Talk:UPS Airlines Flight 6

Adding article tag

I have a question regarding the article. Is this the kind of ongoing incident that would require a Template:current disaster tag for the first few days? I added one to the top, but it was deleted...maybe further consensus is needed here. --SteveCof00 (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

See Template:Current#Guidelines. MickMacNee (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it again. It had only 15 edits on the 5th in my time zone, which is far from the hundreds of edits the tag is intended for. Hopefully Steve will listen this time, since he apparently didn't bother to read the guidelines last time. - BilCat (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the second addition of the tag was added (by someone else) after I brought this up here on the talk page. Although this is something that is ongoing, there won't be enough editors working on this to have a need for it. --SteveCof00 (talk) 08:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I misread the history. Someone else did add the tag the second time. - BilCat (talk) 08:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Alternate pressroom link

http://www.ups.com/pressroom/us/press_releases/press_release/Press+Releases/Current+Press+Releases/ci.Statement+on+Aircraft+Accident.syndication

This is for archival purposes. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have the coordinates where the plane came down?Nolween (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of Polish is pretty much zero, but there are coordinates and a location map of the crash site on the Polish-language wiki version of this article; although all the references provided (English-language, thankfully) have not provided that infomation, that information has to be recorded somewhere. If someone with Polish-language capabilities wants to go through the history to find out how that information was added, I won't stop them... -SteveCof00 (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Coordinates found I'm not sure how to enter them in the article, but they are included in this article: Crash: UPS B744 at Dubai on Sep 3rd 2010, fire in cockpit for those who want to make use of them or anyone who wants to use this for a source of more information.

Image removal

I noticed that the image of the UPS 747-400 was recently removed from the article. Going through some related articles, it does not seem entirely unusual for an image of a similar aircraft to be used as a "stand-in" if none can be found of the involved aircraft (so far, I have not seen any free-use images of N571UP). Additionally, the space in the infobox was given to the crash site photo. I just thought the talk page would be a better place to sort this out than reverting an edit back and forth. --SteveCof00 (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Incident Type

Does this need to come to a consensus before being changed from "under investigation? The current wording in the infobox sounds rather ambiguous and disagrees to a point with what is in the text. -SteveCof00 (talk) 03:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The terrorists did take credit for the accident, but terrorists sometimes do claim responsibility for things that they didn't actually cause. After all their aim is to cause terror, and claiming they brought a 747 down does tend to do that AVKent882 (talk) 05:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

They probably think it makes them big and clever. It doesn't, particularly when the cause is proven not to be terrorism related. Mjroots (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I came to this article to find out whether UPS 6 had been brought down by terrorism or not. Right now this article is not at all helpful in this regard; after reading it I'm none the wiser. If it's still unclear whether the cause had been a bomb or not, could that be made explicit? 193.174.7.164 (talk) 08:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Prelim

Another copy of the prelim report is at http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/fastread/2011/docs/LiBatteriesUPSreport_5-26-11.pdf WhisperToMe (talk) 06:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

GCAA documents

English:

• Preliminary Report.
• "GCAA : No evidence of an onboard explosion related to Al Qaeda claims on the Crash of UPS Boeing 747 - 400 Cargo." November 7, 2010.
• "GCAA eliminates the possibility of an onboard explosion regarding the crash of UPS Boeing 747 - 400 Cargo investigation." October 31, 2010. (Alt)
• "GCAA reveals more details regarding the crash of UPS Boeing 747 - 400 Cargo investigation." October 20, 2010
• "GCAA reveals more details regarding the Crash of UPS Boeing 747 - 400 Cargo investigation." - September 23, 2010
• "GCAA Announces the recovery of Digital Flight Data Recorder From UPS6 Boeing 747 – 400." - September 13, 2010.
• "GCAA Announces the Preliminary Report on the ACCIDENT INVOLVING UPS6 Boeing 747 – 400 on 3rd September, 2010." - September 5, 2010

Arabic:

• Preliminary Report is English-only
• "الهيئة العامة للطيران المدني تنفي وجود أي دليل على وقوع انفجار في طائرة الشحن الأميركية من طراز بوينغ 747-400." November 7, 2010.
• "الهيئة العامة للطيران المدني تستبعد فرضية عمل إرهابي في طائرة الشحن الأميركية من طراز بوينغ 747-400 في دبي يوم 3 سبتمبر 2010." October 31, 2010.
• "الهيئة العامة للطيران المدني تكشف المزيد من التفاصيل عن حادث تحطم طائرة الشحن الأميركية من طراز بوينغ 747-400 في دبي يوم 3 سبتمبر ." September 23, 2010.
• "العثور على الصندوق الأسود الثاني الخاص بطائرة الشحن الأميركية المتحطمة." September 13, 2010.
• "الهيئة العامة للطيران المدني في دولة الإمارات العربية المتحدة تكشف عن التقرير الأولي لحادث تحطم طائرة الشحن التابعة للبريد الأميركي السريع من طراز بوينغ 747-400 مساء 3 سبتمبر 2010." September 5, 2010.

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Lion batteries and standard cargo hold fire prevention measures

It says in the text that the standard procedure in the case of fire in the cargo hold is to climb to 20K to deprive the fire of oxygen. However I understand that a thermal runaway reaction of a lithium-ion battery provides its own supply of oxygen from the oxides in the lithium-cobalt-oxide matrix as it breaks down from the reaction, meaning that climbing to altitude wouldn't put the fire out, because it's feeding on its own reaction, the heat breaking down the molecules and creating fire, the breaking down molecules providing more fuel and oxygen, which creates more fire and heat, which catalyzes the reaction further, breaking down even more molecules, and so on. That seems relevant enough, if not crucial to the page. It would partly explain why lithium-ion batteries in particular are banned from aircraft, while other more normal flammable materials aren't..45Colt 00:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The investigation should include questioning fore-knowledge about dangers of failed lithium batteries, and questioning why nobody did anything at that time to design containment units for stopping out-of-control batteries from catastrophically burning the plane. Also, nobody appeared to do enough at the time to design lithium batteries that do not spontaneously combust. KorgBoy (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

They'd be better off making sure in cases of onboard fire that pilots land immediately, as-required, at the nearest available airfield with a suitable runway, instead of prolonging their time in the air until the situation has become un-survivable.

... and that includes p******g-about wasting time-you-may-not-have dumping fuel to get to your MLW. Aircraft are insured, and risking some slight damage by landing over-weight is less dangerous than staying in the air waiting to see how bad a fire gets. If you do the latter thinking it not serious and get it wrong the results will be very unfortunate for all concerned.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.249 (talk) 10:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:UPS Airlines which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)