Talk:Western Airlines Flight 2605

Crew?

The article doesn't mention how many of the fatalities were crew; I presume from the description that all three pilots perished. Might be good to add that detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:186:4500:26FF:C1E0:69E9:B72B:2DC8 (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

'Your other left stupid.' - the eternal DI

Western was founded by a guy who flew for the RAF in WWI. Mark Lincoln (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Information?

The Spanish language page of Wikipedia cites the other runway, not 23L. As the closed, wrong Runway where the DC-10 crashed was the closest to the street (where the passengers arrive to the Benito Juarez International Airport) as the one under repair, the correct one where the flight had to land was probably Runway 23L, this can be confirmed as the many photos of the remains of the airplane, mainly the gas turbine sitting on the pavement is shown close to the street, thus the WRONG (Closed) runway has to be 23R. It has been said that the crew was in a strong disagreement, and that the pilot continued the landing in spite of first officer strong disagreement. This behaviour was a contributing cause of the accident, but is completely ignored in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.180.19 (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• This is blather with ludicrous speculation. The Spanish language page is similar to the English version. Key details are the same: 23L was closed, 23R was the open runway with a NOTAM many days before. - paragraph added at 01:28, 1 December 2019 (unsigned contribution) by 173.153.15.41

• The CVR has no indication of strong disagreement. Ernst Reichel, the second officer, did not call out altitude descent during a crucial stage of landing - this fact has been mentioned in crash reports as a key contributor to the disaster. Pilot fatigue has also been mentioned. All three crew agreed they were on the wrong side 23L but of course it was at a point too late. - paragraph added at 01:28, 1 December + amended at 17:53, 4 December 2019 (unsigned contributions) by 173.153.15.41

Flying the cleared approach?

- section created by SquisherDa (talk) at 10:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The NTSB seems (from our article) to have believed tht the crew improperly chose to descend below decision height while 'not yet quite' having visual contact with the runway: "In continuing toward 23L below [decision height, 600ft aal], by definition the crew was deviating from their cleared approach". Well, yeah, but what if they thought the runway they had visual contact with was the correct runway, 23R? so they thought they were flying their cleared approach? – SquisherDa (talk) 10:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• The crew did not have "visual contact" with any runway probably until the left wheels hit the dirt to the left of 23L which apparently surprised the crew. However they (specifically the pilot Charles Gilbert knew based on what he said) they were at 23L. Question is misinformed. - paragraph added at 23:02 + amended at 23:09, 30 November 2019 (unsigned contributions) by 173.153.180.238

They had "stayed on the correct flight path to Runway 23 Right for most of the time between the outer marker "Metro Eco" and [the] Airport, and only deviated to the runway closed to traffic (23 Left) when at a height of (600 feet) above the ground during .. final approach": it looks as if they were intending to maintain a lateral separation from the ILS path (to 23L) so as to keep them in line to come straight in to 23R. (That is, do the sidestep "in advance", out by "Metro Eco".) But then, with fog-banks etc giving them problems, visual contact was with 23L but not 23R; they reckoned they had slightly overdone the lateral separation and moved left to correct it, and so lined up with 23L . . then realised rather late tht they were now on the ILS path so this must be 23L - wrong runway - and they better go around.

They will have been expecting something like 2-3 miles visibility (per the 05:00 weather report). With a fogbank unluckily placed they would not see 23R; and this is at night, so they likely wouldn’t see the fogbank itself either. They’d have no obvious warning tht 23R was in front of them but hidden.

This explanation is not addressed by our article as it stands. It ought to be (if at all possible). Is it not discussed in the reliable sources? (any of them?) – SquisherDa (talk) 10:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• What explanation? This is a paragraph of speculation about what happened with some accurate details of what did. The pilot knew they were at 23L or in his words "the approach to the goddamn left". This Wikipedia page doesn't thoroughly describe what happened, so speculation or additional questions might be expected by anyone hoping to gain a better understanding of the accident. That is certainly my intent by contributing to the talk page. - paragraph added at 23:02 + amended at 23:09, 30 November (unsigned contributions) by 173.153.180.238 and at 01:35, 1 December 2019 by 173.153.15.41

• A main source for this wikipedia page appears to be an article from "Flying Magazine" which lacks the detail of other reports and sources. Presumably the "Flying Magazine" article abridged content from 'official' reports and other sources. - paragraph added at 23:02, 30 November by 173.153.180.238 (+ amended at 00:52, 1 December 2019 by 173.153.15.41) (unsigned contributions)

And, thinking of sources - do we have the CVR? Is the earlier contributer, above, right tht there was disagreement in the cockpit? – SquisherDa (talk) 10:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• The CVR has been widely available for years. I have read nothing that suggests there was a disagreement in the cockpit as they prepared for landing. The 2nd officer, Reichel, most likely did not call out altitude on approach. - paragraph added (unsigned contribution) by 173.153.180.238 at 23:02, 30 November 2019

• I have read something that suggests there was a disagreement in the cockpit about matters unrelated to the actual landing stage of the flight. - paragraph added (unsigned contribution) by 73.61.11.102 at 21:48, 4 January 2020

• Reichel probably didn't call out altitude, but we do not know this for sure. The CVR was damaged, see below. - paragraph added (unsigned contribution) by 73.61.11.102 at 21:49, 4 January 2020

• A part of the CVR is widely available online. The entire CVR is not easily accessable. This contributor has read transcripts that start at and include the first signifigant contacts in Mexican airspace but I do not have access to the entire CVR which presumably is near 3 hours in length. The most common CVR excerpt begins at landing on 23L where Gilbert is asking if "we're clear on the right?". This is all over youtube for example in a number of videos. - paragraph added at 21:44 + amended at 21:51, 4 January 2020 (unsigned contributions) by 73.61.11.102

• Presumably the incident that FA Valenciana wrote about in his book (incidently changing the names of the pilots which is probably for legal reasons but not so much that you don't know who he is talking about) where Gilbert is yelling at Reichel would be captured with context by the CVR. That alone would be fascinating if we could obtain it. - paragraph added at 21:44 (+ amended at 21:48), 4 January 2020 (unsigned contributions) by 73.61.11.102

Hard touch down?

- section heading inserted (unsigned contribution) by 173.153.15.41 at 00:53, 1 December 2019

"the flight touched down hard on the unpaved left shoulder of Runway 23L with more than 2 g of force, at 130 knots of speed." - paragraph added (unsigned contribution) by 173.153.180.238 at 23:02, 30 November 2019

The left landing gear was off the runway on the left side of runway 23L. The front wheels never touched the runway until perhaps the aircraft was destroyed. Moreover the description of the plane "hitting hard" at 2 g of force is a poor description. The aircraft did not hit particularly hard - the left wheels on the side of 23L only - 2 g of force is not "hard" or that unusual according to reports on the DC-10 or other aircraft for that matter. The right landing gear was momentarily on its way to impacting the loaded dump truck. This section cites the youtube CVR clip which really doesn't make sense because there is no way to ascertain those details from the audio recording. - paragraph added at 23:02 + amended at 23:09, 30 November (unsigned contributions) by 173.153.180.238 and at 01:17, 1 December 2019 (unsigned contribution) by 173.153.15.41

• I emailed the gracious Mr. Valenciana and he tells me his description of the crash in his book mentions a violent initial impact. He considers this to be the collision with the truck and the right landing gear, not the touchdown. He seems to remember that soon after this the planes nose rose and the engines were screaming. This is his recollection which conflicts with two reports. - paragraph + following quote added at 22:05 + amended at 22:07, 4 January 2020 (unsigned contributions) by 73.61.11.102

• According to the ICAO circular, max power was applied prior to collision with the truck. - paragraph split at 22:07, 4 January 2020 (unsigned contribution) by 73.61.11.102

• Here is an excerpt from the "Aeronautical Decision Making Cockpit Resource Management" report describing the flight data recorder findings: - paragraph split at 22:11, 4 January 2020 (unsigned contribution) by 73.61.11.102

Engine power indications were virtually unchanged until about 9 seconds after initial touch down, when all engines were increased to a little over 100 percent. According to the research done by Dr. Zeller and McNorton, at the Norton Air Force Base, this time period typifies the normal reaction time of an average person who is tired. After the aircraft initially touched down, it continued along the ground for about 400 feet on the main landing gear. The nose gear did not contact the ground at any time. At that point, the right main gear lifted off the ground and simultaneously struck i£ dump truck loaded with gravel. The aircraft speed decreased from 136 knots to 128 knots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.61.11.102 (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Aeronautical Decision Making - Cockpit Resource Management (DOT/FAA/PM-86/46): Jan 1986 - see Appendix F.

- SquisherDa (talk) 08:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Accident details

- section created (unsigned contribution) by 173.120.148.69 at 17:40, 24 November 2019

This section states that the pilot saw the dump truck and then exclaimed "..Jesus Christ". Do we know this is correct? The CVR recording has a violent crashing sound which could be the initial collision with the dump truck and immediately following this is pilot Charles Gilbert's exclamation of "Jesus Christ" and a complete change of intensity in the cockpit. The sound and tone of his exclamation is one of complete shock. or profound horror - perhaps with a terrible awareness of the fate of the plane. 9 seconds later the CVR ends, or at least what is available on youtube ends. Presumably this is the point of destruction of the plane. - paragraph added at 17:40 + amended at 17:43 and 17:46, 24 November (unsigned contributions) by 173.120.148.69, and 23:37, 30 November (unsigned contribution) by 173.153.180.238, and 01:17 and 03:22, 1 December 2019 (unsigned contributions) by 173.153.15.41

Would touching down (2 g) on the left wheels have elicited such an ominous outcry? Maybe if the pilot saw obstructions ahead. Things moved very quickly. Pilot Gilbert got on the power (100%) before the impact with the truck and after Reichel calmly called to go around after everyone agreed they were at 23L. (Did they know where they were more specifically?) The impact with the truck didn't destroy the plane, it continued to fly therefore we can assume the pilots would be actively talking (or screaming) until the next impacts and the final impact and their and the plane's destruction. Most reports I've read seem to state that Pilot Gilbert saw the truck. I don't know how this can be verified but perhaps it is correct. - paragraph split at 01:17, 1 December 2019 (unsigned contribution) by 173.153.15.41

Reading the "Jumpseat: A Tale of Twisted Fate" book from surviving flight attendant Eduardo Valenciana - he wrote of a violent impact and then a dramatic attempt at a climb with full power - note, not two impacts but one. However, this could very well have been the initial touchdown. The plane then quickly hit the truck, the electric pole, the excavator cab and finally the building. (?) - paragraph added (unsigned contribution) by 173.153.180.238 at 23:37, 30 November + amended (unsigned contribution) by 173.153.15.41 at 01:33, 1 December 2019

In order to have a satisfactory answer to this question the first crashing sound in the cockpit needs to be definitively either the touchdown of the left wheels or a collision with the truck. As a lay person with a recent fascination with this crash, I'm assuming this was the truck collision by the noises on the CVR. But this may already have long been determined to be the left wheel touchdown - but I haven't read a report specifically stating this yet. Making things even more confusing the recorder was apparently pierced and an erase mechanism was reported to have been briefly actuated. So the CVR may in fact be missing details. To be continued.. - paragraph added at 01:17, 1 December 2019 (unsigned contribution) by 173.153.15.41

The report published by the International Civil Aviation Organization states that "On the transcription of the cockpit voice recorder the pilot-in-command is heard to have said that he was on the flight path to Runway 23 Left, just before the left landing gear wheels touched down on the grass to the left of Runway 23 Left and the right landing gear wheels on the runway shoulder." The report also states "After covering 224 m and again airborne, the aircraft's right landing gear collided with a truck" and that the CVR and FDR "sustained some damage during the accident, but the tapes were in good condition and provided the required information".

Therefore the sequence of events would be as follows: The Capt. states "No, this is the approach to the goddamned left" - The main landing gear touches down - The First officer states "Yeah, climb to 8,500" as he applies power for a go around - The aircraft becomes airborne - The aircraft's right landing gear collides with the loaded truck - The aircraft remains airborne, the Capt. states "Oh Jesus Christ!", the aircraft crashes to the ground approximately 13 seconds after impact with truck. We also can see that approximately 3.3 seconds passed between touchdown and collision with truck.

I will work on making changes to Accident details section in my sandbox and post it here when done. - Samf4u (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

My proposed changes to the article may be viewed at User:Samf4u/sandbox4. If nobody objects I'll make the changes in five days time. - Samf4u (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Accident details revision of 12/4/19 - What happened to Pilot Gilbert's "Jesus Christ!"?

- section created by 173.120.214.74 at 20:21, 19 December 2019 (+ heading amended by 173.120.246.108 at 20:40, 25 December 2019) - unsigned contributions

How much information is too much information? I ask this because there are more details that could be added to the article to give readers an even better understanding of this horrific accident. Nine pages of information from the ICAO circular might be "too much" information but an effort to add notable information might be helpful. The challenge is being able to discriminate and select what else could be added. Here are some ideas: - paragraph added at 20:21 + amended at 20:22, 19 December 2019 (unsigned contributions) by 173.120.214.74

Lay readers still have no idea what a "more than 2g force landing" means. "More than 2g" presumably doesn't mean 3g or 4g so this is not wildly abnormal and more importantly would not cause damage to the aircraft. - paragraph added (unsigned contribution) by 173.120.214.74 at 20:21, 19 December 2019

20 minutes before the accident a 727 from Mexicana airlines landed normally on 23R using the "same procedure which the Western aircraft was instructed to follow". - paragraph added (unsigned contribution) by 173.120.214.74 at 20:21, 19 December 2019

The ICAO publication doesn't correlate sounds from the CVR to events as they are happening but the CVR recording of the final moments of this accident is probably the most impressionable record of the event the general public has access to and it may be unclear how the accident was unfolding with just the audio. Is this necessary? Whether the motivation is morbid curiosity or not I think it is worthwhile. - paragraph added (unsigned contribution) by 173.120.214.74 at 20:21, 19 December 2019

We can surmise (?) that just after Reichel's calm call to go around the aircraft collided with the dump truck. The violent crashing is clearly heard. This is not a touchdown this is the aircraft being destroyed. - paragraph added (unsigned contribution) by 173.120.214.74 at 20:21, 19 December 2019

Gilbert probably knows (his hands on the yoke?) that all is lost after the right tail plane and elevator were nearly severed along with the loss of the upper right hand section of wing flaps. This is presumably the point he is yelling "Jesus Christ!" along with what sounds to be "turn left." - paragraph added (unsigned contribution) by 173.120.214.74 at 20:21, 19 December 2019

Finally, I have read no analysis of the final statement that one of the 3 man crew says loudly under Gilbert's screams. Walsh (?) seems to say the following: " We're (He's?) done flyin'." - paragraph added at 20:21 + amended at 20:23, 19 December 2019 (unsigned contributions) by 173.120.214.74

A point tht certainly needed explaining to me - I think I've got this right - is tht the stationary condition, with the aircraft landed and stopped, is a 1g state. So yes, 2g isn't as much of a thump as an uninformed reader may suppose.

Other than that kind of thing - technical explanation - we'll get into swamps of WP:OR very easily if we don't watch ourselves. I've seen this accident described on forums as pretty much the hardest to understand / explain . . so there's plenty of scope for guesswork - which has no place in the encyclopaedia - and people far more knowledgeable than perhaps any of us have tried and failed.

The source I most wish we had access to is an Airline Pilots Association report, apparently written after the Mexican accident inquiry report came out. It's mentioned on forums: ALPA was said to have felt the inquiry was a lot too comfortable blaming the pilots. Their report seems to include important context-setting points. Like, apparently 23L had been (nominally) closed for some weeks - and a lot of flights had landed on it during that time. That immediately made me wonder if there was a reason why the co-pilot's tone of voice re going around was so humdrum. It's reported tht he and the captain weren't getting along too well: maybe he thought the captain was just being difficult / making a point of some kind.

• There's no indication they are having a disagreement of any kind during the landing phase or minutes before it. Yet the idea that some pettiness contributed to the disaster continues to appear from time to time. There is no official report that we know of that gives any credence to this rumor. Ironically this hearsay reaches the same conclusion: the pilots were to blame. - paragraph added at 13:26, 22 December 2019 (unsigned contribution) by 68.33.74.40

Yes - when I said "It's reported" tht the crew weren't a great team, I used the wrong phrase. It's not the sort of thing seen in official reports unless evidence places it pretty-much front-and-center to the story. If anyone finds a worthwhile source for the idea it'll be owt to think about. I have the impression of having seen it on an industry forum, but even if so it's a heads-up at best, and probably useful as such, but not owt we can write. - SquisherDa (talk) 04:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

• Reichel's tone of voice is consistent with not knowing the right landing gear is going to smash into a dump truck, destroy the aircraft and lead to his death in just seconds. - paragraph added at 13:26, 22 December 2019 (unsigned contribution) by 68.33.74.40

• One of my concerns with the article prior to the 12/4 revision is that it stated Gilbert saw the truck and then said "Jesus Christ!". This is most certainly not what happened. - paragraph added at 13:26, 22 December 2019 (unsigned contribution) by 68.33.74.40

• Is the ALPA report secret or proprietary? I can't guess why it would be hard to obtain. Flying Magazine discredits the ALPA report. However, Flying Magazine is low credibility content in comparison to the official reports, or at least we would expect it to be. - paragraph added at 13:26, 22 December 2019 (unsigned contribution) by 68.33.74.40

I'd guess the ALPA report was probably behind the website's membership wall. I think that's the way the site works now. If so, people with access will not have felt encouraged to make it more widely available!

I'm puzzled tht U say Flying Magazine discredits the ALPA report. Its third and fourth paragraphs ("ALPA expressed its concern .. " and "The cockpit voice recorder .. " give me the opposite impression: tht the article's purpose is to bring out ALPA's reasoning and conclusions to a wider audience. Yes, towards its end the article explores difficulties - but with the concept of blame; and as something complicating any discussion, not as impairing ALPA's report particularly. I'm puzzled, too, tht U describe Flying Magazine as lacking credibility - especially in comparison with official reports: the only original official report (from which other summaries etc are derived) is by the Mexican Authority, and I gather it's widely felt tht that government didn't want too much known about the circumstances.

- SquisherDa (talk) 04:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Hard to imagine how we could ever source such a conclusion (even if it's right). But we could lay out the facts tht suggest it, if they can be properly sourced: then it's up to the reader. Whether we'd feel the ALPA report was a WP:reliable source is a question, of course . . probably sound enough for us to state in Wikipedia's voice tht "An ALPA analysis circulated some weeks after the inquiry report questioned some of its conclusions etc etc". But that's only if we can get hold of it!

- SquisherDa (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Approach Lights

- section created at 15:12, 22 December 2019 (unsigned contribution) by 173.120.214.124

Excerpt from Section 1.8.2 from the ICAO Circular 173-AN/109:

"It was established that the high-intensity runway lights, the approach lights, and the VASIS of the runway closed to traffic (23 Left) were inoperative...all the lights for the runway in use (23 Right) were operating."

Transcript between MEX tower and 2605:

ATC: Can you see the approach light to the left?

2605: Negative

ATC: "O.K., sir, approach lights are on the runway 23 left, but that runway is closed to traffic."

2605: "Ok"

This is incorrect information from the control tower at Mexico City (assuming the ICAO circular Section 1.8.2 is accurate).

The ICAO circular makes no mention of this, presumably because it wasn't determined to be a contributing factor. - paragraph added at 15:33, 22 December 2019 (unsigned contribution) by 173.120.214.124

From the publication DOT/FAA/PM-86/46 "Aeronautical Decision Making - Cockpit Resource Management" investigator observations within 24 hours of the accident: - paragraph added at 22:43 (and amended 22:44 and 22:45 x2), 29 December 2019 (unsigned contribution) by 173.153.184.130

"Main electrical wires to the approach lighting system and VAst for 23 left were observed to be disconnected. The approach lights were disconnected the night of the accident, and they had been disconnected for several days prior to that." - paragraph added at 22:43, 29 December 2019 (unsigned contribution) by 173.153.184.130

Flying Magazine is not a credible source

- section created at 18:41 (unsigned contribution) by 173.120.249.251 (+ amended by 68.33.78.69 at 20:09), 25 December 2019

Flying Magazine is commercial journalism. The widely recognized, deeply systemic problems of control by market forces means any article is going to be edited to surrender to those market forces. Ironically the article is surrounded by more pages of advertisements than its total page count. However it is the content of the article that readers should focus on. (Right?) Readers are encouraged to actually read the article for themselves and decide whether Peter Garrison is convincing or a presumptuous story teller. Here's an author who unconvincingly defines ALPA's purpose. He discredits ALPAs conclusions. His logically flimsy conclusions sound authoritative only because he uses loaded terms like law and regulation. Otherwise his assertions aren't serious. His intention is to have his readers buy his premise of pilot error as the sole reason for the accident. - paragraph amended at 20:24 by 68.33.74.40 and at 20:30 and 20:31 by 173.120.246.108, 25 December 2019 (unsigned contributions)

Please consider the following lines from the final page of his article as it appeared in Flying. Most of them are weak premise. The fact that Reichel didn't call out altitude may not have mattered although it was something he was assigned to do but doesn't necessarily mean this caused the accident or that the crew was unaware of their altitude: - unsigned contribution at 20:24 by 68.33.74.40, split out as new para at 20:30 and amended at 20:32 by 173.120.246.108 (unsigned contributions), 25 December 2019

• "ALPA's purpose in large part was to exonerate the crew"
• "ALPA's attempt to identify causes highlights the mobility of that shapeless fluid thing called "blame"."
• "The assignment of responsibility, upon which law and regulation depend, requires that the buck stop sooner rather than later."
• "The first officer didn't do his job and the Captain didn't make him"
• "ALPA's reasoning seems to be that a certain sloppiness is inevitable in airline crews flying late-night flights."

The crew sounded wide awake to me. Perhaps they were sloppily dressed? - para break moved by 173.120.246.108 (unsigned contribution), at 20:30, 25 December 2019

Can you or I elucidate a point that otherwise sounds just as convincing as Garrison's op-ed? I would think so. Consider the following: Western Airlines knew its pilots had landed on the "wrong" runway previously, or they should have, as did Mexican authorities. None of these higher authorities performed as required by law and regulation to make sure the buck stopped sooner. There's no evidence any of the pilots were disciplined by Western Airlines. Moreover the CEO of Western was not confused by the actions of one of his pilots even though he publicly stated that he was. He was defending his company by blaming the pilots. Flying Magazine is not a credible source. - para break moved, + para amended, by 173.120.246.108 (unsigned contribution), at 20:30, 25 December 2019

Western Airlines flies out of the 1970s

- section created at 22:08, 25 December 2019 (unsigned contribution) by 173.120.246.108

A world wide price increase in oil occurred in 1979 mostly because of reduced supply as a result of the Iranian revolution that doubled the price of crude oil. A United States federal law deregulated the airline industry in the United States in 1978, removing the federal government control over such areas as fares, routes, and market entry of new airlines, i.e the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. In less than 10 years Western Airlines would no longer exist. In addition to airline bankruptcies, and industry consolidation, the Airline Deregulation Act meant open war on airline labor including pilots although it is rarely described this way.

Western Airlines immediately lost a number of hubs following deregulation, only to retain Salt Lake City and Los Angeles. Most of the public is or was under the impression that safety would never be negatively impacted by sweeping "free market" legislation. No matter how cut throat, abusive, tyrannical or destructive corporations and finance would be to other aspects of flying the public had to be told the Government would never ever compromise on safety. A few years later the public would be told an Air Florida 737 that crashed into a DC bridge was mostly because the pilots weren't from "the North". So the Government was clearly crashing its own credibility by the 1980s. - paragraph amended at 23:09, 25 December 2019 (unsigned contribution) by 173.120.246.108

What responsibility did Western management have for the crash of 2605? Was it likely that they didn't have the resources to take safety in to account? Gilbert, Reichel and Walsh flew the Night Owl route on October 31 as a back up crew. Reichel was described as tired or unfit and he said so at one point in the cockpit. Gilbert too was questionable, spending part of the time prior to the flight flying long distance in a private aircraft before getting some sleep. Walsh's preparedness was unknown. Interestingly Gilbert had specified he didn't want to fly with Reichel and Walsh but was apparently told to fly with them anyway for one last time which of course turned out to be the last time he would ever fly. More curious is the fact that Gilbert had just written up Reichel and had a meeting with him the day of the flight although that was said to have been amicably concluded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.120.246.108 (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The CVR was damaged

- section created at 22:37, 29 December 2019 (unsigned contribution) by 173.153.184.130

The CVR may in fact be missing information. I don't know what the comment above means when it says the CVR contained "the required information." Required to reach a conclusion? The CVR is described as sustaining damage in this report, DOT/FAA/PM-86/46 "Aeronautical Decision Making -Cockpit Resource Management":

"The voice recorder was recovered from the wreckage; however, the unit had been pierced. This penetration came in contact with the erasure circuit sending a momentary electrical impulse to the bulk eraser, causing a wedge- shaped segment of the tape to be erased."

The report also mentions the altitude callouts required from Reichel might have been made, or partially made, but probably weren't anyway. We'll never know because of the damage to the CVR:

"The possibility exists that the callouts were made but erased in that portion of the CVR tape; however, it is highly unlikely that this was accomplished."

Eduardo Valenciana: An outspoken survivor

- section created at 20:44, 30 December 2019 (unsigned contribution) by 173.120.131.243

Eduardo Valenciana has written a book containing a fair amount of material dedicated to the flight and the events of the crash: " Jumpseat, A Tale of Twisted Fate". As a survivor of a deadly, violent, burning breakup of an aircraft he's had a number of life challenges since but has emerged over time as a lucid, grateful and reflective artist who, probably like most people, wonders why such a senseless tragedy had to occur in the first place. - paragraph amended at 00:00, 31 December 2019 (unsigned contribution) by 173.120.182.80

He has expressed considerable accusatory disdain for the Mexican authorities and their airport and believes that their share of blame for the disaster has never been properly acknowledged. He has suggested an international cover up. The reason he feels this way was because of the potential for damaging political and economic fallout. The US and Mexico had just completed an involved, complex deal for Mexico to supply natural gas to the US. Mexico and the US both consider tourism to be critically important. The concern was that both the deal and tourism would be negatively impacted if Mexico took most of the blame for the deadly accident. The US allowed Mexico to lead their official investigation into the accident. The tower tapes to this day have never been released. - paragraph amended at 21:05, 30 December by 173.120.131.243 and 00:00, 31 December 2019 by 173.120.182.80 (unsigned contributions)

Bordering on the fantastic Eduardo claims the Mexican police kidnapped him and were trying to force him to sign confessions or affidavits stating the pilots were drunk on liquor he had served them during the flight. - paragraph added at 00:00, 31 December 2019 (unsigned contribution) by 173.120.182.80

His credibility has been questioned but he is persuasive. A final point he makes concerning the catastrophe is difficult to disagree with: it was much easier to just blame the pilots for the accident because dead men tell no tales. - paragraph added at 00:00, 31 December 2019 (unsigned contribution) by 173.120.182.80

"I saw a witch, a werewolf and a goblin" - Valenciana describing what he saw after climbing out of the mangled wreckage of a DC-10 in 1979.

Pilots behind schedule and in bad weather

- section created at 20:35, 1 January 2020 (unsigned contribution) by 73.61.9.109

There are historical examples of flights that end in accidents where pilot(s) will try to land in dangerous conditions, crosswinds or penetrate dangerous storm systems. (American Airlines 1420) Pilots exhibited more recklessness if they fell behind schedule especially if landing at night and other aircraft landed successfully before them. Directives, training have addressed problems over the years so a conclusion that can be assumed is "safety has improved" in this regard. - paragraph amended at 20:36, 1 January 2020 (unsigned contribution) by 73.61.9.109

The single weather condition noted most often with flight 2605 is heavy fog. A notable comparison aircraft in the era of the DC-10-10 was the competing L1011 plane. The L1011 was a more costly plane but generally regarded as a better designed aircraft in many ways. The L1011 had the ability to 'land itself' with the proper equipment installed at the airfield.

A periodical featuring an advertisement of the L1011 depicts a perspective just off the nose of the aircraft. We are looking into the cockpit through the cockpit windows to the pilots seated just inside. The plane is surrounded by heavy, dense fog and other than this view into the cockpit there is no visibility. The same sort of conditions facing Gilbert, Reichel and Walsh in Mexico City in '79:

https://www.airlinereporter.com/2015/09/requiem-trijet-masterpiece-lockheed-l-1011-tristar/tristar-can-land-itself/

George P. Parker wrote about Charles Gilbert and his crew

- section created at 21:25, 4 January 2020 (unsigned contribution) by 73.61.11.230

George B. Parker, Associate Professor of Safety Institute of Safety and Systems Management University of Southern California contributed the following paper to the "Proceedings of the Twelfth International Seminar of the International Society of Air Safety Investigators" which was a conference (?) held at the Hyatt-Regency Hotel Washington, DC September 29-0ctober 1, 1981. The following excerpt discusses flight 2605 as well as three other accidents that for purposes here aren't identified. (The paper is easy to source online)

Quote copyedited at 21:28, 4 January 2020 (unsigned contribution) by 73.61.11.230:

...All of these accidents had some common human factors involvement. All of them involved pilot fatigue, either from long work days or from shift changes. Air traffic control was involved in all four, contributing to two accidents as deter mined by the investigation board. Cockpit crew coordina tion was a concern in all accident. A friend of the Western Airlines DC-I0 captain had talked with him just six days before his fatal accident. He found him noticeably upset about the trip to Mexico City. He expressed serious concern about the approach to the air port and the hassle he usually received from the air traffic control. In addition, he was having enough of a problem with his crew that he had requested several times to have them replaced. He was concerned about their work and their compatability. His flight manager had promised to give him a different crew if he would fly this one last flight with them. Include these with the other problems he would have to deal with: a fog bound low Visibility approach, an instrument letdown to a closed runway and a difficult tran sition to the parallel operating runway at an airport with a surface altitude of over 7,000 feet. On top of all this, the crew was fatigued from flying all night, landing at 0542." The scenario adds up to a sequence of events that is just right for a mistake and an accident. The inducement of the accident had to be one of human factors. What else would explain how a 31,500 hour pilot, who liked to fly so much that he owned a T-6 and flew for fun, made such a mistake? The sad thing about this accident is that not one of these human factors were identified by the investigation board. As a consequence, they will not be dealt with; they will not be used to prevent other accidents. If such an experienced pilot can become the victim of such circumstances, how about the poor general aviation pilot, what chance has he? . Even sadder is the fact that all four of those major air disasters had to occur and that all of the investigations lack ed the knowledge to deal with the human aspect identified as the cause of each accident. With the U.S. Air Force and NASA setting the pace, maybe there is hope for a change on the distant horizon-c-at least for air carrier investigations general avtation will probably have to wait a long time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.61.11.230 (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

https://www.isasi.org/Documents/library/Seminar-Proceedings/Proceedings-1981.pdf p92: see pp96-7 - SquisherDa (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The Instrument Landing System on 23L

A well known problem is the potential for erroneous glideslope and/or localizer indications caused by movement of aircraft or equipment through ILS critical areas. By using the words well known problem, this means historically in the time period of the accident, but also today in 2020, especially when not hand flying in planes more advanced and more automated than the DC-10-10 that Gilbert was hand flying in 1979.

"There is also the possibility that the ILS signal could have been unstable due to heavy construction in progress, which may have induced the Captain to vary the flight path in reaction to the unstable localizer course." - Aeronautical Decision Making Cockpit Resource Management

Flight 2605 didn't just land on the wrong runway, it landed in the grass to the left of the runway and the ILS system could be why because no one was watching data gauges (dials?) that would have shown the ILS inaccuracy. It should be mentioned (perhaps in the main article) that if 2605 had somehow landed "properly" on the "wrong" runway 23L, the accident probably wouldn't have happened. Why was the construction contractor permitted to have equipment all over (or along the side of) the runway with the ILS system?

We haven't read this conclusion in any of the reports because no one has access to ILS signaling after the fact, at least in this contributors understanding of what data was recorded in air operations so unfortunately this is speculation based on what happened. More importantly pilot errors occured. Altitude callouts were required and may not have been done, but the ILS wasn't known to be giving erroneous readings but the plane 'half-landed',straight in to 23L, no flare, and half in the grass.

Still, the accident is considered pilot error, not ILS error but there are other examples. Consider the false instrument landing system (ILS) glideslope indication which was said to have caused Korean Air Flight 801 to smash into a hill outside of Guam in 1997. Pilot error but more directly false ILS signal phenomenon. In that accident investigators warned of the danger of trusting ILS signals without checking raw height/distance data. (But the pilots did anyway, probably as they did far more often that didn't end in some kind of horrific hull loss, and perhaps as Gilbert was doing in '79. ) This accident, incidentally, occured 18 years after the crash of 2605 which investigators also pointed out altitude callouts, and fatigue. The ICAO report does not mention the ILS as any possible contributor.

Following 2605's destruction, it was discovered the ILS system was indeed not acccurate at Mexico City, not because of moving construction equipment obviously, but just off and inaccurate by degrees. The system was apparently adjusted soon after with help from US authorities, this around the same time the US assisted with producing explicit instructions on the "side step" manouver for Mexico presumably so pilot error won't cause another accident but also (less cynically stated) to make airtravel safer - will need to find sources for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.120.156.105 (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

DC-10 Hydraulics

Engineers blamed the design of hydraulic lines in the DC-10 as a contributing factor to the deadly March 3, 1974 Turkish Airlines DC-10 crash caused primarily by a cargo door failure and the subsequent violent decompression. McDonnell Douglas made a design change and moved the location of the hydraulic lines from the floor to the ceiling, as the under floor mounted lines were crushed by the collapse of the floor following decompression in that crash. (Ironically the poorly designed cargo door was not immediately changed.)

The May 25, 1979 American Airlines DC-10 crash involved the separation of the left engine from the left wing and the shredding of hydraulic lines with it. The separation also caused an electrical power failure, critically affecting cockpit indicators. A key result of the engine detachment and hydraulic failure was the atypical slat retraction of the DC-10 in these circumstances.

Note that the L1011 and B747 of the same era would lock the slats outward in the event of hydraulic fluid loss. Those locks prevent an unbalanced aerodynamic condition in which one wing has more lift than the other.

A July 19th, 1989 United DC-10 crash was caused by an engine failure which damaged the hydraulic system and reduced control to a point that the pilots could utilize only engine power to prepare the aircraft for an emergency landing. McDonnell Douglas made three more hydraulic system design changes following this accident.

Gilbert probably screamed "Oh Jesus Christ....turn left!" after the truck collision. From Appendix F Aeronautical Decision Making Cockpit Resource Management:

"The right main landing gear was severed and, as it swung aft, it and the destroyed truck wreckage impacted the right inboard flap and aileron which was carried away. This wreckage continued aft, tearing away all but 18 inches of the right horizontal stabilizer, along with the right inboard and outboard elevators. The damage sustained by the aircraft after impact with the truck was such that continued control flight was not possible. The aircraft continued flying just clear of the ground near taxiway Alpha."

Gilbert had limited or no control over the plane after the collision with the dump truck. One wing clearly had more lift than the other. The right wing obviously was damaged. The hydraulic system may have been destroyed. This would certainly result in limited to no control over the aircraft. Can we correlate these similarities to previous and future accidents at that time of the DC-10?

Flight 2605's "hydraulic systems" - as far as this contributor is aware - are not discussed in any crash analysis or publication.

The DC-10 included no cable backup for the hydraulic-powered flight controls because it was considered nearly impossible for three hydraulic systems to fail during one flight. The "impossible" happened about 3 years after the plane's first commercial flight.

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1989/09/16/DC-10-fleet-to-undergo-hydraulic-system-changes

https://www.designnews.com/aerospace/designed-disaster-dc-10-airliner-part-4

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1979/08/04/engineer-balks-at-changes-in-critical-dc10-systems

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-10

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a205115.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.153.142.87 (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Is the CVR transcript actually necessary?

I have made some edits to the CVR transcript as it was not written in line with WP:TONE, and seems to be based largely on two YouTube videos rather than an actual written transcript released by the NTSB.

However, I also question the necessity of including the transcript at all. It seems to have been included out of sheer morbid fascination, given that it is a recording of the cockpit crew dying.

If the transcript truly has encyclopedic relevance, then it should be left in, albeit based on an official transcript rather than a lurid YouTube video; if it does not, it should be taken out, as it is not notable for any reason other than morbid curiosity, and I'm not sure Wikipedia is the place to go for that. Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 11:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)