| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aeroperú Flight 603 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 2, 2013, October 2, 2016, October 2, 2017, October 2, 2019, and October 2, 2021. |
"The blockage of all of the static ports is in fact one of the few common-failure modes resulting in total failure of all of the aircraft's basic flight instruments" This line is inaccurate since not all the basic flight instruments use the pitot-static system. Only the VSI, airspeed indicator and altimeter do.
"The blockage of all of the static ports is in fact one of the few common-failure modes resulting in total failure of all of the aircraft's basic flight instruments" - Should it not be common-mode failures instead of common-failure mode? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivkumar (talk • contribs) 02:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why this matters (it is stated so emphatically in a few places in the article as if it were the most important bit of trivia about the incident), but saying that "most of the passengers" were Chilean is inaccurate...if there were 70 fatalities, and 30 were from Chile, then 40 (most) were not from Chile. Someone should change that so that it's clear what they are intending to say. Rafajs77 (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WhisperToMe (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The image should have even more additional illumination - at present details are almost impossible to see, even at full size. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 01:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone keeps re-adding the CGI image in the infobox, which was removed Feb-18 per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force#CGI-type_images. Basically the image is original research. Since I’ve reverted this a couple of time already in the last few days, I’m bringing it here. Comments? Rwessel (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to the paragraph on this accident on the page for the production Charlie Victor Romeo, not only was their altimeter telling them that they were flying at 9,700ft even though their terrain warning was going off, ATC made it worse by repeatedly telling them the same thing. Unfortunately, ATC was getting their info from the aircraft's transponder, which was reading from the same source as the altimeter. ATC told them to descend lower, and they struck the water..45Colt 19:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"On December 13, 1999, family members of the flight's passengers received one of the largest cash awards stemming from an aviation accident outside the United States aboard a non-U.S carrier, averaging nearly $1 million per victim". I think this needs a bit of clearing up, but the given source has no more detail - who settled? Was it just Boeing? If it was Aeroperú, did the family members actually get any money? The internet isn't much use because (a) this happened in 1999 (b) the news media generally doesn't follow up stories like this. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to agree with the accident report here https://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1719.pdf that this accident was CFIT. With functioning attitude indicators and the GPWS and radar altimeter working the crew should have been able to save themselves. According to the report they were never trained to deal with this scenario and the GPWS indication was ignored. Samf4u (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ill change the loss of control to CFIT, although i would say they didn't ignore the GPWS purposely as from the CVR the windshear, too low terrain and overspeed warning was constantly playing in the cockpit.
OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can we include a link to the CVR recording as it reveals the whole duration from take off to CFIT?
The link is here if the decision to include the CVR is approved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZIjh7d7JmQ
OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It has been translated from spanish to english on the video.
OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now there is a dispute over what classification this accident is. I stand by the side of Loss Of Control as the crew did not have control of the aircraft from the start. I have a downloaded copy of the final report which I will incude to support my backing of the classification, wheras talk stands for CFIT.
OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From reading to the Final report again, I conldue it to be a loss of control. The captain said the airspeed readins were quote 'fictitious' which shows he was ignoring the GPWS as he believed it was malfunctioning like the rest of the instruments (variometer, altitude indicator and air speed). The fact that he wasnt aware that the GPWS is seperate as it relies on radio waves and is seperate from the pitot static system again shows he lost control of the aircarft, the crew lost their situational awareness, did not know how fast or how high they were going. Yes the plane was in 'control' but the fact they lost control when they lost their instruments which they reply on.
OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"must be considered as falling into the CFIT category, since it took place as the result of an impact with the sea because a ground proximity alarm was ignored and the mandatory procedure for these cases, which is clearly explained in the flight manuals, was not followed." is a direct quote from the accident report. THIS IS NOT MY OPINION. Read The Whole Report. Samf4u (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there is an error in the dates in the main article in the section titled, "Aftermath."
It appears at the end of the "Legal Settlement" section, that the passengers' family members received a cash settlement on December 13, 1999.
However, in the next section called,『Aeroperú as a whole,』states that as a result of the large amount of money paid for the settlements, Aeroperú declared bankruptcy and ceased all operations in March 1999.
If these dates are accurate, how does Aeroperú declare bankruptcy and cease operations in March 1999, but the settlements didn't seem to get paid out until 7 months after? Can they declare bankruptcy due to settlement payments that hadn't yet occurred?
Or perhaps the wording isn't clear enough to explain what happened and when? I have a brain injury so I don't always understand what I'm reading clearly, so anyone can feel free to edit the dates, the wording, or just explain to me how it actually works in that way.
Kind Regards CoryKent7 (talk) 06:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This entire article seems sub-par, and is written from a biased point of view. It clearly falls short of standards.
I don't have the energy to work on it.
-p — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ordlab (talk • contribs) 01:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
