explained in part why they failed to get the plane evacuated ASAP.

-- The cockpit crew were all found in their seats, indicating they made no effort to begin an evacuation. The "DO NOT EVACUATE" order of the Capt was never rescinded, according to the CVR. EditorASC (talk) 08:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Lawsuit

The article doesn't mentioned what happened with the lawsuit. Also given the source of the fire as unknown, how did improper maintence come in to it Nil Einne (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I don't yet have a source which states the outcome of the lawsuit. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

  I have tried searching online for the two articles that do not have authors or copies. No luck.Graham1973 (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Aftermath

It says that the butane stoves were in the cargo area with a used fire extinguisher nearby. It also says that some devout Muslims bring stoves on planes to make tea. What were they in the cargo hold for tea? Were they making tea back at their seats? That's totally ridiculous. Maybe someone could look at thisLonginus876 (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It also says that: Some airlines at the time allowed passengers to use butane stoves on board, though current aviation regulations forbid them. I find it hard to give this any credence. Even if cockpit staff were somehow permitted them, I cannot see how any airline would allow PAX to bring such items into the cabin, let alone use them. I'm going to check through recent history as this comment seems to me a quite recent addition; anyway I think it certainly should be removed if it cannot be reliably substantiatedPlutonium27 (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand the final report talked about a fire in the cargo hold from an unknown source, no mention of stoves. MilborneOne (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Longinus876: What were they in the cargo hold for tea? Were they making tea back at their seats? @Plutonium27: I think it certainly should be removed if it cannot be reliably substantiated @MilborneOne: "I understand ... no mention of stoves"

A new, partially wrapped two-burner stove along with 2 gallons of cooking oil was found in the remnants of the aircraft's C3 cargo department, and a second stove with an attached green butane bottle was found in the remnants of the passenger floor of the cabin, just over the wings in the center fuselage section which overlooks the wings. —Spintendo^Talk 13:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Uncited text

Controversial line removed to talk page:

• Some airlines at the time allowed passengers to use butane stoves on board, though current aviation regulations forbid them.

Best source for material like this is old newspaper reports and aviation safety books of the period following the accident (1980 - nwards.). Offline searches are recommended in this case. Graham1973 (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Wrong nations.

Passengers from France, Spain, Italy, China, German, Canada and Taiwan were not on Flight 163. 73.87.74.115 (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Please cite a source for that....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox : "summary"

I do object to the present state of the infobox where it states "pilot error following In-flight fire in cargo hold"

On page 78 of the accident report: accident report it states:

Probable Cause The Presidency of Civil Aviation determines that the probable cause of this accident was the initiation of fire in the C-3 cargo compartment. The source of the ignition of the fire is undetermined. Factors contributing to the final fatal results of this accident were (1) the failure of the Captain to prepare the ca- bin crew for immediate evacuation upon landing, and his failure in not making a maximum stop landing on the runway, with immed- iate evacuation, (2) the failure of the Captain to properly utilize his flight crew throughout the emergency (3) the failure of C/F/R headquarters management personnel to insure that its personnel had adequate equipment and training to function as required during an emergency.

So bluntly stating that "pilot error" was the cause of the crash is wrong. As is mentioned further on in the article, the actions of the crew are showing poor crew resource management AND something should be stated about the failure of the Emergency rescue management at the airfield.

Therefore i do suggest to state as reason (in the infobox): In-flight fire in cargo hold, Crew resource management failure, Emergency response personnel failure

Kind regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Since i hear no objections against my proposal, i'm going ahead with the proposed change. Kind regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure that "Emergency response personnel failure" sounds correct as it implies a failing during the actual accident and not related to the actual cause of the accident. MilborneOne (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, do you have a better suggestion? (or just leave it out?) kind regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I would ignore it as it is not really relevant to the accident but to the post-accident actions. MilborneOne (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

So, then do we agree on In-flight fire in cargo hold, Crew resource management failure Kind regards Saschaporsche (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not hear any complains, so i'm going to go ahead with my change. Kind regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The accident report doesn't say CRM as a cause....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The accident report doesn't state "pilot error" either. What it does state is "the failure of the Captain to properly utilize his flight crew throughout the emergency"...

So i do suggest to just simply only state: "In-flight fire in cargo hold" in the summary box. Can we agree on that? Saschaporsche (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Since i hear no objections, i edited the summary box to reflect "In-flight fire in cargo hold". Kind regards Saschaporsche (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

From the accident report- 'Factors contributing to the final fatal results of this accident were(1)the failureof the Captain to prepare the cabin crew for immediate evacuation upon landing, and his fail-ure in not making a maximum stop landing on the runway with imme-diate evacuation,' That's pilot error. Stop trying to re-write history....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

We disagree on why the fire resulted in such a bad outcome after landing. You decide to call this "pilot error", my preference was to call this "Crew resource management" since there are more people available in the cockpit that are suppose to work together to "fly the aircraft" and solve "problems".

So let's stick to the facts. The fact is that there was a fire in the cargo hold. That's the start of everything bad what happened afterwards. So simply stating "Fire in the cargo hold" is clear enough. Saschaporsche (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

CRM is anachronistic among other things because at the time of this crash nobody was teaching their pilots anything about CRM....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The simple fact that the phrase Crew resource management was not being used while training pilots does not mean that pilots where not being trained -at that time (1980)- to work in a "crew-concept" when dealing with emergencies. To the contrary! "Working as a team" has always been trained from the time that aircraft started to be flown in a role as "pilot flying" - "pilot monitoring" and/or Captain - Co-pilot - Mechanic - Radio operator. So there is nothing against using that term. Saschaporsche (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I fail to see why "pilot error" is needed in the infobox summary field. This field is for a summary of the accident it is not and should not ever be a blame field. The term "Pilot error" is pretty meaningless here, it does not aid the understanding of the issues which like most accidents where pilots have any influence is complex and not really helped by a simple and possibly umwarrented "pilot error" this should all be discussed properly where there is space in the body of the article. Which in this case it is. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment

In the section above this one called "Infobox : "summary" there is a discussion about what should be stated in the "Summary" section of the infobox of the article.

It would be very much appreciated if more people (preferably aviation related/interested) could have a look at the above discussion and state their opinion about this issue.

Kind regards Saschaporsche (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I gave it a shot but I'm sure it can be better worded still Alpacaaviator (talk) 05:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no source of the nations.

There is no source on any people coming from Canada, China, France, West Germany, Spain, Switzerland and Taiwan. This is inaccurate. 73.87.74.15 (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

An actual source for the passenger list?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/08/21/saudi-plane-deaths-total-301/850d42a9-3844-4e15-8442-489bf2ddd2d7/ 73.87.74.15 (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)