![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
This text has been removed from the article as possible OR:-
On the other hand, it may be referenced in one of the Portuguese references. Mjroots ( talk) 11:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
{{geodata-check}}
The coordinates need the following fixes:
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
everything is placed under summary HanayoPlus LP ( talk) 03:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
This text has been removed from the article as possible OR:-
On the other hand, it may be referenced in one of the Portuguese references. Mjroots ( talk) 11:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
{{geodata-check}}
The coordinates need the following fixes:
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
everything is placed under summary HanayoPlus LP ( talk) 03:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)