Talk:Gimli Glider

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gimli Glider is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
October 10, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Manitoba
Manitoba Portal
This article is part of the Manitoba WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

Contents

[edit] Error?

Ten nautical miles is actually 18.52 km, according to the current definition of "nautical mile," not 15 km. Cos111 22:28 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Another odd coincidence

I (the articles original author) was telling the story one day at a local skydiving club. When I finished one of the "long timers" said "yeah, I was there". They had just finished jumping for the day when the plane came in, and they were first to get to it when the slides came down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maury Markowitz (talk • contribs)

[edit] Possible copyvio

I removed the following as it is an exact copy of http://www.wadenelson.com/gimli.html. If permission has been given to reproduce this, it can go back in. Angela 07:33, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

The "Amazing Coincidences" of Gimli:

Pilot had extensive glider experience, co-owned a Blanik L-13 sailplane

Co-Pilot had once been stationed at Gimli, was familiar with it.

Wpeg ATC had old style radar which allowed them to track the 767 once the transponder stopped working

Sports car club had fire extinguishers galore, Jaws of Life

ER Physician Colin Nesbit was in a Cessna performing a preflight at end of 32R

Air Canada mechanics driving a van to Gimli to begin repairs of #604 ran out of gas in the backroads of Manitoba.

One of the few people in Manitoba who owned a videocamera (rare in those days) was at Gimli that day. In a classic case of being in the right place at the wrong time, he left the airfield approximately 30 minutes before it landed because he needed to run into town to get some parts for his go-kart

Gimli Glider at Royal Canadian Air Force Base, Gimli Image:Gimlix.jpg

[edit] Gimli Glider Remembered

I remember my mother Bev telling us and showing the picture of her in the local Gimli paper. She was in a bingo hall playing bingo when she saw a big shadow fly over. It was probably one of the scariest things that she'd ever saw, I know it was for me at age 11 just hearing about it. I haven't seen the picture since she last showed me quite a few years ago, in the 80's. It was a amazing story, one I will tell my children about. Thankx for an amazing memory from Michelle in Calgary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.25.40 (talk • contribs)

The narrative in this article is outstanding. Tempshill 21:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's a good story. 24.6.66.193 21:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "The calculations were based on weight instead of volume"

a couple of questions: aren't all fuel calculations on all commercial airline flight made using weight instead of volume? why is that (aside for the obvious reason that it allows for the gross weight of the aircraft)? perhaps this is worth noting in the article. Streamless 17:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The volume of fuel changes with temperature (and, I assume, air pressure), but the weight remains constant. David 02:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
See, that was the real problem. The contents were based on weight, not volume -- and they settled some during shipping! Eaglizard 21:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm puzzled why the article refers to Imperial Units. First, it refers to pounds only; secondly I'm pretty sure that Boeing don't use Imperial Units anywhere. They may well use American Customary units - so-called "English Units" - but these are sometimes different. Especially noteworthy is that while the pound is near-as-darnit the same, the Gallon in England (Imperial Gallon) is 10lbs of water, but in the US is only 8lbs. Number774 18:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm no expert but I believe aircraft can use any system the operator wants. A fuel tank holds 'X' amount, and if the operator chooses to measure 'X' in pounds and gallons (U.S. or Imperial), the aircraft's manual (i.e. dip- and drip-stick) and computerized measuring systems can accept that. As for Boeing not using Imperial Units anywhere, don't forget that in the west (at least in the English speaking west - not sure about Europe), aircraft still fly at so many feet, not meters. The use of measurements in aviation are a complete mess. As for the pound (weight), isn't that the same everywhere? --FactotEm 05:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Fuel requirements are calculated by mass but dispensed by volume. That's why the conversion is done. The fueler has to know how many litres are required since no one makes a pump that dispenses in kg. (identical concept in lbs/gal).
In this particular case, of course, the supplier delivered the fuel to the airport in Canadian gallons, not U.S. gallons (FactotEm doesn't seem to understand that imperial gallons aren't peculiar to England); but the aircraft conversion tables were for U.S. gallons and pounds or for litres and kilograms. With tables for drip-stick lengths in inches or in centimeters. Gene Nygaard 01:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I did not know whether Canada used U.S. or 'English' gallons. I also thought that the term 'Imperial Gallon' was universal, though it seems that elsewhere in the world it is known as an 'English Gallon'. Learn something new every day. --FactotEm 11:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
That's one of the points! The "Imperial Gallon" is the 4.5 litre one used in England (and parts of the former British Empire); the "English Gallon" is the 3.5 liter one used in the USA...Number774 (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I worked at AC at that time and was responsible for part of the fuel software in AC's Flight Ops computer system. I had made some minor updates to the fuel software a couple of days before this and the changes were specific to the 767. I was more than just a tad nervous after I got the call for the incident. I had to go through all the computer logs and track the entire flight's fuel messages to see if there was a software error. None were found and I was called and told they knew it wasn't a software problem just as I finished.
One of the first changes I had to make after this incident was to print out the conversion factor for the fuel type (Jet A, Jet A1, Jet B) on the fuel request sheet. This is printed on the flight deck computer and at the fueler's office.
BTW - there's a manual crank to force the nose gear down and locked in a 767 (probably others). However, AIUI, it wasn't well documented and the pilots didn't think of it. Hence the collapse. --Michael Daly (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
To clarify the "not well documented" statement. Again - this is my understanding of the situation as it was explained to me at the time. The info was in the procedures manual on the flight deck, but it wasn't easy to find or perhaps wasn't in the same place (or indexed in the same place) as other emergency info that the pilots would automatically turn to. Hence, it wasn't obvious and they had other concerns besides pouring through the manual. --Michael Daly 20:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fuel stat discrepency

The Gimli Glider Article in "Uncle John's Bathroom Reader #17: Slightly Irregular" (copyright 2004, Bathroom Readers' Press) indicates on page 128:

-that there was 7682 Litres of fuel before the flight, NOT 11,525 as is stated in your article.

-They needed 22,300Kg, NOT 20,400 as is stated in your article

Please review facts to verify correct quantities

note: copyright remains unbreached as quotes are FULLY cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.116.164 (talk • contribs)

[edit] How did he reach this speed decision?

I wonder how did the pilot decide that the 220Kts speed is the right one?

As a glider pilot, I was tough that a good rule of thumb for speed for "Max L/D" (Maximum Lift over Drag" is to add about 1/3 to the stall speed. Could this be the reason he decided on 220kts?

(Just wondering, like any glider pilot, what would I do if I was on an airplane in such a situation...) Penedo 07:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

There is a picture in the article that shows the "Gimli Glider Today". I am not an expert by any means, but aircraft shown appears to be an Airbus 320, not a 767. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.131.125 (talk • contribs)

Neither am I... but if you look at the source of the image here, [1], which is higher-res, you can make out the "C-GAUN" on the rear of the fuselage under the last windows. Shimgray | talk | 21:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It also says 604 on the tail and nose gear door. ~~ brandon_ha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.196.38 (talk • contribs)
No that's a 767, note that it's a wide body with the right proportions for a 767, and that it lacks wingtip fences that the A320 has. PPGMD 01:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and the A320 also has Dual main landing gear, not the 767's Dual-Tandem pictured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.91.37.33 (talk • contribs)

[edit] A picture of the landed aircraft

There's a very good picture of the aftermath of the "crash" at this website: http://www.silhouet.com/motorsport/tracks/gimli.html I wonder if we could get permission to use that photo in this article? I, however, have no idea how to go about getting such permission. Drepamig 21:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC) Ian

Hi Ian (I assume that's your name). Some people have constructed examples of requests that can be e-mailed to people and organisations. Probably the one in the "Informal (images)" section is the most appropriate in requesting permission as it looks like that's a personal website. I think the person to ask is Darren Galpin. However, one word of warning: if Galpin does give permission, somehow we'll have to establish whether he is able to give permission. For example, is the image his own property, or is it owned by someone else?--A bit iffy 10:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gliding distance

It was around 40 miles, right? So stil less than the Air Transat incident. 217.86.46.6 23:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any sources, but 40 miles, at the speed this airplane was going, would take less than 10 minutes, and it seems that this took place over a much, much longer period of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.82.79.140 (talk • contribs)
"However, Captain Pearson was an experienced glider pilot. This gave him familiarity with some flying techniques almost never used by commercial pilots. He realized that, in order to reduce their rate of descent as much as possible, he needed to fly the 767 at a speed known as the "best glide ratio speed"."
This quote seems to imply that only 'experienced glider pilots' know what the "best glide ratio speed", while most commercial pilots 'never use these techniques' (is the forward slip reference the same thing?). That's pretty silly, if you ask me. I'm an instrument rated private pilot, and I've flown at 4 different flight schools in three different states, and knowing the best glide speed was important in every aircraft I've ever flown since I was a student pilot. Maybe I'm misreading this quote, but it's implication appears to me to be incorrect.
Also, when mentioning the lack of vertical descent information with the power loss, wasn't the aircraft equipped with a standard VSI (vertical speed indicator) in its backup gauge set? Drewster1829 (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It was 140 miles, according to my calculations. 30 minutes of gliding enough for you? --212.199.110.1 (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fuelling errors

There's being bold, and there's stomping over someone's well written article. I want to add a new section which describes a series of misunderstandings between maintenance, the previous flight crew and Captain Pearson. This led the Captain to accept the aircraft as airworthy when in fact the complete failure of the FQIS meant that it was not.

I would also like to edit the Fuel Miscalculation section to bring out some of the nuances of what happened. For example...

  • Clarifying why the conversion was necessary (fuel requirement calculated in kg but dispensed in litres);
  • Both ground crew and pilot made the same conversion error;
  • Dripstick measurements after fuelling confirmed litre quantities on board without uncovering the erroneous derivation of these quantities;
  • The fact that the flight computer was calibrated to kg is irrelevant given that the pilots updated it with their originally calculated kg figure anyway;
  • My information also states 22,300kg instead of the currently quoted 20,400kg.

The story is written up in the book "Emergency" and I have already added this to the references section. Before I jump in I just need to check my ground on copyright and also allow the opportunity to discuss any changes first. FactotEm 21:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Still flying with Air Canada?

I've noticed that C-GAUN does not appear in the current list of Air Canada aircrafts: http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/fleet/fin.html If someone can confirm this information, maybe it's time to update the article. Tinchote 3:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Flights are still being logged for C-GAUN with Air Canada codes by this spotter site. The aircraft is due for a major check this month and when I was researching my edits to this article I saw suggestions that it would be more economical to retire the aircraft (other 767-200's have already been retired by Air Canada) than complete the check, so it may only be a matter of time. --FactotEm 16:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


I work at YVR, and take note when I see this bird, and I just was her a month ago, so she is still flying.
Gimli is going to the runway in the sky. Employees and retirees are welcome to see her before departure at the AC line maintenance hangar in YUL on 24 Jan 08. Apparently, Pearson and Quintal are expected to attend.Phobal (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mayday TV series

I was actually on this flight, and I just want to inform you that the TV series "Mayday" on the Discovery Channel, has just finished filming an episode on this incident. It is set to aire in April 2008.

Shouldn't the cause of the accident be fuel exhaustion since they used all available fuel onboard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.1.85 (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing it is "fuel starvation" because there is a wikipedia article by that name, hence the link. Good point though, I'll change it to fuel exhaustion, but keep the existing link. Thanks. --FactotEm 16:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pretty funny if you think about it.

I hate to say this, but this article is one of the funniest things i've read recently. Kudos to the pilot though. Squiggle 09:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It is funny. And I'll bet no one laughs louder than Pearson and Quintal, given that they walked away. It could have been very, very not funny however. That's some fantastic piloting. Eaglizard 21:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Retirement

I just received this e-mail.

The Gimli Glider retires to the desert. On Thursday, January 24th, fin 604, the Boeing 767-200 better known as the Gimli Glider, will undertake its final voyage from Montreal to Mojave Airport (MHV) before it is retired to the desert. Employees and retirees (bring valid employee ID) are invited to come and say goodbye to the aircraft which has now become part of Canadian aviation history. Fin 604 is set to depart as flight AC7067, at 9 a.m. from the Montreal Line Maintenance hangar ?Air Canada Base, 750 C矌e Vertu West; Building 7, Bay 8/13 (West end), Gate entrance 5. Captain Robert Pearson and First Officer Maurice Quintal, the flight crew who landed the aircraft to safety in Gimli on July 23, 1983 are expected to be on hand for the aircraft's departure. The hangar will be open to well-wishers from 8:00 a.m


It probably could go in the main article, but other than me receiving an email, I have no source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.110.145 (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There's also a story on it in today's Globe and Mail [2]. -- Flyguy649 talk 15:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gimli Glider to be retired

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/3811846/

http://www.yulaviation.com/vbb/showthread.php?p=95407#post95407 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.175.251 (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Note the section above. Already in the article, although it needs tweaking. -- Flyguy649 talk 04:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)